Not a tax Increase

“That wasn’t a tax increase,” Nancy Pelosi said. “It is … eliminating a tax decrease that was there … It was controversial to begin with. It is … a boon to those who have had it, for now. But I think that you will see that happen."

The House Speaker recently told a reporter those words in reference to the George W. Bush tax cuts from earlier this decade. Her point is justifiable. The tax cuts had a sunset provision within the original bill, because Congress and Pres. Bush did not have the votes to make the new tax policy permanent. Thus a 10 year sunset provision, and Speak Pelosi willingness to allow them to expire. She is not proposing and tax increase, because the tax code is merely returning to prior levels.

One does not need to take more than an entry level to Philosophy class (this author has only done so...) to realize the fallacy used within Speaker Pelosi statement. She is using tradition as the justification for her non tax increase. If the tax brackets where at some point higher then it was not a tax increase. But what if tax marginal brackets where at some point lower, even lower than the Bush tax cut levels? Utilizing her logic, the Bush tax cuts where not tax cuts, just a repeal of tax increases.

Remember, tradition is not a valid argument. Just because something was one way in the past does not justify it today. If so, then no change can ever occur because of tradition.

Thus to conclude Speaker Pelosi's statement on her repeal not a tax increase:
At one time there was no income tax on US taxpayers. The 16th amendment to Constitution allowed for income taxes. Therefore, any repeal of income taxes by Speaker Pelosi's logic should create a zero per cent income tax, everything else is a tax increase.