Hilarious to watch Dems squirm over the word "TAX" !

[Care4all]

TAX PENALTY, tax penalty, tax penalty....obama should just say that...republicans should just say that....

cuz that is what it is...it's a fine for not participating...it's a penalty for not participating, and this penalty or fine....whatever you choose to call it.... gets paid to none other than our gvt...so that's a tax penalty....like having to pay the 10% penalty for the early 401k withdrawl....a penalty tax.

 

[Care4all]

it's a tax..... the 'penalty' part describes the kind of tax....is how i see it

 

[Sarah G]

Dems are pulling their hair out trying desperately to change the word "tax" to the word "penalty" concerning the ACA

Since the mandate didn't meet the constitutional requirements of the commerce clause, it had to be rammed through as a "tax" in order to be approved. It is now known as the "Obamatax" and Obama and Democrats wear it now around their necks.

What's the matter Dems, you love more taxes, so why don't you proudly proclaim waht you've given America ?

It's going to be funny watching Rachell, Al, "Lawrence", Ed, Chris and the rest over at MSDNC desperately trying to keep Americans from seeing the man behind the curtain.
They'll use every word they can to deflect from the word "tax".
Bottom line, it really doesn't matter what you call it, it's going to be collected by the government just like all of your taxes.

Mitt Romney's campaign is even calling it a penalty and not a tax..

Fox news went nuts when they heard that.

Fox didn't go nuts.

And if it's not a tax then the law is unconsitutional.

There was a clip of a panel of Fox News people and they were definately losing it talking about Mitt.

 

[RDD_1210]

Board libtards --- throw insults at conservatives.

Board conservatives --- throw insults at libtards.

And on and on it goes...

... meanwhile, the fact remains that obamacare is the largest over reach of government power and the largest single tax increase in the history of America.

There is no dispute over that. That is a fact.

I will miss you around here after the election and you are forced to leave.

You see how I've been already? I'm not going anywhere, shit for brains.

The only way you'll miss me is if YOU leave, and the board would be a better place if you did. You stink the place up with your pathetic, sickening, lip smacking obama ass kissing. You must have a permanent brown ring around your mouth from frenching his brown eye for so long.

Fucking pimple head.

You know, once you are forced to leave this site (as per our bet) you might actually have some time to go out and get yourself a job for once and stop living off of my tax dollars.

 

[tjvh]

It's a TAX... And Obama OWNS IT.

 

[RDD_1210]

It's a TAX... And Obama OWNS IT.

Only on moochers such as yourself. Time to show some personal responsibility for once in your life.

 

[Care4all]

I say take 75% of the money that we and employers pay for insurance each year and develop one heck of a super duper single payer plan....

others prefer buying it from the for profit, private sector....I've had only very bad experiences with Private Sector Insurance....thus my objection to it....I realize others think their insurance is all hunky dorey the way it is.....I'm just not one of them....

 

[Liability]

Is it not accurate to say that most conservatives, starting with those on this board,

are now and were in the past arguing that the mandate was and is NOT a tax?

What agency oversees taxes? what agency is responsible for kicking those who refuse to get on a government program or buy insurance is overseeing this policy???

Oh yeah, the IRS....

Furthermore, I have never heard a conservative NOT call it a tax...

Four conservatives on the court said it wasn't a tax. Everyone who agrees with the court's dissent is saying it isn't a tax.

Liability on this forum right now has a thread going that is insisting it isn't a tax. Are you over there arguing with him?

No, Liability does not.

What I have said -- repeatedly -- is that it is a penalty.

That it takes the FORM of a tax or gets collected LIKE a tax was a LEGISLATIVE choice. IT was NOT for the Chief Justice to re-write.

But that's probably too nuanced for your tiny little pinhead. So let me be as blunt as possible.

It is a PENALTY because THAT'S what CONGRESS said.

To the extent that it is also a tax, fine. But, why, then, do the provisions and restrictions of the Anti-injunction Law fail to prohibit SCOTUS from RULING on it (at least yet)? According to the Chief Justice the answer is that it's a tax, but not that KIND of tax.

