# The health care bill creates a tax, and therefore is Constitutional - right? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 26, 2010, 2:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-health-care-bill-creates-a-tax-and-therefore-is-constitutional-right/533877 "2010-03-26T14:35:15Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 14\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2010, 3:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-health-care-bill-creates-a-tax-and-therefore-is-constitutional-right/533877/101 "2010-03-29T15:42:59Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > I’m not sure if you meant that to substantiate the claim, but it doesn’t. In what way does a citation showing that Obama cut taxes not substantiate my claim that Obama cut taxes? :dubious: ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2010, 3:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-health-care-bill-creates-a-tax-and-therefore-is-constitutional-right/533877/102 "2010-03-29T15:49:12Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > In what way does a citation showing that Obama cut taxes not substantiate my claim that Obama cut taxes? :dubious: The claim was: "Did you miss the part where prior tax cuts offset it? " Offset it. It, being the tax someone would have to pay if they didn’t have HCI. The original post was: "In 2009 he lowered taxes on the bottom 83%, so even if you count the insurance penalty as a tax increase it’s still a wash. " Do the math to show us this is a wash for everyone affected. I’m sure that won’t be easy, but it’s the only way to substantiate that statement. I’d be very surprised if it were true. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2010, 3:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-health-care-bill-creates-a-tax-and-therefore-is-constitutional-right/533877/103 "2010-03-29T15:58:47Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Do the math to show us this is a wash for everyone affected. I’m sure that won’t be easy, but it’s the only way to substantiate that statement. I’d be very surprised if it were true. It’s not going to be a wash for _everyone_ affected. It’s going to be a _net_ wash. If you’re counting on an individual basis, his promise is already “broken” and was even before the election because he frankly admitted that taxes would increase on some of those making more than $250,000.00 (and they did go up for some of those people). ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2010, 4:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-health-care-bill-creates-a-tax-and-therefore-is-constitutional-right/533877/104 "2010-03-29T16:01:09Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > No household under $250K has to pay more taxes. > > A penalty tax is not a tax increase, but hardly anyone will have to pay it anyway. > > Obviously, this is going to be a fruitless argument. Righties are going to insist until their dying breath that it’s a tax increase, and lefties are going to keep rolling their eyes. This isn’t going to be the thing that torperdos Obama’s reelction chances. Try something else. > > Mandating that people buy health insurance was a Republican idea, by the way. Just FYI. What’s this “penalty tax”? You’re just making this up. Something is either a tax—something you’re obligated to pay for no failure to do anything—or a penalty: something imposed on you because you didn’t live up to a civic obligation. Also, read **John Maces’s** Post 100. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2010, 4:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-health-care-bill-creates-a-tax-and-therefore-is-constitutional-right/533877/105 "2010-03-29T16:12:43Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > It’s not going to be a wash for _everyone_ affected. It’s going to be a _net_ wash. If you’re counting on an individual basis, his promise is already “broken” and was even before the election because he frankly admitted that taxes would increase on some of those making more than $250,000.00 (and they did go up for some of those people). We’re getting further and further into nitpickery here, but just to be clear… you haven’t shown that it will be a “net wash”, either. And since you say that the promise is “broken” already, and since that’s the question raised in this thread, I’m not even sure why you brought up the “wash” thing in the first place, unless it was simply an observation and not an argument. No big deal either way… I just assumed we were debating the issue, so if you’re not we can just drop it. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2010, 4:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-health-care-bill-creates-a-tax-and-therefore-is-constitutional-right/533877/106 "2010-03-29T16:19:11Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > What’s this “penalty tax”? You’re just making this up. Something is either a tax—something you’re obligated to pay for no failure to do anything—or a penalty: something imposed on you because you didn’t live up to a civic obligation. There are lots of punitive taxes. Alcohol, gasoline and cigarettes, for example, are all more heavily taxed than other consumer products, in order to discourage their use. Other goods and services are taxed at lower than prevailing rates in order to encourage their use- energy efficient windows and college tuition, for example. > [@John\_Mace](#): > > We’re getting further and further into nitpickery here, but just to be clear… you haven’t shown that it will be a “net wash”, either. And since you say that the promise is “broken” already, and since that’s the question raised in this thread, I’m not even sure why you brought up the “wash” thing in the first place, unless it was simply an observation and not an argument. Well, the question became what the actual promise was. You postulated that it was that no taxes would be raised; I believe it was that the tax burden would not be raised. Since we can’t agree on that, I agree that debating specifics is pointless. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2010, 4:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-health-care-bill-creates-a-tax-and-therefore-is-constitutional-right/533877/107 "2010-03-29T16:53:54Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > What’s this “penalty tax”? You’re just making this up. Something is either a tax—something you’re obligated to pay for no failure to do anything—or a penalty: something imposed on you because you didn’t live up to a civic obligation. What do you call it when I overcontribute to my IRA, and I am required to pay the IRS more money because I didn’t follow the rules? Is that a tax or a penalty? The IRS says that a “6% excise tax” applies to nonconforming Roth IRA contributions. Seems like that’s a tax and a penalty. ---
**Author:** ![BrightNShiny](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7bcc69/32.png) [@BrightNShiny](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrightNShiny)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2010, 5:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-health-care-bill-creates-a-tax-and-therefore-is-constitutional-right/533877/108 "2010-03-29T17:03:31Z")
> [@Mr.Moto](#): > > You are aware, aren’t you, that the tax increases generally affected Social Security payroll taxes or reforming the tax brackets. Overall at the end of the Reagan era there were fewer income tax brackets and the top bracket paid a far lower tax rate than the Johnson-through-Carter rate of 70%. > > Right? I’m well aware of what tax policy was during the Reagan administration. But thanks for proving my point. Apparently we are supposed to pretend a SS payroll tax increase doesn’t count as a tax increase. Or we are supposed to pretend that the '86 tax act doesn’t count as a tax increase.