interesting article on supreme court and obama care

[hornadylnl]

me too please...
I know it's "'atty talk" but what's the difference for us lay people

I think it's just different brands of lube.

 

[ATOMonkey]

This is an interesting thought that begs the question, Can a tax be used as a punitive measure to compel compliance?

Any tax deduction or credit basically does the same thing.

think of it this way. Everyone is going to be taxed $800/yr. Those with insurance get an $800 credit.

Same thing.

 

[ATOMonkey]

And if so, is that not the functional equivalent of MANDATING behavior?

Seems to me that the answer to the question I pose has to be a resounding yes. And for the life of me I can't figure out how someone can say the individual mandate was struck as an actual legal mandate, but the tax on not getting insurance can still apply.

It was asked in another thread, but I haven't seen an answer: where in our history is another example of taxing people for NOT purchasing a product or NOT doing something? How do you tax the negative?

You tax everything and give a credit for the positive.

 

[88GT]

You tax everything and give a credit for the positive.

Specifics. Name one behavior for which not doing it triggers a tax that doesn't exist for anyone else.

 

[hornadylnl]

Specifics. Name one behavior for which not doing it triggers a tax that doesn't exist for anyone else.

mowing your grass?

 

[KG1]

mowing your grass?

You can be fined in certain municipalities for not mowing your grass.

 

[hornadylnl]

You can be fined in certain municipalities for not mowing your grass.

Fee, fine, tax, what's the difference? Comply or face government force.

 

[ATOMonkey]

Specifics. Name one behavior for which not doing it triggers a tax that doesn't exist for anyone else.

You're right, in that there is not minimum tax that everyone must pay.

The only thing I can think of is a head tax.

However, we do get deductions and credits to encourage our behavior.

So, not doing those things would result in higher taxes, given equal salaries.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Specifics. Name one behavior for which not doing it triggers a tax that doesn't exist for anyone else.

Do you consider tax credits-incentives?

If I buy a geothermal HVAC unit, I get to keep a little bit more of my
money in the form of a tax credit. If I choose not to upgrade, I do not get the credit and therefore my taxes are higher for not doing something the government wants me to.

Of course it doesn't completely conform to your question as only people that behave in a desired manner get to keep a little more of their money. Same effect--behave the way we want, buy the products we approve of, pay less tax--if you don't, you pay more.

 

[PINski1015]

Another Take. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iyLU9-VqVxY&list=UU1h3bqESVdqkwm123Ce4ZmA&index=1&feature=plcp

 

[KG1]

This is why this whole deal is a SNAFU. The SCOTUS declared that the mandate is actually a tax therefore upholding Obamacare as constitutional under those grounds.

The administration is claiming it's not a tax it's a penalty.

Obama campaign: It's a penalty, not a tax - POLITICO.com

 

[WOLFEMAN]

Health Care control today, Gun Control (Grab) tomorrow

 

[88GT]

mowing your grass?

On the surface, yes. I'll admit I had to think about this a while before I could try and explain why I don't think it's an apples to apples comparison. It's kind of fun Socratizing oneself to pound out a position too.

There are a few fundamental differences between mowing the grass and purchasing health care insurance. First, mowing your grass is not the end point in and of itself. It is just a means of complying with a health code. For mowing the grass to be an exact comparison, the law would have to require that people mow their grass for the purpose of mowing the grass. You don't have to mow the grass. You can concrete the whole thing. Landscape it with a garden. Or cover it in rock. The point is not to mow your grass but to maintain a health standard.

Second, you can choose not to own the property and be held accountable to the requirement to maintain your lawn. You can choose to live somewhere that doesn't have those standards.

The individual mandate is a requirement because we live and breath. We don't have to mow our grass simply because we exist. There is no option to avoid the mandate now. There are options to avoid mowing your grass.

Did that make sense?

Do you consider tax credits-incentives?

If I buy a geothermal HVAC unit, I get to keep a little bit more of my
money in the form of a tax credit. If I choose not to upgrade, I do not get the credit and therefore my taxes are higher for not doing something the government wants me to.

Of course it doesn't completely conform to your question as only people that behave in a desired manner get to keep a little more of their money. Same effect--behave the way we want, buy the products we approve of, pay less tax--if you don't, you pay more.

Not really what I'm concerned with.

You don't have to get geothermal or even heat or cool your home in order to avoid a tax.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Not really what I'm concerned with.

You don't have to get geothermal or even heat or cool your home in order to avoid a tax.

Either I'm missing your point or you missed mine.

 

[manwithnoname]

The article is nothing but spin.

Not buying it.

 

[hornadylnl]

The article is nothing but spin.

Not buying it.

Don't you fret none. The conservatives will pull the Romney lever this November.

 

[manwithnoname]

Don't you fret none. The conservatives will pull the Romney lever this November.

Yep.... jumping off of a cliff is not as bad if one does it less quickly.

 

[ArmedProgrammer]

Don't you fret none. The conservatives will pull the Romney lever this November.

Even though I like Johnson - I'll pull the lever for Romney and you can pull your Johnson, sir, and let's see which gets rid of Obamacare quicker...

 

[Bunnykid68]

Yep with Romney we will just call it Romneycare

 

[jedi]

Another Take. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iyLU9-VqVxY&list=UU1h3bqESVdqkwm123Ce4ZmA&index=1&feature=plcp

I read/heard about this on some other website (comments section as well). Not sure if the rest of you actually listened to this news clip.

We all know that the USSC said this is a tax. KG1 it does not matter what Obama and his administration say. The ruling said it's a tax.

Now at the very end of the news clip the report quotes the Constitution that says that all tax bills must start in the HOUSE and then goes on to explain that the HOUSE bill was not a tax bill and not the final version that was passed. The SENATE version was the one that was pulled into the house and deemed passed.

So in essence proper procedure was not used to pass a "tax bill" and thus the entire law is null and void since by ruling it a tax **AND** congress not following proper procedure it can not be valid.

FOXs is the first to report this so far.

This is why this whole deal is a SNAFU. The SCOTUS declared that the mandate is actually a tax therefore upholding Obamacare as constitutional under those grounds.

The administration is claiming it's not a tax it's a penalty.

Obama campaign: It's a penalty, not a tax - POLITICO.com