Clear as mud.

 

[Care4all]

What agency oversees taxes? what agency is responsible for kicking those who refuse to get on a government program or buy insurance is overseeing this policy???

Oh yeah, the IRS....

Furthermore, I have never heard a conservative NOT call it a tax...

Four conservatives on the court said it wasn't a tax. Everyone who agrees with the court's dissent is saying it isn't a tax.

Liability on this forum right now has a thread going that is insisting it isn't a tax. Are you over there arguing with him?

No, Liability does not.

What I have said -- repeatedly -- is that it is a penalty.

That it takes the FORM of a tax or gets collected LIKE a tax was a LEGISLATIVE choice. IT was NOT for the Chief Justice to re-write.

But that's probably too nuanced for your tiny little pinhead. So let me be as blunt as possible.

It is a PENALTY because THAT'S what CONGRESS said.

To the extent that it is also a tax, fine. But, why, then, do the provisions and restrictions of the Anti-injunction Law fail to prohibit SCOTUS from RULING on it (at least yet)? According to the Chief Justice the answer is that it's a tax, but not that KIND of tax.

Clear as mud.

it was a legislative choice to send this fine to the IRS....roberts rewrote nothing....the legislature always had the penalty going to the IRS in the original bill....

what does the IRS do? Collect taxes....I don't think Roberts had any other choice than to go with what was ALREADY in the bill.

 

[Papageorgio]

TAX PENALTY, tax penalty, tax penalty....obama should just say that...republicans should just say that....

cuz that is what it is...it's a fine for not participating...it's a penalty for not participating, and this penalty or fine....whatever you choose to call it.... gets paid to none other than our gvt...so that's a tax penalty....like having to pay the 10% penalty for the early 401k withdrawl....a penalty tax.

Not a tax penalty, it is a tax for not participating in a program. No penalty, a penalty comes from not paying your taxes. If you decide to call in your 401k plan, you pay the penalty right when you do it, not later. Penalties are given after the fact, for wrong deductions and for calculating your taxes incorrectly. If you down own a house you can't deduct the interest, it is not a penalty for not owning a house.

Even the liberals in the Supreme Court call it a tax, I think they would understand taxes better than you.

 

[Zoom-boing]

It was ruled constitutional under the powers to tax so to call it a tax is accurate, Roberts even claimed such. It certainly isn't inaccurate, is it?

The left wants it both ways so they've declared it a penalty and wrote it as such in the bill (unless it also says tax in the bill but oh, that's different), argued it as a tax (really, your Honor, we both know that we meant tax but that's just sooo icky the people would have never bought it so we used the less icky term of penalty in order to sell it to the masses), the SC ruled it constitutional under the powers to tax but hey now, it's still a penalty!

Mittens was saying it's a penalty . . . oh wait he said it was an unconstitutional penalty. Bit of massaging going on there? Perhaps. But when Obutthead says "it's not a tax" all Mittens has to say "It was ruled constitutional under the powers to tax". If it was ruled constitutional under the powers to tax then calling it not a tax would imply that it isn't constitutional. Whether that's right or wrong won't matter, what it will do is put Barry in the position of defending it as a constitutional tax or as an unconstitutional penalty. The GOP will continue to hammer it as a tax. The words 'unconstitutional' and 'tax' will be floating out there for the next four months. The left wants to be able to call it whatever it wants at any given time but whines when the right plays the same game.



Penaltaxy?

 

[Zxereus]

Isn't there a single Rethug on here that has health care insurance? Not even one?
wtf. Is that why you all are crying the blues so much of the time? Cause you don't have the ability to go to the doctors and have your health insurance policy pay part of the bill?

No wonder you all are so upset. Your freebie medical care just came to an end.

Nothing changed in my world. Still got the same health insurance I had last week. For the same cost.

When does health care armageddon take place? I don't want to miss it.

What a naive fool.

 

[Zxereus]

Well, considering fearless leader Barry Kardashian said for years it wasn't a tax and then they went in and argued that it was a tax and the court agreed, the full-of-shit meter is going a little crazy.

