Taxing bad behavior

[oldernwiser]

And the Mandate Tax is taxing NON-behavior.....

It's ironic to me that Roberts felt good about limiting the commerce clause but apparently sees the power to tax as utterly unlimited - and wants it to remain such. Anyway, it's been the precedent for many years. I think it will take an amendment of the Constitution to steer things back in the right direction. And the corporatists will likely be able to block that.

You really think Roberts limited the Commerce Clause in his decision? I believe he side-stepped it. Remember that SCOTUS in 1946 affirmed in essence that something that crossed state lines was commerce unless congress said otherwise - which gave rise to McCarran-Fergusson (making insurance NOT commerce) the following year. Roberts never went back to this, choosing instead to view it as Congressional privilege to create a tax.

It's interesting to me that ACA supersedes McCarran-Fergusson and makes insurance a commerce again so that Sherman Anti-Trust laws can be applied to it. Congress can do a lot more than just tax.

The Constitution gives Congress the right to levy taxes but never implies a limit on those taxes. My guess is that the founders figured that if you get tired of paying too much, you can exercise another right in the Constitution and put someone in office that's a bit more moderate.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Not really sure what you're going on about here - other than trying to avoid the point. Which was that your "We the people have decided" comment was ignorant and has nothing to do with the topic. Well done.

Stay on track, and stop deflecting. Your ignorance is that you refuse to accept constitutional, electoral process as defined by the Constitution and the will of We the People. You are in the minority, you lost, SCOTUS decided against you, it's over.

Really?

You don't remember the Town Hall meetings after this piece of shit legislation was passed? We the People were PISSED and showed it in 2010!! ACA was crammed through "before we could read it" and upheld by a SCOTUS of APPOINTED judges. The "will of We the People" will be heard, loud and clear, this November.

Public petition and protest is good, and a minority of Americans did that.

You got beat solidly in the 2008 election fair and square, the Congress passed ACA, and SCOTUS upheld it.

That is We the People in action.

Americans certainly have the right to return a GOP president and Congress this fall.

If so, Romney and the GOP are going to revise and reform ACA. It is not going away.

I am glad you are talking about following constitutional, electoral process.

 

[JakeStarkey]

dblack misanalyzes the following quote that is 21/2 years old.

Health care costs are increasing much faster than the growth in the economy, grossdomestic production (GDP), and wages. Such increases, if unchecked, threaten the financialstability of individuals and businesses, and the future viability of our gains in health care access.Massachusetts is a national leader in health care. In the Commonwealth, we benefit from highly ranked health plans and hospitals, and we also have strong market reforms protecting access to health care that are a national model. As a result of Chapter 58, Massachusetts has expandedcoverage to 97% of the population through the shared responsibility of individuals andemployers. These landmark gains in access, however, are jeopardized by unsustainable increasesin health care costs in Massachusetts


The AG in Massachusetts states health care costs threatens the outstanding job that the state is doing in health care. That is what ACA will take care of: the costs.

 

[dblack]

You really think Roberts limited the Commerce Clause in his decision?

Only by choosing not to allow it's expansion (by authorizing the mandate as a exercise of commerce regulation).

The Constitution gives Congress the right to levy taxes but never implies a limit on those taxes. My guess is that the founders figured that if you get tired of paying too much, you can exercise another right in the Constitution and put someone in office that's a bit more moderate.

In my view it's a question of equal protection. I'm not sure whether the fourteenth amendment can be adequately applied to limit the taxation power, or not - though obviously I believe it should be. If not, we need an amendment that prohibits using taxation for social engineer or to otherwise manipulate behavior. I have a hard time imagining that the creators of the constitution justified the taxation power for that purpose.

 

[oldernwiser]

You really think Roberts limited the Commerce Clause in his decision?

Only by choosing not to allow it's expansion (by authorizing the mandate as a exercise of commerce regulation).

The Constitution gives Congress the right to levy taxes but never implies a limit on those taxes. My guess is that the founders figured that if you get tired of paying too much, you can exercise another right in the Constitution and put someone in office that's a bit more moderate.

In my view it's a question of equal protection. I'm not sure whether the fourteenth amendment can be adequately applied to limit the taxation power, or not - though obviously I believe it should be. If not, we need an amendment that prohibits using taxation for social engineer or to otherwise manipulate behavior. I have a hard time imagining that the creators of the constitution justified the taxation power for that purpose.

There have been quite a few challenges to the Taxation clause taking that same line of reasoning and all of them failed. SCOTUS has consistently said that taxes are a function of Congress, period.

Unfortunately, it's harder to lose a tax than it is to assess one.

 

[dblack]

You really think Roberts limited the Commerce Clause in his decision?

Only by choosing not to allow it's expansion (by authorizing the mandate as a exercise of commerce regulation).

The Constitution gives Congress the right to levy taxes but never implies a limit on those taxes. My guess is that the founders figured that if you get tired of paying too much, you can exercise another right in the Constitution and put someone in office that's a bit more moderate.

In my view it's a question of equal protection. I'm not sure whether the fourteenth amendment can be adequately applied to limit the taxation power, or not - though obviously I believe it should be. If not, we need an amendment that prohibits using taxation for social engineer or to otherwise manipulate behavior. I have a hard time imagining that the creators of the constitution justified the taxation power for that purpose.

There have been quite a few challenges to the Taxation clause taking that same line of reasoning and all of them failed. SCOTUS has consistently said that taxes are a function of Congress, period.

Unfortunately, it's harder to lose a tax than it is to assess one.

