Because when the attack ads come out all you’re going to hear of that statement is Obama saying “yes, it’s a tax” “yes, it’s a tax” “yes, it’s a tax” in a constant loop while gloomy music plays in the background.
Well, it could. There are still originalist judges around, and someone somewhere will surely use Obama’s statement that it is not a tax to file suit- after all, if it isn’t a tax, it’s unconstitutional, right?
That said, Obama’s statement is irrelevant because it isn’t (strictly speaking) his legislation.
So, I’m a healthy 30 year old w/o health insurance. I’m going to gamble and not get any until I’m 35. I make $50k a year. Have my taxes gone up?
But Rush said Obama is a magic Negro. Are you saying Rush lied?!!!
It was $250,000.
Nope.
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?
Yep.
It was $200,000 for singles, $250,000 for joints.
Bad analogy. I didn’t do anything, in the case I outlined.
Or, I guess I missed the part where Obama said he wouldn’t raise taxes on people making less than $250k/year unless they decided not to buy HCI.
Sorry, but no. Your taxes are the same. You just opted to pay a penal tax as well. You don’t have to.
It’s also not part of your income tax, which is what Obama was talking about with his tax promse (that he’s totally kept).
Not doing something is a choice every bit as much as doing something is.
As such you can be held accountable for that choice.
You choose not to buy health insurance but there is a real chance you would then become a liability everyone else has to pay for (unless you can magically guarantee perfect health over that time period).
He didn’t raise taxes on anybody. Congress imposed a penal tax. It’s not a tax hike. They are different things.
I still haven’t had time to go back and read the opinion to be more specific (or find out I’m off base), but …
Kelo approved the government taking of private property and giving it to another private party for societal benefit. Though distinguishable on several (IMHO irrelevant) fronts, I daresay that one could lose on the tax issue (it is/isn’t) yet win on the overall Constitutionality. Note that in keeping a tight focus on the OP, I’m addressing the financial aspect of Constitutionality. There are other ostensibly open questions, but I’m trying not to stray too far.
ETA: Assuming the OP was “since you no longer have the ‘it’s just a tax’ argument to lean on, is the health care bill still Constitutional?”.
Yes you did. You chose to ignore a fiscal responsibility.
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.
I am convinced. It is a tax. Taxes are bad. I say we leave our current system in place. Like food in a trendy restaurant, expensive healthcare is better. The fact that we pay more for worse outcome proves the point even more. Kinda like those $50 entree’s you need a magnifying glass to see.
That’s not what Bricker is going for. He wants to get us to admit that Obama was caught in something of a lie during his interview with Stepanopolous. In a sense, he was.
And you have not seen any of your taxes increase. Not your income tax, your capital gains or your payroll taxes. None. If you disagree, tell m which of your taxes got increased.