Is it a tax or is it a penalty?

[Misty]

Don't care. It's aimed at freeloaders that can afford insurance, but choose instead to depend on the rest of us to pay their bills. We hear all the time about how poor people are draining us dry. Why should those that aren't be getting a pass?

Here are your freeloaders.

Who are the uninsured?

They are predominantly Hispanic, American Indian, and African American.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Just because you don't like my answer doesn't make it wrong.

No... the fact that your answer is wrong makes it wrong.

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?

Fines also raise revenue and are punitive.

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

And despite what you think, I pay more in taxes because I choose to not be married, not own a home and not have kids.

Contrary to your claim, you do not pay a -penalty- for these things.

You may pay higher % in taxes because of your circumstance, but not a penalty; along your line of reasoning, people in higher tax brackets are penalized for making more money.

 

[The T]

The Supremes made the call on this difficult issue.

ObamaTax is a revenue matter, and the Congress can deal with it accordingly with simple majorities.

The Supremes gave Government a reason to rob property regardless of the label affixed to it.

Left the Constitution damaged in the process.

 

[M14 Shooter]

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 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.

Here was the opinion:

Chief Justice Roberts wrote for the majority (also consisting of Justices Kagan, Sotomayor, Ginsburg, and Breyer) that the individual mandate is constitutional as a tax.

OPINION EXCERPT:

Under the mandate, if an individual does not maintain health insurance, the only consequence is that he must make an additional payment to the IRS when he pays his taxes. That…means the mandate can be regarded as establishing a condition – not owning health insurance – that triggers a tax – the required payment to the IRS. Under that theory, the mandate is not a legal command to buy insurance. Rather, it makes going without insurance just another thing the Government taxes, like buying gasoline or earning income [emphasis added].'

Westlaw Insider | Blog | In health care ruling, Roberts gives Congress broad Taxing Clause powers

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

 

[DontBeStupid]

By contrast, the purpose of the ObamaCare MANDATE is to compel us to buy -- whether we want to or not.

Again, no, it does not.

The Mandate compels you to HAVE something not BUY something. There is a HUGE difference that you refuse to acknowledge.

 

[DontBeStupid]

No... the fact that your answer is wrong makes it wrong.

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?

Fines also raise revenue and are punitive.

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

And despite what you think, I pay more in taxes because I choose to not be married, not own a home and not have kids.

Contrary to your claim, you do not pay a -penalty- for these things.

You may pay higher % in taxes because of your circumstance, but not a penalty; along your line of reasoning, people in higher tax brackets are penalized for making more money.

Which is something every Conservative on this board will tell you is true.

You are attempting to argue semantics here. Do you think it matters to a single person what the term is that is used? If I pay more in taxes due to my choices than you do based on your choices, that's all that matters.

 

[M14 Shooter]

By contrast, the purpose of the ObamaCare MANDATE is to compel us to buy -- whether we want to or not.

Again, no, it does not.

The Mandate compels you to HAVE something not BUY something. There is a HUGE difference that you refuse to acknowledge.

Incorrect.

According to the court, the mandate compels nothing - rather, the law creates a taxable condition, should you not have insurance.

That's why its a tax, not a penalty.

 

[Dr.Drock]

By contrast, the purpose of the ObamaCare MANDATE is to compel us to buy -- whether we want to or not.

Again, no, it does not.

The Mandate compels you to HAVE something not BUY something. There is a HUGE difference that you refuse to acknowledge.

You don't buy insurance?

 

[BDBoop]

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!" BS in their desperation after getting their asses kicked on the ACA ruling. The right wing sheep sure are lapping up the trash like no tomorrow, aren't they?

Willard already flip-flopped (evolve?) into declaring it a tax. However, he can't say it's one thing at Mass level another at USA.

Or rather he can say whatever the **** he wants, but he's going to look as hypocritical as he is.

 

[DontBeStupid]

By contrast, the purpose of the ObamaCare MANDATE is to compel us to buy -- whether we want to or not.

Again, no, it does not.

The Mandate compels you to HAVE something not BUY something. There is a HUGE difference that you refuse to acknowledge.

You don't buy insurance?

When it's provided by my employer? No.
When it's provided by my union? No.
When it's provided by me being on a spouse's plan? No.
When it's provided by my parents when I'm on their plan? No.

See what I mean?

 

[SniperFire]

In order to penalize you for not following the law, Congress has to have the power to create the law that has the requirement.

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.

A home mortgage deduction is a deduction for an expense. The policy it supports is social engineering, whether we like and agree with that policy or not. But it doesn't compel anybody to buy vs rent.

The law wiggles out because because nobody is actually 'compelled' to buy insurance, but actually has the option of paying the tax.

That they lied about it and called the tax a 'penalty' was immaterial, according to Roberts.

The condition that triggered the tax situation exists, either way.

I don't like it, but I am forced to admit the argument is valid.

 

[Buford]

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!" BS in their desperation after getting their asses kicked on the ACA ruling. The right wing sheep sure are lapping up the trash like no tomorrow, aren't they?

Willard already flip-flopped (evolve?) into declaring it a tax. However, he can't say it's one thing at Mass level another at USA.

Or rather he can say whatever the **** he wants, but he's going to look as hypocritical as he is.

