Obamacare in top 10 tax increases since 1950

[JollyRoger]

While many are crediting Obamacare as the biggest tax increase in U.S. history, it only ranks 10th in tax increases since 1950. Interesting that Reagan has 5 of the top 15.

There have been 15 tax increases of significant size since 1950, and Jerry Tempalski, a tax analyst in the Treasury Department, has estimated the size of all of them as a percentage of GDP. Tempalski hasn't estimated the eventual size of ACA, but PolitiFact took a crack at it using the same methodology, and they figure that ACA amounts to a tax increase of 0.49% of GDP seven years from now. That places it tenth on the list.

It's fair for Republicans to complain that ACA includes a bunch of new taxes. It does. Most of them fall on high earners and corporations, not the middle class, but they're still taxes. However, the "biggest tax increase in history" nonsense is crazy, and no news outlet interested in accuracy should let it pass without challenge.

http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2012/07/no-obamacare-not-biggest-tax-increase-history

 

[Save_Ferris]

FYI, MotherJones is a horribly leftist source. Use CNN or BBC next time.

 

[MobBoss]

Uhm. How much larger is our GDP than it was in the 80s? Why look at it as a percent of our GDP?

 

[civver_764]

Numbers don't lie.

 

[MobBoss]

Numbers don't lie.

No, they dont. But the way people present them often are. 'Lies, damn lies and statistics' remember?

 

[holy king]

Uhm. How much larger is our GDP than it was in the 80s? Why look at it as a percent of our GDP?

well, to compare it, for one?

 

[MobBoss]

well, to compare it, for one?

Is there more than one way to compare them?

 

[holy king]

you're the guy that complains that in the 60s a hamburger cost something like 2 cents and now you pay more than a hundred times that amount, right?

 

[IdiotsOpposite]

ITT: Liberal posts chart, conservatives attack chart's method and sourcing.

Yawn, moving on.

 

[MobBoss]

Is there more than one way to compare them?

you're the guy that complains that in the 60s a hamburger cost something like 2 cents and now you pay more than a hundred times that amount, right?

So your answer is 'yes' then right?

 

[holy king]

no, my answer is "goo goo g'joob".

 

[Zelig]

Why look at it as a percent of our GDP?

Because your GDP is larger than it was in the 80s.

 

[Leonel]

Don't let facts and logic get in the way of saying Obama is a doodoo head!

 

[warpus]

Uhm. How much larger is our GDP than it was in the 80s? Why look at it as a percent of our GDP?

Because the best way to gauge an increase is to look at it in terms of %s instead of raw numbers, especially when you're comparing it to other increases.

 

[ParkCungHee]

I rather like this idea that government spending should be judged by a universal rather than relative standard. Military Salaries are ridiculously bloated, the average soldier should make 13 dollars a month. That ought to reign in spending and put the taxes back in order.

 

[Formaldehyde]

FYI, MotherJones is a horribly leftist source. Use CNN or BBC next time.

You do know the difference between opinions and fact? Or is there a new classification concerning the latter that I haven't heard about yet?

Numbers don't lie.

But there is a tendency on the part of many to simply ignore the ones that don't conform to their own biases.

Don't let facts and logic get in the way of saying Obama is a doodoo head!

That would be another way of expressing it.

 

[Yoda Power]

So your answer is 'yes' then right?

There are many ways obviously. It depends on what you want to show.

If you want to show the effect on the economy, percentage is your way to go.

It would be much harder to draw any conclusions from nominal change, since it does not take inflation into account.

 

[Ajidica]

FYI, MotherJones is a horribly leftist source. Use CNN or BBC next time.

Okay, but I take it you have no quarrel with the actual numbers due to your silence.

 

[JollyRoger]

Uhm. How much larger is our GDP than it was in the 80s? Why look at it as a percent of our GDP?

How about this?

Describing military spending as a percent of the GDP is nothing new. In fact, it is a direct and informative way to compare current military spending during Afghanistan/Iraq with past conflicts.

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=4549955&postcount=78

 

[MobBoss]

Because the best way to gauge an increase is to look at it in terms of %s instead of raw numbers, especially when you're comparing it to other increases.

So, our military spending, as a percentage of our GDP in comparison to other nations isnt that bad then?

Edit: As Jolly was mentioning. In other issues (like military spending) you guys havent paid any attention to such items as a percentage of our GDP. So why start on this one?

Also, Jolly, in reading your link, it says thats only the estimated tax increase realized by the ACA...it could be much higher.