Obama solicitor general: If you don't like mandate, EARN LESS MONEY

[The Rabbi]

By that logic you could say that people with 4 children are being subsidized by people with 3 children, etc.

And they are. Nothing stupid about recognizing that. Deductions that aren't legitimate business expenses are about manipulating our behavior. We selectively implement them to encourage some activities and punish others. It's high time this practice was recognized as an end-run around constitutional limitations on the government's power over us.

No they are not.

I agree that deductions designed to make social changes are wrong and beyond what gov't ought to do.
But that's a separate argument for a different thread.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

You think the difference between railroad and other firms in that case is analogous to the difference between those who have insurance and those who don't have insurance. The problem is that analogy doesn't add up. There is a pretty clear difference between the two cases. Namely, Alabama's taxation of railroads at a different rate from its competitors is discriminating against railroads for an inherent property they possess. There is nothing inherent about an individual not having health insurance.

I do not.

I know that SCOTUS rarely allows taxpayers to challenge the basis of their taxation. I understand that the only way they allow this is if that taxation is discriminatory or unconstitutional. This decision specifically allowed one business to challenge the taxes that were placed on it that were not placed on other businesses specifically because they allege that the government wanted to engineer social policy through taxation. That specifically proves that your belief that it is permissible is wrong.

You claim that's not what you're doing, then run around and immediately state that's what you're doing. And it still runs into the same problem: inherent properties are substantively different.

Try this one one for size genius.

I pointed out that decision to show you were wrong about a specific point you were trying to make. I then talk to other people about other things that are not related to that specific decision that talk about the things your genius tells you I think that decision means. The reason you have a problem separating them is that you think that it is only possible to maintain one position at a time because your brain is not capable of using threading to maintain a cohesive defense on multiple fronts.

In other words, just because you cannot think does not mean everyone cannot.

 

[dblack]

I agree that deductions designed to make social changes are wrong and beyond what gov't ought to do.
But that's a separate argument for a different thread.

I don't think so. This is a thread about the individual mandate - and one of the claims of the white house is that it's the equivalent of a tax hike, with an accompanying deduction/incentive for people who do as they're told and buy insurance. It's a valid equivalence, but it's bad policy - for the same reason that all the other social engineering tax policies are.

 

[The Rabbi]

I agree that deductions designed to make social changes are wrong and beyond what gov't ought to do.
But that's a separate argument for a different thread.

I don't think so. This is a thread about the individual mandate - and one of the claims of the white house is that it's the equivalent of a tax hike, with an accompanying deduction/incentive for people who do as they're told and buy insurance. It's a valid equivalence, but it's bad policy - for the same reason that all the other social engineering tax policies are.

Except it isn't a valid comparison. SO other than the fact that it's wrong, it's a good argument.

 

[dblack]

Except it isn't a valid comparison.

Why not? Functionally, it's the same thing. If they weren't too chickenshit to use the word 'tax', they could have avoided the whole constitutional issue by simply calling it a tax increase, with an incentive/deduction in the same amount as the penalty. The only think different about the current setup is the terminology.

 

[The Rabbi]

Except it isn't a valid comparison.

Why not? Functionally, it's the same thing. If they weren't too chickenshit to use the word 'tax', they could have avoided the whole constitutional issue by simply calling it a tax increase, with an incentive/deduction in the same amount as the penalty. The only think different about the current setup is the terminology.

Except no one is penalized for having no children. Or renting. Or any other thing the gov't gives deductions for.
I the case of the mandate you must write a check to the gov't if you do not have insurance. Even if you have no income,you are still penalized.

 

[Greenbeard]

Even if you have no income,you are still penalized.

Huh? I'm guessing folks with no income are below the filing threshold. Thus they're not subject to the individual mandate.

 

[RDD_1210]

Except it isn't a valid comparison.

Why not? Functionally, it's the same thing. If they weren't too chickenshit to use the word 'tax', they could have avoided the whole constitutional issue by simply calling it a tax increase, with an incentive/deduction in the same amount as the penalty. The only think different about the current setup is the terminology.

Except no one is penalized for having no children. Or renting. Or any other thing the gov't gives deductions for.
I the case of the mandate you must write a check to the gov't if you do not have insurance. Even if you have no income,you are still penalized.

Not surprisingly, you are misinformed.

 

[The Rabbi]

Even if you have no income,you are still penalized.

Huh? I'm guessing folks with no income are below the filing threshold. Thus they're not subject to the individual mandate.

So If I have my house paid for and am sitting on $3M in cash and spending that then the gov't is also going to give me money for a health care voucher?
I thought the Dems hated the rich???

 

[dblack]

Except no one is penalized for having no children. Or renting. Or any other thing the gov't gives deductions for.

