I can’t force you to think. I can only show you why you’re wrong and hope it can work it’s way into the dark recesses of your mind.
There are many things that the tax code promotes. If you have a mortgage you pay less. If you have health insurance you pay less.
If you don’t, you pay more. Even a child could understand this, but a child wouldn’t be so crippled by your nonsense ideology.
Sorry to digress into legalisms when it’s clear all you wanted to do was be pissy. My bad.
If you are willing to accept the penalty, sure. The thing is with not paying your taxes, you can end up in jail. Not buying health insurance when you can afford it, that gets you taxed. A kinda important distinction to me.
Those involve you victimizing other people, not yourself. And, again, it’s just an additional tax.
I don’t get why you’re so pissy. I realize this is the pit, so you’re more than free to. But you really don’t need to be such an asshole about it.
Yes, the government incentivizes buying health insurance and will subject you to a tax if you don’t. It’s goal is certainly to make you by health insurance. That, in and of itself, doesn’t make it unconstitutional.
If you don’t put emission scrubbers on your smokestack, you get taxed at a higher rate. You don’t have kids, you get taxed at a higher rate. You buy an older car with worse emissions, you get taxed at a higher rate. You take your own money out of an IRA before you’re allowed, you get taxed at a higher rate. And on and on.
And what happens when you don’t pay this penalty (it’s not a tax)? Just like anything else you don’t pay the government, you can end up in jail.
But it is NOT a tax. ** Obama could have paid for his reforms with a tax, but he expressly did NOT do that.** How can you not be aware of this?
He paid for it, in part, via his mandate. And that mandate says that people have to buy a product or get penalized by the government.
Yes it does. There is nothing else that operates like that. Again, it is not a “tax”—not as meant by the term as it applies to any other tax the government imposes. I thought you said you didn’t want to play semantic games.
Don’t have smokestacks—no tax. (Plus, I don’t know this for a fact, but it is my guess that the tax rate is the same for all smokestacks, but with the scrubbers, one can lower their tax liability from what it would normally be.) But the key difference between Obama’s mandate and things like auto insurance is that with auto insurance, etc., one has to take an act to be taxed at all. With Obama’s mandate, simply by the condition of being alive you have to either buy a product or be penalized.
Not really. Again, you have kids and your tax liability is reduced. Not the same thing. Also, if Obama wanted this to part of the tax code I wouldn’t have the problem I do. He could have taxed everyone, then constructed corresponding items in the tax code to reach a similar goal—that would have Constitutional authority. No this mandate nonsense.
Don’t buy an old car, no additional taxes; don’t buy any car, no taxes at all. IN either case you are voluntarily taking an action that causes a tax to kick in. You can avoid them by not buying a car.
Because you broke the contract you agreed to. You pay the normal rate, plus penalties—as you agreed to do in return for having your interest and other capital gains grow tax-free. Don’t want to pay the additional taxes? Don’t withdraw funds early.
Assuming I am wrong, which I’m not. And which you have not shown.
We’re not talking about the tax code, we’re talking about Obamacare and his mandate that either buy a product or have to pay a penalty. As I’ve said, if he created a new tax and then offered rebates, etc., I’d be arguing that THAT was, indeed, Constitutional. But that is not what he did. Funny how you missed it.
Yes, if you don’t pay your taxes, you can go to jail. Just like it’s been for decades. But let’s stop pretending that you’re going to jail if you don’t get health insurance. If you don’t get health insurance when you can afford it, you will owe more taxes. That’s it.
Yes, you will be taxed if you don’t buy health insurance if you can afford it. Glad we agree. Again, it doesn’t make it unconstitutional.
Fine. Don’t ever use health care.
Oh wait. That’s all but impossible. But since, at some point you are going to get health care, the way which you pay for that health care will have an effect on interstate commerce, and can thus be regulated by Congress.
By being alive, you are going to use health care at some point in your life. How you pay for that health insurance (or more precisely don’t, because the issue is free riders), will have an effect on interstate commerce, and thus can be regulated by Congress.
So, were the mandate written as a tax rebate for those who do buy health insurance, instead of as a penalty for those who don’t, you’d consider that constitutional? Fair enough. I’d support you on that too.
There are certainly ways that this could have been written to make it “more constituitional”. Single payer. Tax increase with rebates for those who got it. Unfortunately, the mandate was originally a Rebublican idea, so once again, we learn that compromising with Republicans is a bad choice.
By being alive, you are going to use health care at some point in your life. How you pay for that health insurance (or more precisely don’t, because the issue is free riders), will have an effect on interstate commerce, and thus can be regulated by Congress.
