The same way you pay a local sales tax without ever dealing with the comptroller (or whoever the hell it would be). You don’t need to deal with the IRS because they know that you’ve fulfilled your obligation to them as far as the gas tax. For every dollar of gas you bought you paid X in gas tax. Clean. Simple. No need to deal with anyone.
I was talking about a tax in general. This thread has devolved into a debate as to whether the money that has to be paid for failing to procure health insurance is a “tax” or a “penalty”. I am saying that it is simply money that has to be paid to the government, Or Else. That fits both just the same.
You made the distinction by saying that with a tax, you must deal with the IRS. I used the federal gas tax as an example of a tax that one must pay, but the IRS isn’t a part of the transaction.
So what if it was referred to as a gasoline penalty, or a gasoline fine? Would it be any more or less accurate than the money that must be paid in 2014 if I fail to have health insurance?
What if the state of Florida said that people may drive at whatever speed they want on the interstate highways, but that drivers exceeding 70mph must pay a $278 “tax”? And if you failed to pay that tax, they would suspend your driver’s license.
Would that be an accurate term?
Devolved? That’s the central topic being debated. It’s in the thread title, even.
I thought that the central topic was that it was indeed a tax, therefore constitutional, but since Obama said it was NOT a tax, then it is unconstitutional.
But, I will concede your point. So, why does it matter if you call it a tax, fine, a penalty, or a Gimme Your Cash Fee?
You’ve got to be kidding me. You’re simply bastardizing the language. We can call anything you pay a grumpuph and automatically have everything makes sense because we used the same words. I’m no tac=x expert or an economist, but you’re conflating that fact that we pay various taxes with all those things being equivalent. We pay basic taxes: some on income, property, and some on consumption.
It’s different because we don’t fine or penalize people for making a legal purchase. Now, if you are arguing that all taxes deincentivize people from doing X, you’re right. But that doesn’t make the three things—taxes, penalties and fines—equivalent.
Also, are you really arguing that we should view taxes as penalties?
I have to agree with the OP that it’s tough to figure out how you can say the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 wouldn’t count as tax increases. There are specific taxes that are incorporated into these laws: a 2.9% excise tax on the purchase of medical devices and a variable rate excise tax on health insurance and pharmaceutical purchases (which go into effect in 2014) and a 40% excise tax on insurance plans over certain threshold (which go into effect in 2018).
The only wiggle-room I see might be a claim that other taxes will be lowered by the time these new taxes go into effect so there will be no overall tax increase. But unless Obama can point to specific balancing tax decreases that have already been passed into law, I’d say that’s pretty thin.
Eh? The blurb in the OP is Obama addressing whether the individual mandate is a tax, he doesn’t say anything about the whole bill being tax free (at least in the part of the interview quoted by the OP).
WTF is wrong with some people here and their insistence on trying to argue something they’ve already made up their mind on?
Yes or no, does this bill increase your overall taxes? If it’s no, then it doesn’t matter what Obama said or did, it’s a good thing. Your bumper sticker should be “Obama lowered my taxes”.
I don’t care if a million new taxes on new things are signed into law tomorrow. If my overall taxes remain the same or lower, then there was no tax increase
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?
My brother-in-law avoids paying income tax by never having any income.
Perhaps Obama was using “tax increase” according to the modern usage. For example, there was a Federal tax increase every year of the Reagan administration, except the first (tax cut) and the last (no tax policy change). Yet, today, when we speak of tax policy during the Reagan administration, you will only ever hear about the tax cuts. Those six years of tax increases have somehow become tax cuts as well.
Alas, English is a living language, and definitions will shift over time.
Sorry, I didn’t see this before. Here you go.
Yeah, that’ll teach the bastards. 
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?
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.
I’m not sure if you meant that to substantiate the claim, but it doesn’t.
It’s a broken campaign promise, plain and simple. Will it harm his presidency? I doubt it. But we don’t have to pretend that a tax is not a tax in order to protect him.
No it isn’t, plain and simple.
OK. It’s not a tax. That makes the law unconstitutional. Take your pick.