Is it a tax or is it a penalty?

[M14 Shooter]

Well shit, if that's all you wanted to know, why didn't you just ask? That's an easy one!

No, it's not all I wanted to know.
I presume you concede the point regarding the difference between tax and penalty...?

No. Because, it seems your whole argument is that if it raises revenue, it's a tax. If it costs a citizen due to inaction, then it's a penalty. And it cannot, under any circumstance, be both.

You are not paying attention.
If you refuse to pay attention, I cannot do anything to help you better understand the issue.

Taxes exist to raise revenue.
Fines are penalties for not following the law; the fact that they raise revenue is incidental to the fact that they exist as a consequence for not following the law.

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.

Thus, the difference is plain, as are the constitutional requirements for laying/placing each.

 

[IHBF]

So, it is a tax, not a penalty.
That is, you are not penalized for not following the mandate, but taxed.

Not according to the Kaiser foundation:
They say it's a fine.

The court, and the President - at least half the time - disagrees.
The only way the issue passes constitutional muster is if it is a tax.

Fuckin no integrity asswagon hacks will deceive and deny a fuckin holocaust of gas chambers to protect their dear leader.

The Supreme Court said its a fucking tax. Therefore it's a tax.

Obama lied.

 

[BDBoop]

Not according to the Kaiser foundation:
They say it's a fine.

The court, and the President - at least half the time - disagrees.
The only way the issue passes constitutional muster is if it is a tax.

Fuckin no integrity asswagon hacks will deceive and deny a fuckin holocaust of gas chambers to protect their dear leader.

The Supreme Court said its a fucking tax. Therefore it's a tax.

Obama lied.

The Supreme Court MADE it into a tax, so no. He didn't lie.

 

[DontBeStupid]

So, it is a tax, not a penalty.
That is, you are not penalized for not following the mandate, but taxed.

Not according to the Kaiser foundation:
They say it's a fine.

The court, and the President - at least half the time - disagrees.
The only way the issue passes constitutional muster is if it is a tax.

Well, unless it's an Excise or Impost you mean. Right?

"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States"

 

[DontBeStupid]

No, it's not all I wanted to know.
I presume you concede the point regarding the difference between tax and penalty...?

No. Because, it seems your whole argument is that if it raises revenue, it's a tax. If it costs a citizen due to inaction, then it's a penalty. And it cannot, under any circumstance, be both.

You are not paying attention.
If you refuse to pay attention, I cannot do anything to help you better understand the issue.

Taxes exist to raise revenue.
Fines are penalties for not following the law; the fact that they raise revenue is incidental to the fact that they exist as a consequence for not following the law.

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.

Thus, the difference is plain, as are the constitutional requirements for laying/placing each.

So you have an answer to a question you are hounding people over?

Priceless.

 

[IHBF]

The court, and the President - at least half the time - disagrees.
The only way the issue passes constitutional muster is if it is a tax.

Fuckin no integrity asswagon hacks will deceive and deny a fuckin holocaust of gas chambers to protect their dear leader.

The Supreme Court said its a fucking tax. Therefore it's a tax.

Obama lied.

The Supreme Court MADE it into a tax, so no. He didn't lie.

So it's a tax. We agree.

Well being the great constitutional law professor the left thought he was, he should have known the only way it'd be constitutional would be to be a tax. So either he is ignorant or he has no integrity. Because if he had integrity, he would say "I didn't know it would be a tax. I no longer support it if it's a tax."

 

[The T]

No. Because, it seems your whole argument is that if it raises revenue, it's a tax. If it costs a citizen due to inaction, then it's a penalty. And it cannot, under any circumstance, be both.

I disagree.

But the MONEY goes where, Stupid?

Which is my point!

Fee. Tax. Fine. Penalty. All that money goes to the Federal Government. The Federal Government has the right to raise revenue. I don't see why M14 is making such a big deal out of this and not just saying his opinion.

MY Point is I understand the parsing by the OP which is correct as PER the SCOTUS...My contention is it still unjestly ROBS citizens of thier property, and a LAW that should have never been passed to begin with.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Not according to the Kaiser foundation:
They say it's a fine.

The court, and the President - at least half the time - disagrees.
The only way the issue passes constitutional muster is if it is a tax.

Fuckin no integrity asswagon hacks will deceive and deny a fuckin holocaust of gas chambers to protect their dear leader.

The Supreme Court said its a fucking tax. Therefore it's a tax.

Obama lied.