Sure they are. If you don't qualify for a deduction you have to pay more in taxes. It's exactly the same thing for the mandate. Surely you can see that. They could rewrite the bill to impose a tax increase in exactly the same amounts as the proposed penalties, and then give a deduction in the same amount to everyone who followed orders and bought insurance. It would be exactly the same thing - we'd just be calling it something else.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not highlighting this equivalence because I believe it proves the mandate is ok - quite the opposite. I'm trying to wake people up to the scam of a convoluted tax code filled with these kinds of incentive/mandates. If you can recognize the individual mandate as the grotesque government encroachment that is, then you have to recognize that these kinds of mandates have been going on for a long time, pushing us around like herd animals to serve the interests of those who cook this shit up - usually the corporate interests that the Democrats pretend to be protecting us from.

 

[The Rabbi]

If you're not a corporation then you don't qualify for corporate tax rates. If you aren't a farmer then you dont pay tax on farm income.
You could go all day like this. The tax code treats different situations and different income differently. You can argue that is wrong. ANd that's another discussion.
BUt it is based on income. Under the mandate, you pay a set amount whether you make $75k or 250k, whether you earn it from stock dividends or digging ditches. That isn't a tax based on anything. That is a penalty for not doing what the gov't wants you to do.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Except no one is penalized for having no children. Or renting. Or any other thing the gov't gives deductions for.

Sure they are. If you don't qualify for a deduction you have to pay more in taxes. It's exactly the same thing for the mandate. Surely you can see that. They could rewrite the bill to impose a tax increase in exactly the same amounts as the proposed penalties, and then give a deduction in the same amount to everyone who followed orders and bought insurance. It would be exactly the same thing - we'd just be calling it something else.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not highlighting this equivalence because I believe it proves the mandate is ok - quite the opposite. I'm trying to wake people up to the scam of a convoluted tax code filled with these kinds of incentive/mandates. If you can recognize the individual mandate as the grotesque government encroachment that is, then you have to recognize that these kinds of mandates have been going on for a long time, pushing us around like herd animals to serve the interests of those who cook this shit up - usually the corporate interests that the Democrats pretend to be protecting us from.

What are they taxing? Every other tax that is imposed on the people of the united states is imposed on earnings or property. This particular tax targets the fact that I am alive. How is that even remotely legal?

 

[Greenbeard]

BUt it is based on income. Under the mandate, you pay a set amount whether you make $75k or 250k, whether you earn it from stock dividends or digging ditches. That isn't a tax based on anything.

The amount you pay isn't set, it's 2.5 percent of income (with a minimum payment of $695), capped at the average national premium for a bronze health plan.

 

[The Rabbi]

BUt it is based on income. Under the mandate, you pay a set amount whether you make $75k or 250k, whether you earn it from stock dividends or digging ditches. That isn't a tax based on anything.

The amount you pay isn't set, it's 2.5 percent of income (with a minimum payment of $695), capped at the average national premium for a bronze health plan.

So what is it a tax on?

 

[Greenbeard]

So what is it a tax on?

You asked what it's "based on" and implied it was a fixed fee, just as you falsely implied people below the filing threshold pay it. It's based on income.

 

[The Rabbi]

So what is it a tax on?

You asked what it's "based on" and implied it was a fixed fee, just as you falsely implied people below the filing threshold pay it. It's based on income.

That wasn't what I asked.
I asked what is it a tax on?

 

[dblack]

This particular tax targets the fact that I am alive. How is that even remotely legal?

If they rewrote it as a tax, it would be taxing income, or call it a 'head' tax. That doesn't really have anything to do with the point I'm making.

In any case, as it is - it's not a tax. They have to live by their own word games, and for that reason it is, in my estimation unconstitutional. But I do think they've done us all a great service by highlighting how much the tax code has become the government's principle tool for manipulating our lives.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

This particular tax targets the fact that I am alive. How is that even remotely legal?

If they rewrote it as a tax, it would be taxing income, or call it a 'head' tax. That doesn't really have anything to do with the point I'm making.

In any case, as it is - it's not a tax. They have to live by their own word games, and for that reason it is, in my estimation unconstitutional. But I do think they've done us all a great service by highlighting how much the tax code has become the government's principle tool for manipulating our lives.

Head taxes are probably unconstitutional.

I hope they have opened everyone's eyes to the tax code.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

So what is it a tax on?

You asked what it's "based on" and implied it was a fixed fee, just as you falsely implied people below the filing threshold pay it. It's based on income.

It is not based on income, it is based on not having an insurance policy, and scaled to income.

 

[dblack]

It is not based on income, it is based on not having an insurance policy, and scaled to income.

They could simply call it an across the board tax increase, on income, and offer deductions for having health insurance. But that's not what they did. Obama and the Democrats were very clear on that - they were not raising taxes. Their lack of political honestly will (hopefully) be the undoing of this horrible bill.