Obviously taxation is a function of Congress. I wouldn't presume to challenge that. The question is whether taxation should be used as a means of control, as de-facto legislation punishing certain behaviors. Roberts, and most of the court as far as I know, sides with precedent in the view that it's ok. I think that's bullshit. In any case, it will probably take an amendment to change it - and we don't seem to allow those any more.

 

[Skull Pilot]

The fucking government needs to end its ham-handed social engineering experiments.

 

[oldernwiser]

Only by choosing not to allow it's expansion (by authorizing the mandate as a exercise of commerce regulation).



In my view it's a question of equal protection. I'm not sure whether the fourteenth amendment can be adequately applied to limit the taxation power, or not - though obviously I believe it should be. If not, we need an amendment that prohibits using taxation for social engineer or to otherwise manipulate behavior. I have a hard time imagining that the creators of the constitution justified the taxation power for that purpose.

There have been quite a few challenges to the Taxation clause taking that same line of reasoning and all of them failed. SCOTUS has consistently said that taxes are a function of Congress, period.

Unfortunately, it's harder to lose a tax than it is to assess one.

Obviously taxation is a function of Congress. I wouldn't presume to challenge that. The question is whether taxation should be used as a means of control, as de-facto legislation punishing certain behaviors. Roberts, and most of the court as far as I know, sides with precedent in the view that it's ok. I think that's bullshit. In any case, it will probably take an amendment to change it - and we don't seem to allow those any more.

I don't know if I could get behind a Constitutional limit - that's the one document you need to be able to have the widest possible limits on. But, Congress COULD set up a limiting law to prevent future sessions from creating penalty taxes without first changing the limits. The downside of that of course is that the states would still be free to do what they wanted.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Either an activity or a substance is legal or it's not.

If legal then there should be no government tax meant to curb use or participation period.

If you want to end smoking, drinking, tanning, eating sugar etc ad nauseum then try to make it all illegal.

 

[Big Fitz]

Either an activity or a substance is legal or it's not.

If legal then there should be no government tax meant to curb use or participation period.

If you want to end smoking, drinking, tanning, eating sugar etc ad nauseum then try to make it all illegal.

If you want more of something, subsidize it.
If you want less, tax it.

SO apparently this nation wants MORE poor people and LESS rich people.

 

[oldernwiser]

Either an activity or a substance is legal or it's not.

If legal then there should be no government tax meant to curb use or participation period.

If you want to end smoking, drinking, tanning, eating sugar etc ad nauseum then try to make it all illegal.

Unfortunately, the use taxes aren't used to actually make you quit using the item. If the item was made illegal or taxed too aggressively, then the government would lose a revenue stream.

On the other hand, tariffs - which is just another form of taxation - are used to curb use and participation. Their use has been around forever as a means of controlling what we buy by artificially increasing the cost of certain products above the cost of products the government is endorsing. It's the same rationale, and it has proved beneficial at times.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The fucking government needs to end its ham-handed social engineering experiments.

Darn mandatory armed forces integration (1948) or the Civil Rights Bill (1964) and so forth.

You folks who consist of less than 3% have every right to protest and the majority has every right to tell you that you are crazy.

 

[signelect]

You can't tax someone who doesn't have any money but Obama doesn't get that because he has always worked in a sector that depends on someone giving them money instead of them making it themselves.

 

[oldernwiser]

You can't tax someone who doesn't have any money but Obama doesn't get that because he has always worked in a sector that depends on someone giving them money instead of them making it themselves.

Oh yes they can. And if you want the goods or services that you CAN afford, you WILL pay whatever tax comes along with it. End of that story.

As applied to ACA, though, if you truly have no money then the service will be provided to you at no-, or significantly reduced-cost.

 

[Skull Pilot]

The fucking government needs to end its ham-handed social engineering experiments.

Darn mandatory armed forces integration (1948) or the Civil Rights Bill (1964) and so forth.

You folks who consist of less than 3% have every right to protest and the majority has every right to tell you that you are crazy.

Establishing equal protection under the law for all regardless of race was not social engineering you fucking idiot. It was the equal impartial application of the law.

 

[oldernwiser]

The fucking government needs to end its ham-handed social engineering experiments.

Darn mandatory armed forces integration (1948) or the Civil Rights Bill (1964) and so forth.

You folks who consist of less than 3% have every right to protest and the majority has every right to tell you that you are crazy.

Excise tax on Tobacco (1862), Prohibition of Alcohol (1920), War on Drugs (1974). All examples of the majority telling the minority just how crazy they are.

 

[JakeStarkey]

"Social engineering" is the use of governmental force to change cultural and social behavior.

You are dense, very very dense.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The fucking government needs to end its ham-handed social engineering experiments.

Darn mandatory armed forces integration (1948) or the Civil Rights Bill (1964) and so forth.

You folks who consist of less than 3% have every right to protest and the majority has every right to tell you that you are crazy.

Excise tax on Tobacco (1862), Prohibition of Alcohol (1920), War on Drugs (1974). All examples of the majority telling the minority just how crazy they are.

Fugitive Slave Law (1850) as well. The silliness is to suggest that 'social engineering' as suggested by SP and others is somehow impartial and equal application. Jeez, some weak minds on the Board and the far right.

 

[oldernwiser]

"Social engineering" is the use of governmental force to change cultural and social behavior.

You are dense, very very dense.

Are you saying that's something our government doesn't engage in?

 

[Skull Pilot]

"Social engineering" is the use of governmental force to change cultural and social behavior.

You are dense, very very dense.

Actually your definition is wrong

social engineering - definition of social engineering by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

social engineering
n
(Sociology) the manipulation of the social position and function of individuals in order to manage change in a society

Only a moron would consider equal protection under the law social engineering.