CJ Roberts on "tax."

[CrusaderFrank]

Didn't you ever do your own taxes?

Your tax liability starts at a certain number, and then you are able to pare it down by taking your exemptions, deductions, credits, etc.

My federal income tax is about $5000. That's what I pay. Someone with 2 children making what I make has the same tax liability to START with,

then they deduct their children as dependents, then they take the child tax credit, and whatever else they may get,

and the next thing you know they're paying $1000 compared to my $5000, on the same income.

That's my penalty for not having children.

It's no different than the penalty for not having health insurance. It's a tax.

If you owned an oil rig as an individual you'd get deprecation, depletion allowances, tax credits and write-offs. So you're being penalized for not owning an oil rig. You'd probably get money back on the same income

Having an oil rig reduces your TAXES. Having health insurance reduces your TAXES.

And under your "logic" you "pay a penalty" for not owning an oil rig.

Do you how stupid that is?

 

[LordBrownTrout]

what do you get slapped with if you don't pay your taxes due on time? what do you get slapped with if you are speeding? what do you get slapped with if you withdraw your 401k money before 59? Its a fine or a penalty for breaking the rules....and yes, as the SC states, it's a tax....a penalty or tax penalty since the gvts are the ones collecting the fines and putting it in their kitty.

pay my what on time? what? taxes? See the word "taxes" in your first sentence?

I pay a fine for speeding, not a tax.

Withdrawing money from 401k is some check box on IRS form so it's a tax

What do you call it when a hockey player is caught holding, is it a 2 minute tax? Does he spend time in the tax box?

that 401k money is my money, not a tax or tax monies....and to take out early, before the rules state, I am immediately charged 20% in income taxes and charged with a 10% PENALTY for not following the rules on when I can take some of my own money out of this savings.

So your point, is mute.

I'm curious as to why you think someone else should be awarded 20 percent of your money if you make a decision to enjoy the fruits of your labors a little bit early. In essence, by choice, you are giving someone power over your money.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Didn't you ever do your own taxes?

Your tax liability starts at a certain number, and then you are able to pare it down by taking your exemptions, deductions, credits, etc.

My federal income tax is about $5000. That's what I pay. Someone with 2 children making what I make has the same tax liability to START with,

then they deduct their children as dependents, then they take the child tax credit, and whatever else they may get,

and the next thing you know they're paying $1000 compared to my $5000, on the same income.

That's my penalty for not having children.

It's no different than the penalty for not having health insurance. It's a tax.

If you owned an oil rig as an individual you'd get deprecation, depletion allowances, tax credits and write-offs. So you're being penalized for not owning an oil rig. You'd probably get money back on the same income

Having an oil rig reduces your TAXES. Having health insurance reduces your TAXES.

Not if the oil rig is profitable.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Wry: Seriously, after this much time on the Boards, you REALLY need to learn how to use the quote function.

The REASON I said things like "supposedly" and "reportedly" is because I am conveying information I got elsewhere.

I mean, don't be such a dork. I haven't had any chats with the CJ. But I can read.

And if you had held your water for a moment longer, you'd even SEE the source I allude to, because I inserted THIS link in my prior post:

Roberts switched views to uphold health care law - CBS News

I did not infer that your conclusion was modified by a "supposedly" and "reportedly" alone is rarely probative. I suspect the CJ tossed ideology aside for the common good; now wouldn't that be an interesting stare decisis?

In any case, mea culpa. It seems my inference was made too hastily.

Postscript - you completely ignored my jab in re logic and conservatism.

My conclusion was absolutely stated with those qualifications precisely because I cannot personally verify what others have reported. That's the way it works. It should with you, too.

There is no conservative ideology. There is a liberal ideology. Conservatism stands on its own and simply posits that we should not do that which we have agreed is out of bounds. Throwing that out is simply too reckless.

I tend to ignore lots of trite tripe.

It is just too silly to worry about a liberal lecturing anybody on logic.

If no conservtive ideology exists, how or why did the pejorative RINO come about? The liberal ideology exists and has for time immemorial; it's the Golden Rule.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Modern Liberal Golden rule: from each according to their means, to each according to their needs

 

[Liability]

"EAT YOUR BROCCOLI," commands Congress.

"No," say those petulant children, also known as "the People." They add, "We do not LIKE broccoli."

"But it's good for you. And mother knows best. So, again, I command you to EAT YOUR BROCCOLI!"

"No," say the People, adding, "and you can't MAKE us!"

"Oh ho!" says Congress adding the now dreaded question, "Oh, NO?"

And thus it came to pass that President Obama got the ObamaEatYourBroccoli Act enacted.

It got challenged in Court.

Congress asks the President to defend the legislation on the ground that the Law does not implicate the Commerce Clause. No. "We used our taxing authority!"