The fucker lied and everyone knows it now... Moonbat Pelosi had a near full-blown psychotic episode on Meet the Press Sunday trying to defend this. She even turned on the Dem base calling them "free riders"...

Yeah, she tried to pretty up the term "freeloaders" ! Lol!

 

[Care4all]

It was ruled constitutional under the powers to tax so to call it a tax is accurate, Roberts even claimed such. It certainly isn't inaccurate, is it?

The left wants it both ways so they've declared it a penalty and wrote it as such in the bill (unless it also says tax in the bill but oh, that's different), argued it as a tax (really, your Honor, we both know that we meant tax but that's just sooo icky the people would have never bought it so we used the less icky term of penalty in order to sell it to the masses), the SC ruled it constitutional under the powers to tax but hey now, it's still a penalty!

Mittens was saying it's a penalty . . . oh wait he said it was an unconstitutional penalty. Bit of massaging going on there? Perhaps. But when Obutthead says "it's not a tax" all Mittens has to say "It was ruled constitutional under the powers to tax". If it was ruled constitutional under the powers to tax then calling it not a tax would imply that it isn't constitutional. Whether that's right or wrong won't matter, what it will do is put Barry in the position of defending it as a constitutional tax or as an unconstitutional penalty. The GOP will continue to hammer it as a tax. The words 'unconstitutional' and 'tax' will be floating out there for the next four months. The left wants to be able to call it whatever it wants at any given time but whines when the right plays the same game.



Penaltaxy?

but do you call a speeding fine a tax? according to CJ roberts, any fines, any fines at all, for whatever the penalty reason, IS A TAX if paid to government....and i can understand his reasoning....if the gvt is fining you or making you pay a penalty to the government itself, then he views it and precedence has viewed it within the gvt's power to tax....otherwise, states could not fine you for speeding, gvt could not fine you for paying your taxes late, gvt could not penalize you with a 10% fine for withdrawing a 401k early, gvt could not fine a liquor store operating without a license, gvt could not charge you to drive, gvt could not charge toll fees on highways and the many other fees we are hit with, without all of these things and more, being categorized as a tax...

 

[Katzndogz]

It was ruled constitutional under the powers to tax so to call it a tax is accurate, Roberts even claimed such. It certainly isn't inaccurate, is it?

The left wants it both ways so they've declared it a penalty and wrote it as such in the bill (unless it also says tax in the bill but oh, that's different), argued it as a tax (really, your Honor, we both know that we meant tax but that's just sooo icky the people would have never bought it so we used the less icky term of penalty in order to sell it to the masses), the SC ruled it constitutional under the powers to tax but hey now, it's still a penalty!

Mittens was saying it's a penalty . . . oh wait he said it was an unconstitutional penalty. Bit of massaging going on there? Perhaps. But when Obutthead says "it's not a tax" all Mittens has to say "It was ruled constitutional under the powers to tax". If it was ruled constitutional under the powers to tax then calling it not a tax would imply that it isn't constitutional. Whether that's right or wrong won't matter, what it will do is put Barry in the position of defending it as a constitutional tax or as an unconstitutional penalty. The GOP will continue to hammer it as a tax. The words 'unconstitutional' and 'tax' will be floating out there for the next four months. The left wants to be able to call it whatever it wants at any given time but whines when the right plays the same game.



Penaltaxy?

but do you call a speeding fine a tax? according to CJ roberts, any fines, any fines at all, for whatever the penalty reason, IS A TAX if paid to government....and i can understand his reasoning....if the gvt is fining you or making you pay a penalty to the government itself, then he views it and precedence has viewed it within the gvt's power to tax....otherwise, states could not fine you for speeding, gvt could not fine you for paying your taxes late, gvt could not penalize you with a 10% fine for withdrawing a 401k early, gvt could not fine a liquor store operating without a license, gvt could not charge you to drive, gvt could not charge toll fees on highways and many other fees we are hit with, without all of these things and more, being categorized as a tax...

