2/3 say ditch individual health care mandate

[dblack]

We were talking about the constitutionality of a head tax, since the mandate structure is, at core, a poorly structured head tax.

No, it's not. It's only a "tax" on people who don't buy government approved insurance. Which violates the key justification for why a head tax is constitutional (ie it applies equally to all citizens).

*the word tax is in quotes here because Congress, and the president deliberately avoided calling it a tax - the President adamantly denied it. So at the very least, regardless of the equivalency, the law was passed on false claims, given that it would have enjoyed even less public support had it been understood widely to be a large tax increase.

 

[Polk]

It doesn't matter what people called it, what matters is what it actually is. You could say that it's a tax that only applies to people who don't buy insurance, but it's equally accurate to say it is a tax that applies to everyone which you then get a credit for it you purchase insurance.

 

[dblack]

It doesn't matter what people called it, what matters is what it actually is. You could say that it's a tax that only applies to people who don't buy insurance, but it's equally accurate to say it is a tax that applies to everyone which you then get a credit for it you purchase insurance.

Either way, it's an unapportioned tax and not Constitutional.

And it does matter what people called it. If a bill is voted on, and passed, based on a lie - it's fraud and should be struck down based on that alone.

 

[Polk]

There is no fraud. Members know what they're voting on when they vote on a proposal.

 

[dblack]

There is no fraud. Members know what they're voting on when they vote on a proposal.

That's a laughable claim to begin with, though granted they should. But the salient point is that if you're saying it's a tax then the public, who Congress is tasked with representing, was deliberately deceived by lawmakers.

 

[Polk]

I could have phrased that better. We credit them with legal knowledge, which is what's relevant here.

 

[Wry Catcher]

While that's a popular public perception of regulation, it's not really true. The process of creating and/or amending a regulation is subject to a lot of controls.

Regulations are promulgated by Federal Agencies consistent with the law. I don't understand what you're suggesting? What controls?

I was responding to your comment that changes can be made at whim. Creation and amendment must meet the requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act, and further analysis pertaining to cost-benefit falls under the purview of OIRA.

Thanks, I should have been more precise. I used "whim" inappropriately. I also neglected to offer the USSC can find a law or regulation unconstitutional.

 

[starcraftzzz]

It doesn't matter what people called it, what matters is what it actually is. You could say that it's a tax that only applies to people who don't buy insurance, but it's equally accurate to say it is a tax that applies to everyone which you then get a credit for it you purchase insurance.

Either way, it's an unapportioned tax and not Constitutional.

Only a extremists dumbass thinks taxes are not Constitutional

 

[dblack]

It doesn't matter what people called it, what matters is what it actually is. You could say that it's a tax that only applies to people who don't buy insurance, but it's equally accurate to say it is a tax that applies to everyone which you then get a credit for it you purchase insurance.

Either way, it's an unapportioned tax and not Constitutional.

Only a extremists dumbass thinks taxes are not Constitutional

Only extremely dumb asses would read "all taxes are unconstitutional" into my statement. Unapportioned direct taxes are unconstitutional. That's why the federal income tax required a special exemption - accomplished via the sixteenth amendment. This is not a controversial view.

 

[Unkotare]

We were talking about the constitutionality of a head tax, since the mandate structure is, at core, a poorly structured head tax.

No, it's not. It's only a "tax" on people who don't buy government approved insurance. Which violates the key justification for why a head tax is constitutional (ie it applies equally to all citizens).

*the word tax is in quotes here because Congress, and the president deliberately avoided calling it a tax - the President adamantly denied it. So at the very least, regardless of the equivalency, the law was passed on false claims, given that it would have enjoyed even less public support had it been understood widely to be a large tax increase.

"The power to tax is the power to destroy"

 

[FA_Q2]

The Constitution specifically states that a head tax is constitutional.

"No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken."

I might haves missed your explanation of this earlier but what is your contention with this point and how are you applying it to an actual governmental action. I ask because I do not want to mistake what you are actually trying to say.

We were talking about the constitutionality of a head tax, since the mandate structure is, at core, a poorly structured head tax.

It does not resemble a head tax at all as it is only levied if you do not purchase a specific product. That is actually called a fine. They may want to call it a tax in order to make such a thing look constitutional but it is not one.