The Solicitor General tells the SCOTUS bench, "it is now firmly established in precedent that Congress has a taxing authority that permits them to impose a penalty -- in the form of a tax -- on anyone who refuses to eat broccoli!"

Bound by the inescapable logic of precedent, of course, the SCOTUS agrees.

Now, when I say "EAT YOUR BROCCOLI," there is no doubt that it's good for you.

Or else.

 

[Liability]

I did not infer that your conclusion was modified by a "supposedly" and "reportedly" alone is rarely probative. I suspect the CJ tossed ideology aside for the common good; now wouldn't that be an interesting stare decisis?

In any case, mea culpa. It seems my inference was made too hastily.

Postscript - you completely ignored my jab in re logic and conservatism.

My conclusion was absolutely stated with those qualifications precisely because I cannot personally verify what others have reported. That's the way it works. It should with you, too.

There is no conservative ideology. There is a liberal ideology. Conservatism stands on its own and simply posits that we should not do that which we have agreed is out of bounds. Throwing that out is simply too reckless.

I tend to ignore lots of trite tripe.

It is just too silly to worry about a liberal lecturing anybody on logic.

If no conservtive ideology exists, how or why did the pejorative RINO come about? The liberal ideology exists and has for time immemorial; it's the Golden Rule.

No. Libs pay lip service only to such things as the Golden Rule. They don't even recognize it in the face of reality.

There is no Conservative "ideology" because conservatism is concerned with living by the collective rules to which we HAVE agreed.

RINOS come about by rejecting that agreement and adopting liberal ideology in its place.

 

[Care4all]

pay my what on time? what? taxes? See the word "taxes" in your first sentence?

I pay a fine for speeding, not a tax.

Withdrawing money from 401k is some check box on IRS form so it's a tax

What do you call it when a hockey player is caught holding, is it a 2 minute tax? Does he spend time in the tax box?

that 401k money is my money, not a tax or tax monies....and to take out early, before the rules state, I am immediately charged 20% in income taxes and charged with a 10% PENALTY for not following the rules on when I can take some of my own money out of this savings.

So your point, is mute.

I'm curious as to why you think someone else should be awarded 20 percent of your money if you make a decision to enjoy the fruits of your labors a little bit early. In essence, by choice, you are giving someone power over your money.

the 20% is for the taxes you never paid on the money in the first place, because you got to save this money, tax free.... the 10% penalty is due because you broke the rules and withdrew early.

I don't like it one bit....but apparently, our Congress has that power.

 

[Liability]

that 401k money is my money, not a tax or tax monies....and to take out early, before the rules state, I am immediately charged 20% in income taxes and charged with a 10% PENALTY for not following the rules on when I can take some of my own money out of this savings.

So your point, is mute.

I'm curious as to why you think someone else should be awarded 20 percent of your money if you make a decision to enjoy the fruits of your labors a little bit early. In essence, by choice, you are giving someone power over your money.

the 20% is for the taxes you never paid on the money in the first place, because you got to save this money, tax free.... the 10% penalty is due because you broke the rules and withdrew early.

I don't like it one bit....but apparently, our Congress has that power.

If you are permitted to defer taxes that would otherwise be owed on CONDITION and you then violate that condition, there is no logical reason why Congress cannot both reclaim the taxes the government might otherwise have taken and impose a penalty on your economic decision -- your change of mind -- since it WAS only available as a part of their permission in the first place.

So, yeah. Congress likely DOES have such power -- legitimately.

What that has to do with the imposition of a penalty -- in the form of a tax -- for an economic decision for economic INACTIVITY is a matter left unaddressed.

Congress has NOW been CLAIMED to have that power. But the "call" is pure bullshit. It's baseless.

 

[Vel]

Next up? The Federal Government will impose a tax on taxes.

oooooh! I'd never thought of that one. Thanks for the idea.

I propose a 10% penalty on all tax payments over $100.

And a 1% penalty on the penalty.

Too late. The government already adds a penalty if you are self employed and haven't paid enough in estimated taxes. I believe it kicks in if you owe more than $500.

 

[Vel]

I've been paying a 'penalty' for years for not having children. I pay it in the form of higher income taxes.

Nobody in their right mind would say that penalty is not a tax.

Obama says it's not a tax.

 

[Care4all]

I'm curious as to why you think someone else should be awarded 20 percent of your money if you make a decision to enjoy the fruits of your labors a little bit early. In essence, by choice, you are giving someone power over your money.

the 20% is for the taxes you never paid on the money in the first place, because you got to save this money, tax free.... the 10% penalty is due because you broke the rules and withdrew early.

I don't like it one bit....but apparently, our Congress has that power.