Obama is the hypocrite here. He told the American people it wasn't a tax, yet he argued it was a tax before the USSC.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Fines also raise revenue and are punitive.

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

And despite what you think, I pay more in taxes because I choose to not be married, not own a home and not have kids.

Contrary to your claim, you do not pay a -penalty- for these things.

You may pay higher % in taxes because of your circumstance, but not a penalty; along your line of reasoning, people in higher tax brackets are penalized for making more money.

Which is something every Conservative on this board will tell you is true.

As do you, apparently.

You are attempting to argue semantics here.

Incorrect. Words mean things. You are not using the correct meanings.

Do you think it matters to a single person what the term is that is used?

It matters legally, and it matters constitutionally, and it matters politically, as evidenced by The Obama's administration lying about it being a penalty not a tax.

Why do you suppose The Obama's Administration wants the people to believe this is a penalty, not a tax?

 

[DontBeStupid]

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


Contrary to your claim, you do not pay a -penalty- for these things.

You may pay higher % in taxes because of your circumstance, but not a penalty; along your line of reasoning, people in higher tax brackets are penalized for making more money.

Which is something every Conservative on this board will tell you is true.

As do you, apparently.

You are attempting to argue semantics here.

Incorrect. Words mean things. You are not using the correct meanings.

Do you think it matters to a single person what the term is that is used?

It matters legally, and it matters constitutionally, and it matters politically, as evidenced by The Obama's administration lying about it being a penalty not a tax.

Why do you suppose The Obama's Administration wants the people to believe this is a penalty, not a tax?

I agree. But you want us to use your meanings without explaining why we should use your meanings and you refuse to listen to our reasons for using the meanings we do.

In short, you're being a bully.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Which is something every Conservative on this board will tell you is true.

As do you, apparently.


Incorrect. Words mean things. You are not using the correct meanings.

Do you think it matters to a single person what the term is that is used?

It matters legally, and it matters constitutionally, and it matters politically, as evidenced by The Obama's administration lying about it being a penalty not a tax.

Why do you suppose The Obama's Administration wants the people to believe this is a penalty, not a tax?

I agree. But you want us to use your meanings without explaining why we should use your meanings...

Look back -- I did explain.
Please feel free to tell me how I am wrong.

And then:
Why do you suppose The Obama's Administration wants the people to believe this is a penalty, not a tax?

 

[M14 Shooter]

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!" BS in their desperation after getting their asses kicked on the ACA ruling. The right wing sheep sure are lapping up the trash like no tomorrow, aren't they?

Willard already flip-flopped (evolve?) into declaring it a tax. However, he can't say it's one thing at Mass level another at USA.

Or rather he can say whatever the **** he wants, but he's going to look as hypocritical as he is.

Obama is the hypocrite here. He told the American people it wasn't a tax, yet he argued it was a tax before the USSC.

Technically, He did not.
His Solicitor General did, at His direction.

Now, His spokespoeple are arguing exaclty the opposite, also at His direction.

That's not hypocricy, that's dishonesty.

 

[The T]

Willard already flip-flopped (evolve?) into declaring it a tax. However, he can't say it's one thing at Mass level another at USA.

Or rather he can say whatever the **** he wants, but he's going to look as hypocritical as he is.

Obama is the hypocrite here. He told the American people it wasn't a tax, yet he argued it was a tax before the USSC.

Technically, He did not.
His Solicitor General did, at His direction.

Now, His spokespoeple are arguing exaclty the opposite, also at His direction.

That's not hypocricy, that's dishonesty.

Wasn't the SG allowed to argue BOTH sides of the issue...taxing authority AND The Commerce Clause?

 

[clevergirl]

SCOTUS has ruled it a tax- that said, Roberts was wrong to re-write the statute in order to make it a tax.

He has shown himself to be persuaded by political consequences and that is not his job. If he truly believed it to be a tax that would be one thing- but that is not the case according to those close the decision making process-. It was more like he was trying to find a way to prevent it looking like the court was exerting power over congress. To say his motives were misguided states the case weakly.

 

[The T]

SCOTUS has ruled it a tax- that said, Roberts was wrong to re-write the statute in order to make it a tax.

He has shown himself to be persuaded by political consequences and that is not his job. If he truly believed it to be a tax that would be one thing- but that is not the case according to those close the decision making process-. It was more like he was trying to find a way to prevent it looking like the court was exerting power over congress. To say his motives were misguided states the case weakly.

Cj Roberts Damaged the Constitution the likes of Maubury v. Madison...

 

[M14 Shooter]

SCOTUS has ruled it a tax- that said, Roberts was wrong to re-write the statute in order to make it a tax.

He has shown himself to be persuaded by political consequences and that is not his job. If he truly believed it to be a tax that would be one thing- but that is not the case according to those close the decision making process-. It was more like he was trying to find a way to prevent it looking like the court was exerting power over congress. To say his motives were misguided states the case weakly.

The Solicitor General argued that it was a tax.
The Court agreed that the tax could be applied under the conditions given.
That's not really a re-write, that's taking the government's argument and agreeing with it.

Note that the court stated specifically that Congress does not have the power to require you to have insurance.

Now.... I -do- take issue with the idea that Congress can tax your inaction, as will most of the supporters of the law should Congress ever lay a tax for not having a gun -- but that's not the issue here.