Is it a tax or is it a penalty?

[Liability]

Hey!...You got tax all over my penalty!

No!...You got penalty all over my tax!

Now you can have to crappy things that go worse together, with Obunglercare!

Hey Ma! This ObamaTax tastes like shit!

 

[SniperFire]

The Supremes made the call on this difficult issue.

. . . Apparently believing that Congress couldn't possibly be trusted to ue the term they felt most appropriate. And possibly believing tht Congress should not be trusted with sharp objects.

Not tht the SCOTUS is necessarily wrong in either assumption, but that still doesn't make it proper for the SCOTUS to legislate from the bench, as they did.

ObamaTax is a revenue matter, and the Congress can deal with it accordingly with simple majorities.

They can. They will. ObamaCare is dead. ObamaTax will get repealed.

I have a related question.

If ObamaTax is just a tax (whereby the put a tax on the economic choice not to buy a product or service), and the SCOTUS says it was a valid use of the government's taxing authority, then what matters of purely social/political concern can Congress not address via the tax authority?

In the olden days, wasn't the taxing authority merely another way of saying that Congress can raise revenues? At what point did that get morphed to assert that Congress may use the raising of revenues as a tool to address other political issues?

And if they can permissibly do that, then in what way is it limited? Do the precepts of our Constitutional Republic still constrain the Federal Government to its enumerated powers and limited authority?

Or is the taxing authority a new trump card that makes the reach of Congress something that cannot be limited anymore?

I have said several times that the downside to this is there appears to be no limit to Federal taxing authority, and that it seems to be a flaw in the Constution which does not limit the broad powers of Congress to tax. But I am not expert on this.

I do wonder, however, how the Supremes agreeing with Congressional legislation can be construed as legislating from the bench?

 

[DontBeStupid]

It's a tax penalty. Similar to the ones I currently pay for not being married and not having children.

I asked:

Do you understand that there is a difference and why that difference matters?

Your answer: No, both counts.

Just because you don't like my answer doesn't make it wrong. The tax penalizes those who don't have insurance, much the way I am penalized for not having kids or a spouse or a house.

Why do you think they're different?

 

[Black_Label]

Willard = It's a penalty

Willard's advisers = It's a penalty

Obama = It's a penalty.

It's pretty easy to see what it is, but the right wing propaganda machine came out with the "It's a tax!" BS in their desperation after getting their asses kicked on the ACA ruling. The right wing sheep sure are lapping up the trash like no tomorrow, aren't they?

 

[M14 Shooter]

I did address the issue directly.

You did not.

What is it in Mass? Then that's what it is in the US.

I rest my case.

Yes, I did.

Keep deluding yourself.

 

[SniperFire]

Willard = It's a penalty

Willard's advisers = It's a penalty

Obama = It's a penalty.

Supremes = It's a tax.


Supremes win.

 

[M14 Shooter]

It's a tax penalty. Similar to the ones I currently pay for not being married and not having children.

I asked:

Do you understand that there is a difference and why that difference matters?

Your answer: No, both counts.

Just because you don't like my answer doesn't make it wrong.

No... the fact that your answer is wrong makes it wrong.

Taxes raise revenue.
Penatlies are a criminal/civil punishment for not following the law.
The difference is plain, as are the constitutional requirements for laying/placing each.

You are -not- penalized for not having kids, a spouse or a house as you do not pay anything to the government for not following the law.

So... tax or penalty?

 

[Liability]

The Supremes made the call on this difficult issue.

. . . Apparently believing that Congress couldn't possibly be trusted to ue the term they felt most appropriate. And possibly believing tht Congress should not be trusted with sharp objects.

Not tht the SCOTUS is necessarily wrong in either assumption, but that still doesn't make it proper for the SCOTUS to legislate from the bench, as they did.

ObamaTax is a revenue matter, and the Congress can deal with it accordingly with simple majorities.

They can. They will. ObamaCare is dead. ObamaTax will get repealed.

I have a related question.

If ObamaTax is just a tax (whereby the put a tax on the economic choice not to buy a product or service), and the SCOTUS says it was a valid use of the government's taxing authority, then what matters of purely social/political concern can Congress not address via the tax authority?

In the olden days, wasn't the taxing authority merely another way of saying that Congress can raise revenues? At what point did that get morphed to assert that Congress may use the raising of revenues as a tool to address other political issues?

And if they can permissibly do that, then in what way is it limited? Do the precepts of our Constitutional Republic still constrain the Federal Government to its enumerated powers and limited authority?

Or is the taxing authority a new trump card that makes the reach of Congress something that cannot be limited anymore?

