CJ Roberts on "tax."

[Liability]

This may belong in the flame zone, but it's initially put here in "politics" for a reason.

The ObamaCare Act itself calls the penalty for not buying insurance a "penalty."

But CJ Roberts and the SCOTUS majority call it a "tax" in order to cobble together a way to salvage the law.

But if it were a tax, then the SCOTUS couldn't have ruled on it yet due to the anti-injunction law. So the SCOTUS says, it's not that "kind" of tax.

So, it's a penalty that is really a tax except when it isn't a tax.

And the lib rubes are actually buying that horse shit.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Taxed for doing nothing. Heck they don't care.

 

[8537]

To be fair, the Republicans are playing the same game in opposite world. The conservative justices clearly stated that it's not a tax. Leading Republicans didn't call it a tax when it was implemented in Massachusetts. But now it's a tax...except among the conservative justices.

 

[Liability]

Taxed for doing nothing. Heck they don't care.

You can be taxed for what you earn.

You can be taxed on what you buy.

You can be penalized for what you do.

You can be penalized for what you don't do.

You can be penalized for what you buy.

You can be penalized for what you don't buy -- but then it's a tax -- except when it isn't a tax.

See? We're getting the hang of this.

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

 

[8537]

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.

 

[The T]

Taxed for doing nothing. Heck they don't care.

You can be taxed for what you earn.

You can be taxed on what you buy.

You can be penalized for what you do.

You can be penalized for what you don't do.

You can be penalized for what you buy.

You can be penalized for what you don't buy -- but then it's a tax -- except when it isn't a tax.

See? We're getting the hang of this.

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

Liberty is effectively being killed off.

 

[Liability]

To be fair, the Republicans are playing the same game in opposite world. The conservative justices clearly stated that it's not a tax. Leading Republicans didn't call it a tax when it was implemented in Massachusetts. But now it's a tax...except among the conservative justices.

There HAS been lots of word-play and gamesmanship on the political side of the "discussion" and debate on ObamaCare. I readily admit it.

But here's the thing. Is that the way we want our SCOTUS to decide important cases? I say it isn't. It's dangerous and dishonest.

Let's go one step further. Let's say that the penalty (regardless of the fact that Congress made a VERY deliberate choice to call it that and not a 'tax") actually IS a tax. Let's say, in other words, that CJ Roberts put the accurate label on the penalty.

Question one: was that within the province of the SCOTUS?

Question two: IF the SCOTUS actually does have some right to re-write the words of the statute (a doesn't mean "A" just because the Legislative Branch chose to call it "A"; "A" is actually "B"), then was the ObamaCare opinion written by the CJ honest when it went on to say that the "tax" wasn't a "tax" as that word is used when contemplating the Anti-Injunction Law?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

To be fair, the Republicans are playing the same game in opposite world. The conservative justices clearly stated that it's not a tax. Leading Republicans didn't call it a tax when it was implemented in Massachusetts. But now it's a tax...except among the conservative justices.

The Conservatives justices wrote the minority opinion, right?

 

[The T]

This may belong in the flame zone, but it's initially put here in "politics" for a reason.

The ObamaCare Act itself calls the penalty for not buying insurance a "penalty."

But CJ Roberts and the SCOTUS majority call it a "tax" in order to cobble together a way to salvage the law.

But if it were a tax, then the SCOTUS couldn't have ruled on it yet due to the anti-injunction law. So the SCOTUS says, it's not that "kind" of tax.

So, it's a penalty that is really a tax except when it isn't a tax.

And the lib rubes are actually buying that horse shit.

Defies logic...Constitutionally speaking.

 

[Liability]

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.

You forgot the surcharge and the penalty (which is really a tax except when it isn't a tax) on the imposition of the surcharge.

 

[Liability]

To be fair, the Republicans are playing the same game in opposite world. The conservative justices clearly stated that it's not a tax. Leading Republicans didn't call it a tax when it was implemented in Massachusetts. But now it's a tax...except among the conservative justices.

The Conservatives justices wrote the minority opinion, right?

Well, perhaps initially, it was the majority opinion. At least until CJ Roberts flipped. THEN the conservatives authored the minority opinion (the dissent).

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Taxed for doing nothing. Heck they don't care.

You can be taxed for what you earn.

You can be taxed on what you buy.

