I wonder how soon we can expect apologies for calling Roberts a partisan hack who rules based on his corporate masters’’ will from the fringe left types?
You get to keep your health insurance if you get sick. 
I’m surprised, but I’ll take it since it’s been a while since I was pleasantly surprised by something in poiltics.
No. You get a deduction for giving to charity.
Less tax for desired behavior =/= more tax for lack of desired behavior. Look up inverse.
Yeah but the president and the Democrats never called it a tax and ran away from any suggestion that it was a tax.
And I bet they still won’t call it a tax. 
I believe the IRS will penalize you.
Right, and now you’ll pay taxes for not being a Christian Scientist.
I’m confused… everyone’s saying unequivocally “it stands because it’s a tax”. But I thought the crux of the tax argument was just that it couldn’t be challenged until 2014, when the “tax” actually takes effect. Is that still the case or not?
They’re exactly equivalent, so your =/= is wrong; it should be =.
Coming next: “taxes” on buying hamburgers and brownies instead of tofu and broccoli.
Finally got the judgement and…
It is a tax, but not a tax for the purposes of The Anti-Injunction Act which otherwise would bar the suit unitl the tax is paid and appealed.
Nice logic. :dubious:
**bolded **emphasis ismine, of course
So?
And to HMS - no. There were pretty solid arguments for why, even if it was a tax, they could rule today. Which they did. I don’t recall those arguments exactly, but I do remember hearing them and seeing pretty strong precedents. The court today ruled the AIA didn’t apply.
…and on alcohol and tobacco. How dare they? :mad:
And that, my friend, is how you play poker.
Do Christian Scientists get to refuse to pay taxes and get away with it?
If they did, then yeah, it would be precisely equivalent in effect. But since they don’t, I’m unsure about your point.
And all Bricker sees in this decision is ‘liberal hypocrisy’. A rather sad myopia.
It is written specifically into the law that nothing happens if one doesn’t pay it so we head to the courts again to decide that and if anyone goes to congress to change it, then we have another major fight on our hands.
It’s also an unfortunately accurate summary of the state of news reporting in modern America, where being FIRST! is more important than being right.
Just reading the summary. Seems like Roberts did a good job of walking the fine line here. Striking this law down would have been a huge PR disaster for the court, but I can see the hesitancy to expand the commerce clause powers, even if it is a logical extension. By upholding the law based on the power to tax, they get the right ruling without giving an unwanted precedent.
It’s certainly a fine parsing, Iggy. The Chief is basically saying that the AIA only applies to things explicitly called a tax. But that the word “tax” is not required for the penalty to fall under Congress’s taxing power. So the AIA doesn’t apply (because the ACA doesn’t call it a tax) but mandate stands because the IRS-enforced penalty is functionally the same as a tax and Congress has the power to create something that is functionally the same as a tax under their taxing powers even if they decline to call it a tax.
At least that’s what I’m reading…
I’ve never heard this. I don’t see why this penalty wouldn’t the same as any other IRS penalty. So, cite?