By being alive, you are going to use health care at some point in your life. How you pay for that health insurance (or more precisely don’t, because the issue is free riders), will have an effect on interstate commerce, and thus can be regulated by Congress.
That’s why I find all these “they’ll force you to buy a car! They’ll force you to buy broccolli, get a gym membership, or stop eating transfats!!” hysteria to be unconvincing. 99.9% of the population are going to “make the choice” to get health care. The issue, or one of the major issues with health care reform, is how that is paid for. I’d prefer a single payer system, but, alas, compromise again. But to mitigate the problem of free riders, Congress has decided to enact the individual mandate. It’s an attempt to solve the problems that clearly have a massive effect on interstate commerce. Which brings it well within Congress’s power granted in the Constitution.
With all the rhetoric of “forcing us to purchase something”, you’d be better off arguing some kind of Due Process/bill of rights argument.
You just said (above) that if you don’t pay your taxes you can go to jail. You are also saying that this is a tax. So, by your definition, if you do not pay it you will go to jail.
So, you’re contradicting yourself.
Sure it does. There is no mechanism in the Constitution by which the government can mandate a person buy a product. The Constitution lists those specific things the federal government can do, and says that all things not listed are left to the states to do individually, or not, as they see fit.
Oh—and it’s not a tax. It might help you to know that when interviewing Obama, full-fledged liberal George Stephanopolous calls the penalty a “fine”, not a tax. But he does consider the mandate itself a “tax”. (Interestingly, though is not what we are debating, according to Obama himself, the mandate itself is not a tax.
And here is the text from the bill: (emphasis mine) (sorry about the numbered lines, but I wanted the actual text and they copied over.) It begins on page 322.
Now, perhaps you were confused by the fact that these penalties would appear on your tax bill. (See above: INCLUSION WITH THE RETURN) But the above cite should clear up any confusion you may have as to whether the penalty is a tax or, in fact, a penalty.
This is an argument for healthcare reform generally, or for having all American covered and have it payed for through taxes. It is not an argument for the mandate we are discussing, the penalty imposed if you do not buy it, or its Constitutionality.
This has been discussed earlier. I invite you to reread the thread.
Good. Because then your position would have Constitutional support. Unlike the position you currently hold.
It doesn’t matter whose idea it was. The mandate and its accompanying penalty are not supported by the Constitutional.
If you don’t pay your taxes, you are going to jail for … stay with me here … not paying taxes. You aren’t going to jail for not getting health insurance. Kinda like if you don’t pay income tax, you’re going to jail for not paying taxes, and not for having income.
Yes, it’s a penalty. It’s also a tax. It’s a penalty tax. It’s a tax, that is a penalty. It penalizes someone by taxing them. I’m not sure why you insist on arguing these semanitcs, but you can do it all by your lonesome from here on out.
It is completely relevant to the issue of “YOU’RE MAKING US BUY A PRODUCT” as defeating the constitutionality of the mandate. If you still don’t follow how it is, even though I’ve explained it repeatedly to you and included the caselaw about it, that’s on you.
It’s nice that we have a point of agreement. If the mandate “forced someone to buy a product” by lowering someone’s tax rate, it’s Constitutional. But if the mandate “forced someone to buy a product” by increasing someone’s tax rate, it’s not. I, for one, am not sure I see a difference requiring the overturning of the statute as being unconstitutional, but at least we agree on something.
No. It is not a tax. I’ve shown you this from the very language of the bill. It is a penalty. Yes, it appears on the tax bill—if owed—but not as a tax, as a penalty. Just like if you pay your taxes late, there is the tax you owed and the penalty assessed for you being late. I gave you the cite. The least you could do is read it.
Wrong again. You just keep repeating its a tax. It’s not. Do you have any support for this view? If so, cough it up. I gave you the language in the bill. I gave you the liberal George S. referring to it in his interview with Obama as a fine, a penalty, and Obama not correcting him. You have offered zero support for this being anything more than a penalty. Which leads me to conclude that you want it to be characterized as a tax so badly that you put it in your head that way and will not change, regardless of the complete absence of support for your position and the clear, factual support—the actual bill—against your made-up position.
Knock yourself out.
We were primarily arguing whether or not the penalty is, as you say, a tax or what they call it in the actual bill: a penalty. Try reading the bill again. I even highlighted it for you. Sheeze. You’re just making this up out of what you want it to be.
Except it would cease being a mandate, because the government is not assigning you a penalty for not doing something. It would be like contributing to a charity: if you do it, it lowers your rate. If not, it stays the same. Simple. If we agree on that, I’m pleased.