You can be penalized for what you do.

You can be penalized for what you don't do.

You can be penalized for what you buy.

You can be penalized for what you don't buy -- but then it's a tax -- except when it isn't a tax.

See? We're getting the hang of this.

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

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

 

[WillowTree]

This may belong in the flame zone, but it's initially put here in "politics" for a reason.

The ObamaCare Act itself calls the penalty for not buying insurance a "penalty."

But CJ Roberts and the SCOTUS majority call it a "tax" in order to cobble together a way to salvage the law.

But if it were a tax, then the SCOTUS couldn't have ruled on it yet due to the anti-injunction law. So the SCOTUS says, it's not that "kind" of tax.

So, it's a penalty that is really a tax except when it isn't a tax.

And the lib rubes are actually buying that horse shit.

don't forget there are 20 taxes embedded within the bill. It's a freaking OBAMATAX alright.

 

[Too Tall]

To be fair, the Republicans are playing the same game in opposite world. The conservative justices clearly stated that it's not a tax. Leading Republicans didn't call it a tax when it was implemented in Massachusetts. But now it's a tax...except among the conservative justices.

The Obama Administration and the language in the bill made it clear that it wasn't a tax. The reason for that fraud is simple. It would never have passed, even in a Democrat controlled Congress, if the word TAX had been mentioned.

 

[The T]

To be fair, the Republicans are playing the same game in opposite world. The conservative justices clearly stated that it's not a tax. Leading Republicans didn't call it a tax when it was implemented in Massachusetts. But now it's a tax...except among the conservative justices.

The Conservatives justices wrote the minority opinion, right?

Well, perhaps initially. At least until CJ Roberts flipped.

I'm still unclear as to the flip?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

CJ Roberts and Obama have successfully breached the last Constitutional defenses; the government can tax you for ANYTHING.

Do, do not, it's now all under the control of the government

 

[WillowTree]

Taxed for doing nothing. Heck they don't care.

You can be taxed for what you earn.

You can be taxed on what you buy.

You can be penalized for what you do.

You can be penalized for what you don't do.

You can be penalized for what you buy.

You can be penalized for what you don't buy -- but then it's a tax -- except when it isn't a tax.

See? We're getting the hang of this.

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

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.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Sometimes it's best to define terms:

Tax: a sum of money demanded by a government for its support or for specific facilities or services, levied upon incomes, property, sales, etc.

Fee: a sum paid or charged for a privilege

Ad Valorem: according to the worth

Ideology: the body of doctrine, myth, belief, etc., that guides an individual, social movement, institution, class, or large group.

Pragmatic: of or pertaining to a practical point of view or practical considerations.

Penalty: a punishment imposed or incurred for a violation of law or rule.

Simple words, aren't they?

 

[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.

 

[8537]

To be fair, the Republicans are playing the same game in opposite world. The conservative justices clearly stated that it's not a tax. Leading Republicans didn't call it a tax when it was implemented in Massachusetts. But now it's a tax...except among the conservative justices.

There HAS been lots of word-play and gamesmanship on the political side of the "discussion" and debate on ObamaCare. I readily admit it.

But here's the thing. Is that the way we want our SCOTUS to decide important cases? I say it isn't. It's dangerous and dishonest.

Let's go one step further. Let's say that the penalty (regardless of the fact that Congress made a VERY deliberate choice to call it that and not a 'tax") actually IS a tax. Let's say, in other words, that CJ Roberts put the accurate label on the penalty.

Question one: was that within the province of the SCOTUS?

Outside of the political realm, the case that it's a tax seems pretty clear. That's why it's handled on a 1040 and recorded with the IRS, why collection is the same as other taxes collected by said IRS. The only difference is a penalty that can't include imprisonment. I'm frankly shocked that Thomas, Scalia and Alito didn't see it as such (Nor did some of the liberal judges, iirc)

Question two: IF the SCOTUS actually does have some right to re-write the words of the statute (a doesn't mean "A" just because the Legislative Branch chose to call it "A"; "A" is actually "B"), then was the ObamaCare opinion written by the CJ honest when it went on to say that the "tax" wasn't a "tax" as that word is used when contemplating the Anti-Injunction Law?

I'm not familiar with the Anti-Injunction law. Despite my posting here today, I also don't have time to research it at the moment