so true....a couple with equal income as matt and me that mortgaged their home, gets to pay less in federal income taxes than matt and me, who paid cash for our home.... you'd think we should be the couple getting a reward for our good stewardship of managing our money.... instead the banks are indirectly rewarded with such tax policy, and the borrowing couple directly with a tax break.... strange tax policies abound!I truly thought that would have been unconstitutional.....the part where we can be coerced to buy insurance from a private business....I could accept being forced in to a universal single health care plan like medicare, where insurance from the private sector for profit is merely optional, but i really thought this private sector thingy would be out of our federal gvts legitimate reach...
Roberts ruled that way because the mandate is based on exactly the same principle as the common practice of manipulating us through tax incentives. And he recognized, correctly if corruptly, that ruling against the mandate would risk undoing countless pillars of accepted state power.
In other words, if he ruled that it's wrong to force people to pay higher taxes for not buying insurance, why should government be able to tax people more who don't take out home loans? If forcing people to choose between paying higher taxes or buying insurance isn't allowed then, buy the same principle, it's also wrong to force them to choose between going into debt for a home, or paying higher taxes.