Wait? If the government raised the tax rate to pay for this, then there would be no need for a mandate. It would be paid for. Now, the government could decide to encourage you to purchase other insurance or better insurance, and issue you a rebate or credit, and that would be fine. The Constitution gives the federal government the right to tax people and to provide services it deems worthy. It does not give them the right to force that they buy a product or pay a penalty. A penalty that if you don’t pay it, could eventually land you in jail. If there is support for this type of arrangement, I’d be eager to see it.
Maybe the problem is that you’re focusing on the result and not paying attention to the process. Just because, theoretically, the net cost to a citizen might be exactly the same, that does NOT mean they the mechanism you use to reach those two outcomes are equally good, or equally constitutional. I can’t see how do you not get this?
As an aside, I will add this: it is wrong and unhelpful to even want to characterize a penalty as a tax. Taxes are what we pay in order to make our country run. They are not bad in and of themselves. They are not “penalties” for breathing or being a citizen. They are good, in fact. Because without them, we couldn’t run the country. Penalties are things that we are hit with for some failing on our part. It serves us well to not want to blend the to together.
No, WE weren’t. YOU were. I wasn’t, which is why I’ve repeatedly called it a semantic game. Whether it is a tax, a penalty, a tax penalty, or a penalty tax does not, in and of itself, make the “mandate” unconstitutional.
I think you are confused. In an effort to help you out, because I am nothing if not helpful, I will attempt to educate you further.
Your obsession with the tax/penalty definition is certainly a part of the debate over the constitutionality of the mandate, but it deals with the Taxation Clause of the Constitution and the applicability of the AIA (Anti-Injunction Act) to the lawsuits seeking to invalidate the law. It does not, however, mean that the law automatically becomes unconstitutional under the Commerce Clause analysis that I have been focusing on in this thread. There have been court decisions on the tax v. penalty issue (on September 8, 2011, the 4th Circuit ruled in Liberty University v. Geither, that it was a tax and the challenges were barred by the AIA.) and a petition for cert. is before the Supreme Court on the issue.
But it’s not the only issue out there, and it’s not the issue I was discussing, which had to do with the Commerce Clause as the basis for the Constituitonality of the law rather than the Taxation Clause or the AIA. So, by all means, read the Liberty opinion and continue to beat that “tax/penalty” horse if you wish. I hope it’s good for you.
I also hope that helped a bit in understanding this thread.
Suppose Congress enacted the “mandate” by granting a tax credit to those who purchase health insurance on their own, but do not grant such tax credit to those who don’t. To your mind, would that higher tax rate be "forcing someone to “buy a product” that would render the legislation unconstitutional? Seems to me that it would be fine, and I’m having a hard time distinguishing why a tax credit wouldn’t be “forcing someone to buy a product” while a tax increase is “forcing someone to buy a product”.
Again, it’s the not paying the tax that results in the jail sentence, not the refusal to purchase the health insurance. You’re welcome.
That is the problem with my understanding, yes. I’m looking for an explanation why the tax credit for purchasers of health care would be constitutional, but the tax increase for those who don’t isn’t. But I do grow weary of the tax/penalty issue, which, to my mind, is a small side issue, so it really isn’t that important.
I point you to posts 90 and 91, where you can see the point I made to another poster and your response to me.
Apology accepted. Don’t mention it.
Your obsession with the tax/penalty definition is certainly a part of the debate over the constitutionality of the mandate, but it deals with the Taxation Clause of the Constitution and the applicability of the AIA (Anti-Injunction Act) to the lawsuits seeking to invalidate the law. It does not, however, mean that the law automatically becomes unconstitutional under the Commerce Clause analysis that I have been focusing on in this thread. There have been court decisions on the tax v. penalty issue (on September 8, 2011, the 4th Circuit ruled in Liberty University v. Geither, that it was a tax and the challenges were barred by the AIA.) and a petition for cert. is before the Supreme Court on the issue.
Automatically? No. SCOTUS will be deciding this. Naturally we’re both arguing how The Supremes should rule. Lower courts have ruled inconsistently so far.
You were discussing that with another poster. I came in and responded to foolsguinea, correcting him on one issue: the tax/penalty issue. You then engaged me about it. So, WE have indeed been discussing that issue. You even started the discussion with me. Glad I could clear that up.
Again, apology accepted in advance.