I have said several times that the downside to this is there appears to be no limit to Federal taxing authority, and that it seems to be a flaw in the Constution which does not limit the broad powers of Congress to tax. But I am not expert on this.

I do wonder, however, how the Supremes agreeing with Congressional legislation can be construed as legislating from the bench?

As to the latter question, the SCOTUS did NOT aggee with Congressional legislation.

CONGRESS said it was a "penalty."

SCOTUS said if it's a penalty, it can't be saved. So the penalty is actually a tax. The SCOTUS basis for that claim? SCOTUS itself SAID so.

That's legislating from the bench.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Willard = It's a penalty
Willard's advisers = It's a penalty
Obama = It's a penalty.
It's pretty easy to see what it is, but the right wing propaganda machine came out with the "It's a tax!"....

The Solicitor General told the court it was a tax.
The court called it a tax.
The court and the SG are part of the right wing propaganda machine?

And so... on what grounds do you call it a penalty, and where does Congress get the power to lay this penalty when Congress does not have the power to create the requirement in question?

 

[Dot Com]

penalty

 

[SniperFire]

. . . Apparently believing that Congress couldn't possibly be trusted to ue the term they felt most appropriate. And possibly believing tht Congress should not be trusted with sharp objects.

Not tht the SCOTUS is necessarily wrong in either assumption, but that still doesn't make it proper for the SCOTUS to legislate from the bench, as they did.



They can. They will. ObamaCare is dead. ObamaTax will get repealed.

I have a related question.

If ObamaTax is just a tax (whereby the put a tax on the economic choice not to buy a product or service), and the SCOTUS says it was a valid use of the government's taxing authority, then what matters of purely social/political concern can Congress not address via the tax authority?

In the olden days, wasn't the taxing authority merely another way of saying that Congress can raise revenues? At what point did that get morphed to assert that Congress may use the raising of revenues as a tool to address other political issues?

And if they can permissibly do that, then in what way is it limited? Do the precepts of our Constitutional Republic still constrain the Federal Government to its enumerated powers and limited authority?

Or is the taxing authority a new trump card that makes the reach of Congress something that cannot be limited anymore?

I have said several times that the downside to this is there appears to be no limit to Federal taxing authority, and that it seems to be a flaw in the Constution which does not limit the broad powers of Congress to tax. But I am not expert on this.

I do wonder, however, how the Supremes agreeing with Congressional legislation can be construed as legislating from the bench?

As to the latter question, the SCOTUS did NOT aggee with Congressional legislation.

CONGRESS said it was a "penalty."

SCOTUS said if it's a penalty, it can't be saved. So the penalty is actually a tax. The SCOTUS basis for that claim? SCOTUS itself SAID so.

That's legislating from the bench.

It is a penalty rendered under Congress' taxing authority, is it not?

 

[M14 Shooter]

penalty

I shall ask you as well...

On what grounds do you call it a penalty, and where does Congress get the power to lay this penalty when Congress does not have the power to create the requirement in question?

 

[M14 Shooter]

I have said several times that the downside to this is there appears to be no limit to Federal taxing authority, and that it seems to be a flaw in the Constution which does not limit the broad powers of Congress to tax. But I am not expert on this.

I do wonder, however, how the Supremes agreeing with Congressional legislation can be construed as legislating from the bench?

As to the latter question, the SCOTUS did NOT aggee with Congressional legislation.

CONGRESS said it was a "penalty."

SCOTUS said if it's a penalty, it can't be saved. So the penalty is actually a tax. The SCOTUS basis for that claim? SCOTUS itself SAID so.

That's legislating from the bench.

It is a penalty rendered under Congress' taxing authority, is it not?

In order to penalize you for not following the law, Congress has to have the power to create the law that creates the requirement in question.

The Court said that Congress does not have the power to compel people to buy insurance, and therefore cannot have the power to penalize you for failing to do so.

 

[The T]

I have said several times that the downside to this is there appears to be no limit to Federal taxing authority, and that it seems to be a flaw in the Constution which does not limit the broad powers of Congress to tax. But I am not expert on this.

I do wonder, however, how the Supremes agreeing with Congressional legislation can be construed as legislating from the bench?

As to the latter question, the SCOTUS did NOT aggee with Congressional legislation.

CONGRESS said it was a "penalty."

SCOTUS said if it's a penalty, it can't be saved. So the penalty is actually a tax. The SCOTUS basis for that claim? SCOTUS itself SAID so.

That's legislating from the bench.

It is a penalty rendered under Congress' taxing authority, is it not?

In either case? Regardless of what moniker you paste upon it? It is robbing citizens of thier property...and unjustly.

