Quantum Windbag
Gold Member
- May 9, 2010
- 58,308
- 5,099
- 245
You haven't shown anything. Your claim is still the same "it's unconstitutional because I say it is" junk you've been trotting out all along. You try to bring a Supreme Court case in to it, but the analogy you make doesn't hold, so you start throwing another temper tantrum.
Bullshit.
You know what the problem with trying to say you did not say something when everything you say is recorded? People can go back and show you what you said.
You posted this:
I disagree with your belief that "discriminatory taxation" is wrong. There is a legitimate public interest in incentivizing certain behaviors and actions. Where I do agree is that this action shouldn't be done via the tax code. It creates highly inefficient outcomes.
I then posted a Supreme Court case that specifically allowed a company to challenge taxes because they are discriminatory. That shows that your belief that taxes are allowed to discriminate if the intent is promote behaviors and actions that you find are legitimate.
My sole purpose was to show you that your belief did not fit the facts in the real world, and you have run around for a couple of pages accusing me making unsupported statements. If I express an opinion I know it is an opinion, and say so. This was not an opinion, you were wrong.
To reiterate.
I have proven your opinion that discriminatory taxation to enact social policy is indeed wrong under our law. You yourself have stated that you think using the tax code to accomplish social engineering, but you support it because you agree with the goal of the social engineering. My opinion (note that I am not going to back this up with any link, I will simply let you do so for me) is that you would scream if you disagreed with the social engineering goal, but I expect you view that as being consistent. Personally, I oppose using the tax code for social engineering period, even if I like the goals.
Two separate issues. One is your opinion that social engineering through discriminatory taxation is right, the other is the mandate itself. Discrimination is always wrong, which makes your support of it wrong. I believe that the mandate is unconstitutional, but I have seen some very good arguments about why it is not. A couple of them have been so persuasive that I believe that the Supreme Court might actually have some sound arguments to support it if they choose to do so. Not one of them came from anyone on this board because everyone here does exactly what you say I am going, and claiming it is constitutional simply because they say it is.
Yes, that includes you.
You keep falling in to the same hole. I never said the taxes were discriminatory. That was a quotation of your claim.
You did, however, say that you do not believe discriminatory taxation is wrong. I responded by showing that pointing out that the Supreme Court disagrees. Since then you have been trying to argue that I said something else, and that you did not say something other than what I am responding to.
Are you stuck in some time of warp where you cannot simply admit that someone disagrees with your point, and that pertinent court precedents back me up.
By the way, it was not a quotation of mine you responded to in the first place.
Thanks for playing.