Reply #4: It's a funny result, isn't it?

[Igel]

Then again, when the figure of something like 47% of households not paying income taxes was noised about there was a great deal of effort put into saying that actually they *did* pay taxes, but got tax credits of various kinds.

This guy recognizes the distinction that this argument relied upon: "While some taxes have been increased, there has been a net decrease in federal taxes for most Americans under Obama."

The problem is for those decrying the 47% (give or take) number as false, consistency dictates that they say that taxes have increased--because the net decrease is in the form of tax credits. If the claim that taxes have gone down (on average) is to be taken seriously, then suddenly the 47% is accurate. Otherwise we're shifting definitions mid-argument, and that results in kasha.

Then again, a lot of people have a loose definition of "tax": Fees are taxes, in a fashion; increased insurance premiums conditioned upon provisions of the HRC bill are taxes. (Again, some people last year tried to argue that since Congress can impose taxes, this is sufficient authority for the insurance mandate. I note that I haven't heard any Congressperson try this argument. It's specious.)

And, finally, a lot of people are temporally challenged. A tax increase that's passed but hasn't taken effect is hard to nail in polls, and I suspect that those have been explicitly passed or entailed. "Do you think that the Obama Administration has already increased the future tax rate for most Americans, decreased taxes for most Americans, or have they kept taxes about the same for most Americans, discounting any effect that averaging will have but including temporary or one-time tax credits?" Yeah, that just rolls off the tongue and is crystal clear.