 

[SniperFire]

As to the latter question, the SCOTUS did NOT aggee with Congressional legislation.

CONGRESS said it was a "penalty."

SCOTUS said if it's a penalty, it can't be saved. So the penalty is actually a tax. The SCOTUS basis for that claim? SCOTUS itself SAID so.

That's legislating from the bench.

It is a penalty rendered under Congress' taxing authority, is it not?

In order to penalize you for not following the law, Congress has to have the power to create the law that has the requirement.

The Court said that Congress does not have the powe to compel people to buy insurance, and therefore cannot have the power to penalize you for failing to do so.

The Court said that Congress does not have said power under the Commerce clause to force purchase, but said it could be argued as having such authority under its broad powers to lay tax on those who do not. I don't see much difference between this and other taxes for action / inaction of a consumer - such as the home mortgage deduction, for example.

But I could be wrong.

 

[blackhawk]

The Supreme Court said it was a tax they are the final word so a tax it is.

 

[Dr.Drock]

Under Obamacare, if you do not carry health insirance by a certain date, you will have to pay a % of your income to the Federal government.

The Suprme Court and the Solicitor General call this a tax:
Health reform: New taxes, fees and penalties - Jun. 28, 2012
Solicitor General Called Mandate a Tax - By Noah Glyn - The Corner - National Review Online

The Obama's administration calls this a penalty:
Obama camp: Mandate a penalty, not a tax - Washington Times

With whom do you agree, and why?
How is the other party wrong?
Do you understand that there is a difference and why that difference matters?

Neither, it's a privilege to have the honor to donate to The Obama government.

 

[DontBeStupid]

I asked:

Your answer: No, both counts.

Just because you don't like my answer doesn't make it wrong.

No... the fact that your answer is wrong makes it wrong.

Taxes raise revenue.
Penatlies are a criminal/civil punishment for not following the law.
The difference is plain, as are the constitutional requirements for laying/placing each.

You are -not- penalized for not having kids, a spouse or a house as you do not pay anything to the government for not following the law.

So... tax or penalty?

Fines also raise revenue and are punitive. I would love to see you apply your two word scenario to fines.

And despite what you think, I pay more in taxes because I choose to not be married, not own a home and not have kids. How is that any different from paying more for choosing to not have health insurance?

 

[SniperFire]

As to the latter question, the SCOTUS did NOT aggee with Congressional legislation.

CONGRESS said it was a "penalty."

SCOTUS said if it's a penalty, it can't be saved. So the penalty is actually a tax. The SCOTUS basis for that claim? SCOTUS itself SAID so.

That's legislating from the bench.

It is a penalty rendered under Congress' taxing authority, is it not?

In order to penalize you for not following the law, Congress has to have the power to create the law that creates the requirement in question.

The Court said that Congress does not have the power to compel people to buy insurance, and therefore cannot have the power to penalize you for failing to do so.

Here was the opinion:

Chief Justice Roberts wrote for the majority (also consisting of Justices Kagan, Sotomayor, Ginsburg, and Breyer) that the individual mandate is constitutional as a tax.

OPINION EXCERPT:

Under the mandate, if an individual does not maintain health insurance, the only consequence is that he must make an additional payment to the IRS when he pays his taxes. That…means the mandate can be regarded as establishing a condition – not owning health insurance – that triggers a tax – the required payment to the IRS. Under that theory, the mandate is not a legal command to buy insurance. Rather, it makes going without insurance just another thing the Government taxes, like buying gasoline or earning income [emphasis added].'

Westlaw Insider | Blog | In health care ruling, Roberts gives Congress broad Taxing Clause powers

 

[Liability]

It is a penalty rendered under Congress' taxing authority, is it not?

In order to penalize you for not following the law, Congress has to have the power to create the law that has the requirement.

The Court said that Congress does not have the powe to compel people to buy insurance, and therefore cannot have the power to penalize you for failing to do so.

The Court said that Congress does not have said power under the Commerce clause to force purchase, but said it could be argued as having such authority under its broad powers to lay tax on those who do not. I don't see much difference between this and other taxes for action / inaction of a consumer - such as the home mortgage deduction, for example.

But I could be wrong.

A home mortgage deduction is a deduction for an expense. The policy it supports is social engineering, whether we like and agree with that policy or not. But it doesn't compel anybody to buy vs rent.

By contrast, the purpose of the ObamaCare MANDATE is to compel us to buy -- whether we want to or not. And it PENALIZES the option of saying "no." Indeed, that's partly why Congress decided to CALL it a "penalty," not a 'tax."

Thus, it is not akin at all to a home mortgage deduction.

It is not akin to ANYTHING else in the American experience, for that matter.