Did Scalia parade around the U.S. and on TV (1) stating it wasn’t a tax in 2009 and that (2) he wouldn’t raise taxes on anyone making under $250,000?
(Rhetorical question, of course.)
Which, as you know, doesn’t answer the question I asked you.
Somehow, I’m pretty sure this line of thinking doesn’t get applied to conservatives/Republicans. Call it just a hunch.
Sorry: I should have said that it was not passed on the government’s primary argument.
I expect Romney to make a lot of the discrepancy between Obama’s public statements and his successful legal argument.
Its 695$ for not having insurance, or 2.5% of income, which ever is greater.
For all the hyperventilating, its also more or less uncollectable. The only thing the gov’t can do to collect the penalty is take it out of your refund, if you have a refund to take out out of.
As I see it, they’re exactly the same thing. Whether the government charges you more for not doing what you’re supposed to, or charges you less for doing what you’re supposed to, you still end up with two different tax obligations: one that you pay if you did what you’re supposed to, and one that you pay if you didn’t.
Behaving as though these are two separate and distinct possibilities strikes me as so much semantic quibbling. The actual real-world consequences of your choice were made clear in the law, and whether imposing such consequences is constitutional cannot possibly depend on what words you use to describe exactly the same set of consequences.
Looks like Patrick Gaspard, executive director of the DNC, did
He’ll have to explain away the fact that he did the same thing as governor. He’s said today he’d repeal the law (through magic or something) and I think he’ll stick with that as his main response.
Mine was not.
Obama declared that it wasn’t a tax.
Scalia declared that it wasn’t a tax.
Is Scalia, because of his declaration that it wasn’t a tax, a liar?
A yes or a no should be the first word in your response to this post.
Your hunch is mistaken. I’m a liberal, but believe it or not, I know how to think. Your line of reasoning is incoherent. A lie is knowingly portraying something that is not true. If Obama didn’t think it was a tax (and that it were allowed under the commerce clause) then he isn’t lying, no matter how the justification came down from the court.
Lying happens in the person’s head. Outside forces cannot ever change something you say into a lie. If it’s a lie, it’s a lie the moment you say it.
This is obvious, and anyone who is reasoning clearly can see it.
85% if it is an employer-based plan for a company with more than 100 people; 80% for individuals and smaller companies. The excess must be rebated back to the premium payers.
Note that “costs” are specifically defined as “reimbursement for clinical services provided to enrollees under such coverage” and “activities that improve health care quality”. Things like defendants’ lawyers’ fees for when an insurance company gets sued are not considered “costs” for purposes of the 80% rule.
No, you’re simply wrong.
A lie is an intentional misstatement of what the speaker knows to be true (at the time he is speaking). If you say, in good faith, that you believe that X is true, but later evidence reveals that it is false, you are wrong, but not necessarily a liar. Obama ended up being wrong in saying it was not a tax, but since the court hadn’t ruled yet, it was no more a lie than all the other incorrect predictions on the first page of this thread.
What opens Obama to fair criticism is that he said one thing to the public, and then argued the opposite in court. It was not the primary argument, but it was made by his surrogates, and it prevailed.
Dare I ask: Does it really fucking matter?
^Serious question, not trying to be snarky. Who cares if it’s a tax or a mandate or whatever? The government’s been able to force you to buy shit for years. Having the government force you to pay money for X is no different from the government taking money from you by force to pay for X.
Wasn’t this mandate thing brought up solely because the Republicans refused to increase taxes in the first place?
But I don’t think they are the exact same thing. It seems to me that a tax on doing or not doing something is a direct or excise or capitation tax and not a tax on income. But Roberts’ decision specifically said it is not a direct tax. And I still contend that the government giving you money back on your taxes for doing something is very different than charging you a tax because you don’t do something BECAUSE we distinguish between income and direct taxes.
Let me ask you this. If the feds decided to charge you a $500 tax if you buy a foreign car, is that an income tax or a direct tax? If it is not a direct tax, how is it a tax on your income?
While there are certain means by which a person could apply for an exemption on religious grounds, the determining factor is tied to an IRS code linked to whether that particular religious group has a history of shunning Social Security benefits. Many self-employed Amish qualify.
What is to be done then in the case of a muslim whose particular religious persuasion objects to traditional insurance as a form of gambling but does not object to Social Security as it is seen as a means of taking care of the elderly.
The Snopes article explains it a bit better than I can.
Oh, look. A question posed in a way to elicit a certain response. Surprising.
Anyway, it did answer your question. Do you not know what a lie is? Did Scalia say anything about the ACA not being a tax in the past? No, he did not. Did Obama said anything about the ACA not being a tax in the past? Yes, he did.
This is so simple to understand, the fact that I’m even having this discussion with you is mind-boggling. Apparently, in your world, if two people say the same thing at point X then either both are liars or neither can be liars, as what they’ve said in the past is irrelevant to whether or not they’re deemed to have lied.
Is Obama psychic, or something? Do you think he knew SCOTUS would deem it a tax?
Isn’t it oversimplifying a bit to say “the Supreme Court said it’s a tax?”
That may very well be, but that’s not what Obama sold the American people. As I’ve said all along, if he had sold this as a tax on the people, that would have been fine and proper. But he didn’t. In fact, he swore up and down repeatedly that the mandate was not a tax. And he did that because of his pledge to not raise taxes on the middle class, and that it probably never have made it through. The fact that he allowed the administration defend the mandate as a tax speaks to just how unprincipled he is.
The only upside is that we now have this classified as a tax, so we can all accept that he has broken his pledge to not raise taxes on those making under $250k. Oh, and we now have proof that either Obama does not understand the Constitution (his arguments failed) or he simply does not give a shit what it says and is willing to repeatedly lie to the American people.
So, what we have is a tax, but a tax that acts like no other tax in the history of the U.S., because it’s really a penalty. And legislation that is now law that never would have passed if Obama if was sold it for what the Court says it is. Anyone who sees the value in the legislative process can’t be happy about that.
For me, the key point is that it was a limitation on the commerce clause (yay but I would have preferred it to specifically overturn Wickard. Sorry Bricker). But now the government has virtually unlimited power of taxation in that it can require you to do something or face a penalty except it’s called a tax and not a penalty. In a way that is even more scary because it means that not only could Congress make you pay for not buying a house or a car or wheat, but since it is independent of commerce and taxes behavior you could theoretically be taxed for not voting, not going to college, not having a library card, etc.
Not really. That’s a function of constitutional litigation; for rational basis review, SCOTUS has deemed that the government interest asserted need not be the actual basis for an enactment.
There’s a small ideological distinction, but I think it’s more problematic in pragmatic terms. It’s far easier for people to have a certain percentage taken out of their paycheck each week than to be responsible for some set fee at the end of the year, especially if the fee is not proportional to income. Hence why property tax is such a bigger pain in the ass than sales tax.