Yes, I’m fine with that. The government can do what they want within the tax code. They can increase taxes, lower them, offer credits, rebates, etc. What they can’t do is try to extract money from the people outside of that, except through fees and penalties. One benefit to making sure they continue acting as in outlined in the Constitution is that we have, if you will, one balance sheet. Let all that the government takes from the people be argued in a way where everything it readily apparent. The last thing we should be doing is giving congress another vehicle by which they can extract money form the people. That can, and I think certainly will, lead to similar shenanigans down the road. Do you really want to open that door? Do you really think it’ll be, “well, we’ll do it this one just his once, just for this one item”. No way. You give them license to do that and all manner of things will be shifted off the tax code. That way they’ll be able to extract more money but do so in a way that is not readily apparent because people will be looking at tax rates. Nope. We should make sure that this is stopped, and luckily for us, the Constitution offers no support for it.
If you’re trying to be childish and annoying, congratulations, you’re doing a stellar job. You keep saying the penalty is a tax. I’ve shown you proof that it is, in fact, a penalty, not a tax. I’ve asked you for support for your position. Your response: crickets. So, let’s try this again. A few specific questions:
Oh, really? Well, if it’s not that important, why do you—against all evidence—insist on calling it a “tax”. You seem to have come around to conceding that it is a penalty (plus still a tax). But why hold on to this notion that it is a tax. Why is it not enough to accept it for what it is? For what it says right in the text of the bill? Why do you insist that it is also a “tax”? Especially, if it’s as you say, “a small side issue…that really isn’t that important”?
and
I have to wonder just what kind of disconnect someone has to have to contradict themselves so completely in just one post. You ability to both recognize that lower courts have ruled in favor of my position, and quote the exact post where I link you to one such opinion, and, in the very same post, accuse me of not offering any support for my opinion is something to behold. Most people might actually think twice before pulling off such a feat of self-contradiction and lack of logic, but damn if you don’t have the kind of gumption to pull that off. Impressive.
Well, you’ve got heaps of attitude, but you’re light on being able to answer questions and provide support, even when asked numerous times. So, if you want to be taken seriously at all, here’s what you need to do:
answer the questions I asked you in my last post. I’m so surprised that you’re trying to skate by them. :rolleyes:
show me a site for any court taking the position that the penalty for not having health insurance can or should be construed as a tax.
Now, number two might very well exist, I’m just not aware of it. I am aware of how some rulings give support to the position that the purchase of the insurance itself may be construed as a tax of sorts, but NOT the penalty associated with not purchasing the insurance, as you have been arguing. Correction:…as you have been claiming.
In fact, quite humorously, the White House is attempting to defend the mandate itself (not the penalty associated with it) as a tax. This is comical because when Obama was trying to push this through, he swore up and down that it was NOT a tax. Yep, he’s got some serious political skills, including the ability to lie so blatantly. As most of them have.
As far as I can tell, the DC Circuit, at least, explicitly ruled that the mandate and the associated penalty was not a tax (and therefore the anti-Injunction act didn’t apply and they could hear the case.).
The DC Circuit, btw, also has a really concise argument as to why the mandate is constitutional under the Commerce Clause.
Good. Hopefully as the mandate is decided to be unconstitutional so will the Wickard decision be overturned. Deservedly.
Overturning Wickard would be extremely radical and would likely mean that the majority of what the Federal Government now does that we take for granted would become unconstitutional. I can’t see the Court doing that, and if they do, I can’t see the public going along with it. That doesn’t mean they’ll necessarily find the mandate constitutional, but if they don’t, they’ll likely find some way to distinguish it from Wickard rather than overturn Wickard.
If it is, it is. That decision was ridiculous.
The if, then argument you’re using is silly. By that logic, making more money also forces you to go to jail. If you make more money, then you pay more taxes. If you don’t pay those taxes, you go to jail.
What? The very simple fact is that if you do not pay your taxes you can go to jail. Do you deny that? Subsequently, if you do not pay penalties that might be assessed to you, you can go to jail. Do you deny that? This are simple facts that I’ve never heard any argue before Hamlet.
Are you really joining him in his position? Please review the exchange in the past page or so that covered this and tell me what precise point you’re trying to make. Because I just came fathom what it is.
You are having trouble understanding things because you are so beholden to your ideology it short-circuits your ability to think clearly.
**The remainder of this post is for the thread at large:
**Keep in mind that Magellan is unable to get past items of language. He is against same sex marriage because, according to him, it would dilute the word marriage. That’s clearly insane, but he’s done the same thing here. Because it says “penalty” he’s become manically attached to that concept and can’t see past it.
He’s just throwing a tantrum at this point, you can’t reason with him. He has written thousands of posts on same sex marriage and has been unable to come up with a single logical argument against it, but he still holds the position.
Your’re tilting not at a windmill. But an insane and gibbering windmill.