😛 ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2010, 5:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-health-care-bill-creates-a-tax-and-therefore-is-constitutional-right/533877/109 "2010-03-29T17:26:03Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > There are lots of punitive taxes. Alcohol, gasoline and cigarettes, for example, are all more heavily taxed than other consumer products, in order to discourage their use. > > Other goods and services are taxed at lower than prevailing rates in order to encourage their use- energy efficient windows and college tuition, for example. No, these are consumption taxes. Some of them, like the ones you mention, may be _construed_ as being punitive, but that is not necessarily there _intent_. Take the gas tax. A gas tax was around since the 30s and 40s. Do you really thin that was a “punitive” tax. Hopefully you see that it wasn’t. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2010, 5:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-health-care-bill-creates-a-tax-and-therefore-is-constitutional-right/533877/110 "2010-03-29T17:32:27Z")
So what is the intent of the cigarette and alcohol taxes? ---
**Author:** ![Zinger77](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/b19c9b/32.png) [@Zinger77](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zinger77)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2010, 6:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-health-care-bill-creates-a-tax-and-therefore-is-constitutional-right/533877/111 "2010-03-29T18:11:57Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Well, he went out of his way to say, over and over again, that he wouldn’t raise taxes on anyone making less than whatever the amount was-- 200k or 250k, can’t remember exactly. So if the other side screams “Obama Raised Your Taxes”, they would not only be correct, they’d be pointing out a political promise that was broken. I like Obama, too, but he can’t have it both ways. This is a clear case of “rich America” verses “poor America”. Most of the people who put Obama in office are poor. (except for Oprah) He is keeping his campaign promises to his supporters…technically-he has not raised taxes on the rich…he just took away tax-cuts that the Bush administration gave them. As far as Obama not being able to have it “both” ways…any time a bill is passed, its supporters have to accept “conditions” under which votes will be given. It is called “piggy-backing.” It sucks…but it is a necessary evil. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2010, 7:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-health-care-bill-creates-a-tax-and-therefore-is-constitutional-right/533877/112 "2010-03-29T19:32:05Z")
> [@Zinger77](#): > > This is a clear case of “rich America” verses “poor America”. Most of the people who put Obama in office are poor. (except for Oprah) Only if you consider most _people_ to be poor. Obama drew more votes than McCain among low-income _and_ high-income voters. He drew slightly fewer among upper-middle-income voters. [http://www.historycentral.com/elections/12008/exit/Income.html](http://www.historycentral.com/elections/12008/exit/Income.html) ---
**Author:** ![YogSothoth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/8edcca/32.png) [@YogSothoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/YogSothoth)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2010, 11:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-health-care-bill-creates-a-tax-and-therefore-is-constitutional-right/533877/113 "2010-03-29T23:46:04Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > The question is, what if you have to pay more but it’s not called a tax? There’s a brand new mandatory payment you must make, and if you don’t, you have to pay the government a penalty. How would that fit into your assessment? > [@John\_Mace](#): > > OK. It’s not a tax. That makes the law unconstitutional. Take your pick. If you have to pay more, it’s a penalty tax, which might work like a tax, but it’s a penalty since it is easily avoidable. It is enough like a tax for Congress to be able to make it the law. Besides, more things than simply a new tax makes the bill Constitutionally valid. The Commerce clause, for example, since health insurance crosses state lines. Saying “taxes” have simply been the easiest thing to explain to people on the 24 hour news channels. Obama most certainly can have it both ways because in some ways this is a tax, and in others it is not. Nuance is difficult, deal with it ---
**Author:** ![NotreDame05](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/90ced4/32.png) [@NotreDame05](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotreDame05)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2010, 1:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-health-care-bill-creates-a-tax-and-therefore-is-constitutional-right/533877/114 "2010-03-30T01:48:10Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > Yes but via a decision you made and thus avoidable. > > If you choose to buy property you pay property taxes thus your taxes go up. So, say you currently do not own property and the government raises property taxes. Have your taxes gone up? Haven’t they gone up for some class of people though? There are two classes of people in your example above, just as there are two classes of people in regards to the tax imposed in the health care mandate. In your example above there are people with property and without property. Under the health care legislation there are people with health insurance and without it. Government has raised taxes for those who own property in your example. Under the health care legislation the government has raised taxes on those individuals without insurance (assuming all else is equal in regards to tax exemptions). Now, can they avoid this tax increase? Sure, they can avoid the tax increase by purchasing health insurance but this does not change the fact a tax is now being applied to all people within a particular class, those without health insurance, where such a tax did not previously exist at all for this class of people. Obama, who signed the legislation, and Congress, who passed it, are responsible for the existence of this law and the language in it. They brough this law into existence when no such law previously existed. They brought into existence a mandate and a tax to be imposed for those without insurance. It is inaccurate to suggest, under these facts, Obama and Congress did not raise taxes. They absolutely did raise taxes as they passed legislation, which previously did not exist, imposing a tax on a particular class of people. Without Congress bringing the language of this legislation into existence, and Obama signing the legislation into law, there would not exist the possibility of any tax to be imposed on the class of people without health insurance under the color of law. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-health-care-bill-creates-a-tax-and-therefore-is-constitutional-right/533877.md?page=5)