The difference between a fine and a tax is that you won't get fined if you don't do the act. If you never get behind the wheel of a car, naturally you will never get a speeding ticket. But, if the government decided to fine everyone for speeding whether or not they ever drove a car, it would be a tax. It could be the transportation tax, where you are taxed if you use any kind of transportation at all, like taking a walk.

 

[midcan5]

Tax is the most powerful four letter word in the American lexicon. Is there any need to explain the whys, that several thousand year old book got it right long ago. Good stuff below.

"The majority, aware that it was describing the penalty as not a tax for the Anti-Injunction Act but a tax for the Taxing Clause, noted that this is not the first time that the Court has reached seemingly contradictory results construing these laws. In 1922, it decided that the Child Labor Tax was a tax under the Anti-Injunction Act in Bailey v. George but not under the Taxing Clause in Bailey v. Drexel Furniture. The majority also ran through a line of cases showing that the function, rather than the label, of the collection determined whether it was allowable under the Taxing Clause, including the apparently slam-dunk quote from United States v. Sotelo, “That the funds due are referred to as a ‘penalty’ . . . does not alter their essential character as taxes.”" link below

ACA in three parts:

"Ultimately, all nine Justices disagreed with the Fourth Circuit and denied that the individual mandate was a tax under the Anti-Injunction Act." Affordable Care Act: Introduction | Harvard Law and Policy Review

"Roberts and the four liberals upheld the individual mandate as valid under the Taxing Clause. The majority noted, “The exaction the Affordable Care Act imposes on those without health insurance looks like a tax in many respects.” It pointed out that the “penalty” (a) “does not apply to individuals who do not pay federal income taxes because their household income is less than the filing threshold in the Internal Revenue Code,” (b) has an amount “determined by such familiar factors as taxable income, number of dependents, and joint filing status,” and (c) is described “in the Internal Revenue Code and enforced by the IRS.”" ACA: Individual Mandate | Harvard Law and Policy Review

"Without the individual mandate, virtually all of the issuance requirements on insurance companies would be economically infeasible, and this was neither what Congress intended nor something that Congress would have passed." ACA: Severability and the Medicaid Expansion | Harvard Law and Policy Review


"In essence, the disagreement between the majority and the dissent was whether to focus on the effect of the Act or the wording of the Act. This is not an easy issue to decide, but if the goal is to find any plausible interpretation that would render a statute constitutional, the majority seems to have done so." link above

 

[Zoom-boing]

It was ruled constitutional under the powers to tax so to call it a tax is accurate, Roberts even claimed such. It certainly isn't inaccurate, is it?

The left wants it both ways so they've declared it a penalty and wrote it as such in the bill (unless it also says tax in the bill but oh, that's different), argued it as a tax (really, your Honor, we both know that we meant tax but that's just sooo icky the people would have never bought it so we used the less icky term of penalty in order to sell it to the masses), the SC ruled it constitutional under the powers to tax but hey now, it's still a penalty!

Mittens was saying it's a penalty . . . oh wait he said it was an unconstitutional penalty. Bit of massaging going on there? Perhaps. But when Obutthead says "it's not a tax" all Mittens has to say "It was ruled constitutional under the powers to tax". If it was ruled constitutional under the powers to tax then calling it not a tax would imply that it isn't constitutional. Whether that's right or wrong won't matter, what it will do is put Barry in the position of defending it as a constitutional tax or as an unconstitutional penalty. The GOP will continue to hammer it as a tax. The words 'unconstitutional' and 'tax' will be floating out there for the next four months. The left wants to be able to call it whatever it wants at any given time but whines when the right plays the same game.



Penaltaxy?

but do you call a speeding fine a tax? according to CJ roberts, any fines, any fines at all, for whatever the penalty reason, IS A TAX if paid to government....and i can understand his reasoning....if the gvt is fining you or making you pay a penalty to the government itself, then he views it and precedence has viewed it within the gvt's power to tax....otherwise, states could not fine you for speeding, gvt could not fine you for paying your taxes late, gvt could not penalize you with a 10% fine for withdrawing a 401k early, gvt could not fine a liquor store operating without a license, gvt could not charge you to drive, gvt could not charge toll fees on highways and many other fees we are hit with, without all of these things and more, being categorized as a tax...