The Obama, thru his surrogates, said it was a tax.
The Obama, thru his surrogates, said it was a penalty.
The two are mutuallty exclusive, so it cannot be both.
The Obama knows it cannot be both, thaty is must be one or the other.
As such, He knew one of His statements was false
And so, The Obama knowingly made a false statement -- that is, he Lied.

 

[DontBeStupid]

But the MONEY goes where, Stupid?

Which is my point!

Fee. Tax. Fine. Penalty. All that money goes to the Federal Government. The Federal Government has the right to raise revenue. I don't see why M14 is making such a big deal out of this and not just saying his opinion.

MY Point is I understand the parsing by the OP which is correct as PER the SCOTUS...My contention is it still unjestly ROBS citizens of thier property, and a LAW that should have never been passed to begin with.

It only "robs" you of your property because you are choosing to adversely affect your fellow citizens. No citizen should be allowed to harm another with repercussions.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Not according to the Kaiser foundation:
They say it's a fine.

The court, and the President - at least half the time - disagrees.
The only way the issue passes constitutional muster is if it is a tax.

Well, unless it's an Excise or Impost you mean. Right?

Neither of these were brought up, and neither really fit into the hole.

 

[M14 Shooter]

No. Because, it seems your whole argument is that if it raises revenue, it's a tax. If it costs a citizen due to inaction, then it's a penalty. And it cannot, under any circumstance, be both.

You are not paying attention.
If you refuse to pay attention, I cannot do anything to help you better understand the issue.

Taxes exist to raise revenue.
Fines are penalties for not following the law; the fact that they raise revenue is incidental to the fact that they exist as a consequence for not following the law.

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.

Thus, the difference is plain, as are the constitutional requirements for laying/placing each.

So you have an answer to a question you are hounding people over?

Were you going to concede the point or explain how I am wrong...?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Which is my point!

Fee. Tax. Fine. Penalty. All that money goes to the Federal Government. The Federal Government has the right to raise revenue. I don't see why M14 is making such a big deal out of this and not just saying his opinion.

MY Point is I understand the parsing by the OP which is correct as PER the SCOTUS...My contention is it still unjestly ROBS citizens of thier property, and a LAW that should have never been passed to begin with.

It only "robs" you of your property because you are choosing to adversely affect your fellow citizens. No citizen should be allowed to harm another with repercussions.

Not having insurance in no way necessarily harms anyone.

 

[DontBeStupid]

MY Point is I understand the parsing by the OP which is correct as PER the SCOTUS...My contention is it still unjestly ROBS citizens of thier property, and a LAW that should have never been passed to begin with.

It only "robs" you of your property because you are choosing to adversely affect your fellow citizens. No citizen should be allowed to harm another with repercussions.

Not having insurance in no way necessarily harms anyone.

Until, of course, you get sick. Which is kind of the point.

 

[M14 Shooter]

It only "robs" you of your property because you are choosing to adversely affect your fellow citizens. No citizen should be allowed to harm another with repercussions.

Not having insurance in no way necessarily harms anyone.

Until, of course, you get sick. Which is kind of the point.

Not having insurance in no way necessarily harms anyone - even when that person gets sick.

 

[The T]

To the OP:

As a matter of course? I understand your premise, and the parsing. Fair enough, in fact? I support your OP, I however cannot vote in your poll as I say it is both as regardless of symantics, robs citizens of thier property no matter how it's parsed.

I opt no vote. Sorry.

 

[M14 Shooter]

To the OP:
As a matter of course? I understand your premise, and the parsing. Fair enough, in fact? I support your OP, I however cannot vote in your poll as I say it is both as regardless of symantics, robs citizens of thier property no matter how it's parsed.
I opt no vote. Sorry.

10-4.

 

[Buford]

It's a tax. It's a penalty. It's one big fucked up mess.

 

[DontBeStupid]

Not having insurance in no way necessarily harms anyone.

Until, of course, you get sick. Which is kind of the point.

Not having insurance in no way necessarily harms anyone - even when that person gets sick.

You should really read up on this topic.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

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.

"Obamacare will provide millions of families with large tax credits to make health care more affordable. Only about 1 percent of Americans who could afford health care but don’t buy coverage would have to pay the tax, and the penalty would only be an average of $600."

Major Tax-Cut For Middle Class

*

 

[boedicca]

It's an Obamanation.

Taxes shouldn't be used to regulate behavior; taxes are supposed to raise funds necessary for the operation of government.