 

[MeBelle]

A perfect example is Wall-Mart; moving into a small town creates ghost town main streets.

That is a perfect example. Wal-Mart lobbies aggressively for preferential treatment from state and local governments. And they get it.

Well, not really.
Walmart has a new model of smaller stores.
One has recently moved into the city I live in, taking over a previous location which had been a staple for the city for years, yet had been vacant for three years. The loss of the previous store was due to regulation. Walmart fills the gap and serves the part of the city that was 'left behind'.

This Walmart received no preferential treatment from our state or local government. I would know.

 

[dblack]

A perfect example is Wall-Mart; moving into a small town creates ghost town main streets.

That is a perfect example. Wal-Mart lobbies aggressively for preferential treatment from state and local governments. And they get it.

Well, not really.
Walmart has a new model of smaller stores.
One has recently moved into the city I live in, taking over a previous location which had been a staple for the city for years, yet had been vacant for three years. The loss of the previous store was due to regulation. Walmart fills the gap and serves the part of the city that was 'left behind'.

This Walmart received no preferential treatment from our state or local government. I would know.

Well, I guess that's good to hear. But if the previous store was lost due to regulation (regulation which apparently didn't impact Wal-Mart as much) doesn't that prove the point from the other direction?

To be clear, I'm not on the 'demonize Wal-Mart' bandwagon. They're just working withing the laws our governments create. The point is that pervasive regulatory government leads to the negative results people usually complain about regarding Wal-Mart's national dominance. It sets up a 'game' of sorts that businesses have to play to survive - and the larger companies that can hire more lawyers and lobby government more effectively almost always win.

 

[FA_Q2]

That is a perfect example. Wal-Mart lobbies aggressively for preferential treatment from state and local governments. And they get it.

Well, not really.
Walmart has a new model of smaller stores.
One has recently moved into the city I live in, taking over a previous location which had been a staple for the city for years, yet had been vacant for three years. The loss of the previous store was due to regulation. Walmart fills the gap and serves the part of the city that was 'left behind'.

This Walmart received no preferential treatment from our state or local government. I would know.

Well, I guess that's good to hear. But if the previous store was lost due to regulation (regulation which apparently didn't impact Wal-Mart as much) doesn't that prove the point from the other direction?

To be clear, I'm not on the 'demonize Wal-Mart' bandwagon. They're just working withing the laws our governments create. The point is that pervasive regulatory government leads to the negative results people usually complain about regarding Wal-Mart's national dominance. It sets up a 'game' of sorts that businesses have to play to survive - and the larger companies that can hire more lawyers and lobby government more effectively almost always win.

And to add to that, it is cheaper for Wal-Mart to comply with a regulation where that cost can be spread over millions of customers and thousands of stores than a local store that must pay for the entire thing with the few customers and products that they have.

The point being here that even if the regulation was not preferential, was not better for Wal-Mart than other stores or a regulation that Wal-Mart had nothing to do with through lobbying or other means, they STILL benefit from the end result.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

2/3's also view it as unconstitutional...i hope 2/3 (well 5/9's) of the S.C. thinks the same thing .

 

[saveliberty]

2/3's also view it as unconstitutional...i hope 2/3 (well 5/8's) of the S.C. thinks the same thing .

How about 5/9s Plymco?

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

2/3's also view it as unconstitutional...i hope 2/3 (well 5/8's) of the S.C. thinks the same thing .

How about 5/9s Plymco?

lol thats what i meant just was typing away and didn't proofread.....basically 1/9, kennedy.

 

[saveliberty]

2/3's also view it as unconstitutional...i hope 2/3 (well 5/8's) of the S.C. thinks the same thing .

How about 5/9s Plymco?

lol thats what i meant just was typing away and didn't proofread.....basically 1/9, kennedy.

Phew! That's a relief. I thought someone had turned gravely ill.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

How about 5/9s Plymco?

lol thats what i meant just was typing away and didn't proofread.....basically 1/9, kennedy.

Phew! That's a relief. I thought someone had turned gravely ill.

don't make me have bad thoughts about some of those justices

 

[saveliberty]

lol thats what i meant just was typing away and didn't proofread.....basically 1/9, kennedy.

Phew! That's a relief. I thought someone had turned gravely ill.

don't make me have bad thoughts about some of those justices

I have broad shoulders for your blame. Enjoy your evil intentions.