If you are permitted to defer taxes that would otherwise be owed on CONDITION and you then violate that condition, there is no logical reason why Congress cannot both reclaim the taxes the government might otherwise have taken and impose a penalty on your economic decision -- your change of mind -- since it WAS only available as a part of their permission in the first place.

So, yeah. Congress likely DOES have such power -- legitimately.

What that has to do with the imposition of a penalty -- in the form of a tax -- for an economic decision for economic INACTIVITY is a matter left unaddressed.

Congress has NOW been CLAIMED to have that power. But the "call" is pure bullshit. It's baseless.

they don't make you pay any taxes on stock you buy that has gains year after year after year after year, until you sell your stock, while they have you pay taxes on the gains you've made on a cd invested each and every year....even if you never withdraw the money....a lot of our tax laws make no sense and push us in to certain investments of the private sector....like they encourage us to buy a home with tax write offs vs renting with no tax write off, etc, have kids vs not having kids, getting married vs not being married...get a license vs being fined for not having one...

I'm guessing Roberts went along with precedence

 

[NYcarbineer]

If you owned an oil rig as an individual you'd get deprecation, depletion allowances, tax credits and write-offs. So you're being penalized for not owning an oil rig. You'd probably get money back on the same income

Having an oil rig reduces your TAXES. Having health insurance reduces your TAXES.

And under your "logic" you "pay a penalty" for not owning an oil rig.

Do you how stupid that is?

Semantics aren't relevant. Does an oil rig reduce your taxes or not? Does having health insurance reduce your taxes or not?

 

[NYcarbineer]

I've been paying a 'penalty' for years for not having children. I pay it in the form of higher income taxes.

Nobody in their right mind would say that penalty is not a tax.

Obama says it's not a tax.

So does Romney. Neither is the deciding authority. The Supreme Court is, and they declared it a tax.

 

[Buford]

I've been paying a 'penalty' for years for not having children. I pay it in the form of higher income taxes.

Nobody in their right mind would say that penalty is not a tax.

Obama says it's not a tax.

So does Romney. Neither is the deciding authority. The Supreme Court is, and they declared it a tax.

A tax that was passed by a temporary congress who was voted out in the next election. That can keep happening until enough new people are in congress to repeal it.

 

[Liability]

I've been paying a 'penalty' for years for not having children. I pay it in the form of higher income taxes.

Nobody in their right mind would say that penalty is not a tax.

Obama says it's not a tax.

So does Romney. Neither is the deciding authority. The Supreme Court is, and they declared it a tax.

Who gave SCOTUS the authority to deny the Act of Congress the terminology chosen BY Congress?

Who says that they are the ones with authority to "decide" something already decided by the other two coordinate branches of government?

 

[Caroljo]

All true. Throw in some taxation for breathing also since we're all hurting the poor little planet.

You mean as in "you must breath, if you stop breathing we will tax you?" Cause if you stop breathing we'll tax you cause we told you to breathe and secondly since yer dead we're gonna take everything you own away from you and give it to the poor. It's not the poor's fault that you worked your ass off all you life to earn stuff to leave to your kids.

You get a tax break of several thousand dollars a year for having those kids.

Only until his kids turn 18.....

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Obama says it's not a tax.

So does Romney. Neither is the deciding authority. The Supreme Court is, and they declared it a tax.

Who gave SCOTUS the authority to deny the Act of Congress the terminology chosen BY Congress?

Who says that they are the ones with authority to "decide" something already decided by the other two coordinate branches of government?

Be careful with this, as I’ve admonished those on the left with regard to Citizens United. These arguments will be used against you and other rightists when the Court rules in favor of something you support.

Your problem with the ruling is partisan, not legal.

If your questions aren’t rhetorical you can do a search for judicial review and other related doctrine.

 

[Liability]

So does Romney. Neither is the deciding authority. The Supreme Court is, and they declared it a tax.

Who gave SCOTUS the authority to deny the Act of Congress the terminology chosen BY Congress?

Who says that they are the ones with authority to "decide" something already decided by the other two coordinate branches of government?

Be careful with this, as I’ve admonished those on the left with regard to Citizens United. These arguments will be used against you and other rightists when the Court rules in favor of something you support.

Your problem with the ruling is partisan, not legal.

If your questions aren’t rhetorical you can do a search for judicial review and other related doctrine.

Wrong. I have long questioned the silly notion that because the SCOTUS claimed for ITSELF the authority to "decide" such things that it necessarily follows that their "authority" is genuine.

I am probably far more conversant with "judicial review" than you are. The problem is: you buy the premise.

With some reservations, I do too, but I acknowledge the reservations.

And no; it's not just when I dislike a partisan hack ruling. CJ Roberts engaged in ACTUAL judicial activism. It is not more acceptable coming from a so-called conservative than it is coming from some liberal "justice."

Your problem is that you have no consistent or genuine philosophy.