I see it as a tax, although tax penalty covers it well, doesn't it? If it's a tax then why is Obama continuing to call it a penalty?

The things you listed? They're all for doing something .... for speeding, for failing to pay your taxes on time, for early withdrawl, for operating a liquor store without a license, etc.

ACA imposes a tax penalty for NOT doing something; for NOT purchasing something. That's the kicker.

 

[Pho_King]

TAX PENALTY, tax penalty, tax penalty....obama should just say that...republicans should just say that....

cuz that is what it is...it's a fine for not participating...it's a penalty for not participating, and this penalty or fine....whatever you choose to call it.... gets paid to none other than our gvt...so that's a tax penalty....like having to pay the 10% penalty for the early 401k withdrawl....a penalty tax.

Can't wait to find out what the next "fine for not participating" will be contemplated under this newly recognized power. Thank god government knows what's in our best interest, what decisions we must make regarding the items we purchase.

 

[Pho_King]

It's a TAX... And Obama OWNS IT.

Only on moochers such as yourself. Time to show some personal responsibility for once in your life.

True dat. Government will now decide how best to lead our lives, and you idiots that would rather not let the Feds determine the limits of personal responsibility can fuck off. You assholes would complain about mandatory fitness requirements. Bunch of fat lazy racist fucks.

 

[Care4all]

It was ruled constitutional under the powers to tax so to call it a tax is accurate, Roberts even claimed such. It certainly isn't inaccurate, is it?

The left wants it both ways so they've declared it a penalty and wrote it as such in the bill (unless it also says tax in the bill but oh, that's different), argued it as a tax (really, your Honor, we both know that we meant tax but that's just sooo icky the people would have never bought it so we used the less icky term of penalty in order to sell it to the masses), the SC ruled it constitutional under the powers to tax but hey now, it's still a penalty!

Mittens was saying it's a penalty . . . oh wait he said it was an unconstitutional penalty. Bit of massaging going on there? Perhaps. But when Obutthead says "it's not a tax" all Mittens has to say "It was ruled constitutional under the powers to tax". If it was ruled constitutional under the powers to tax then calling it not a tax would imply that it isn't constitutional. Whether that's right or wrong won't matter, what it will do is put Barry in the position of defending it as a constitutional tax or as an unconstitutional penalty. The GOP will continue to hammer it as a tax. The words 'unconstitutional' and 'tax' will be floating out there for the next four months. The left wants to be able to call it whatever it wants at any given time but whines when the right plays the same game.



Penaltaxy?

but do you call a speeding fine a tax? according to CJ roberts, any fines, any fines at all, for whatever the penalty reason, IS A TAX if paid to government....and i can understand his reasoning....if the gvt is fining you or making you pay a penalty to the government itself, then he views it and precedence has viewed it within the gvt's power to tax....otherwise, states could not fine you for speeding, gvt could not fine you for paying your taxes late, gvt could not penalize you with a 10% fine for withdrawing a 401k early, gvt could not fine a liquor store operating without a license, gvt could not charge you to drive, gvt could not charge toll fees on highways and many other fees we are hit with, without all of these things and more, being categorized as a tax...

The difference between a fine and a tax is that you won't get fined if you don't do the act. If you never get behind the wheel of a car, naturally you will never get a speeding ticket. But, if the government decided to fine everyone for speeding whether or not they ever drove a car, it would be a tax. It could be the transportation tax, where you are taxed if you use any kind of transportation at all, like taking a walk.

if you decide to pay what you owe in taxes late, if you chose to not comply with the rules set forth by our government, you will be assessed a Penalty by the irs....so you will now owe your original taxes due plus the tax penalty added to it....so, although it is not a tax penalty that I am charged to pay the IRS because I have chosen to follow the rules...JC Roberts says it's a penalty tax that you have to pay. Not all taxes are paid by everyone....if i don't drink, then i will never pay a liquor tax, if i don't take out my 401k money early then i will never have to pay a 10% tax penalty for early withdrawl.... they are taxes none the less is what roberts says...imo.