Liability
Locked Account.
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!
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
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!
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 ObamaTax will get repealed.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 asked:It's a tax penalty. Similar to the ones I currently pay for not being married and not having children.
Your answer: No, both counts.Do you understand that there is a difference and why that difference matters?
Keep deluding yourself.Yes, I did.You did not.I did address the issue directly.
I rest my case.What is it in Mass? Then that's what it is in the US.
Willard = It's a penalty
Willard's advisers = It's a penalty
Obama = It's a penalty.
No... the fact that your answer is wrong makes it wrong.Just because you don't like my answer doesn't make it wrong.I asked:It's a tax penalty. Similar to the ones I currently pay for not being married and not having children.
Your answer: No, both counts.Do you understand that there is a difference and why that difference matters?
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?
The Solicitor General told the court it was a tax.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!"....
. . . 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.
I shall ask you as well...penalty
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.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?
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 has the requirement.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?
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.
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?
No... the fact that your answer is wrong makes it wrong.Just because you don't like my answer doesn't make it wrong.I asked:
Your answer: No, both counts.
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?
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.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?
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.
In order to penalize you for not following the law, Congress has to have the power to create the law that has the requirement.It is a penalty rendered under Congress' taxing authority, is it not?
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.