Is it a tax or is it a penalty?

[Liability]

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?

That's just arguing "in the alternative." That's proper.

"I can do X based on THIS authority or I can do X based on THAT authority."

As long as they aren't mutually exclusive, there is nothing illogical about it.

But the President DID emphatically tell George Stephanopolous that it was NOT a tax.

And yes, he DID later have his AG and Solicitor General argue that it WAS also authorized AS a tax.

This President is, fundamentally, a self-contradictory & dishonest piece of shit.

 

[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.

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.

Agreed but you do admit/ it's an excuse for the government to take more property from the citizen regardless of what you label it?

 

[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.

Agreed but you do admit/ it's an excuse for the government to take more property from the citizen regardless of what you label it?

Well, sure. Where does the power to tax end?

 

[DontBeStupid]

As do you, apparently.


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


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?

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

Penalty sounds better than tax. It's easier to sell. Like calling it "regime change" instead of "indefinite occupation" or "expanding the tax base" instead of "raising taxes on poor people".

All politicians do that.

 

[The T]

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?

That's just arguing "in the alternative." That's proper.

"I can do X based on THIS authority or I can do X based on THAT authority."

As long as they aren't mutually exclusive, there is nothing illogical about it.

But the President DID emphatically tell George Stephanopolous that it was NOT a tax.

And yes, he DID later have his AG and Solicitor General argue that it WAS also authorized AS a tax.

This President is, fundamentally, a self-contradictory & dishonest piece of shit.

I agree with this synopsis. And it leads me to ask why the labeling...the arguing on it's a tax...NO! it's not!

It's silly on it's face regardless on how it's labeled under rules of symantics...baseline is taking property from the citizens regardless.

That's all.

 

[M14 Shooter]

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?

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...?

 

[Zoom-boing]

SC ruled it a tax, so it's a tax. It was intended as a tax all along, even though they wrote penalty in the bill ... that was their argument before the SC, wasn't it?

The gov't can not jail you, seize your property or compel you in any way to pay this tax, other than withholding that money (whatever tax you may owe) from your refund. If you get a refund.

But I do like OB's definition, wit the 'fluffy penalty nougat center'.

 

[francoHFW]

It's a penalty in the form of a tax, DUH.

In Mass, Romney called it a "Personal Responsibility Incentive"- so as a tribute Dems should call it that.

Romneycare for all! Already a great success- NONE of the Pub horrors the dupes fear. 2% annual rise in costs now, by far the lowest of the states- 70% approval with a bullet....

 

[Liability]

It's a penalty in the form of a tax, DUH.

Not according to the SCOTUS. In order to save that idiot legislation, the CJ rewrote it for Congress.

It's now a tax or it's unConstitutional.

Eat it. Own it.

 

[Buford]

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 fuck 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.

I was being generous. Actually, it's tyranny.

 

[Buford]

This is hilarious. Watch the lefties run around cleaning up the crap and trying to make it smell like roses.

 

[M14 Shooter]

It's a penalty in the form of a tax, DUH.

In the OP, I asked:

Do you understand that there is a difference and why that difference matters?

Your answer is, clearly, no.

Taxes 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.

In Mass, Romney called it...

Red herring.

 

[M14 Shooter]

It's a penalty in the form of a tax, DUH.

Not according to the SCOTUS. In order to save that idiot legislation, the CJ rewrote it for Congress.

It's now a tax or it's unConstitutional.

Eat it. Own it.

Yep - that's what's left at the bottom of the pot once you boil all the water away.

 

[IHBF]

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?

Fuck you, commie.

I pay health expenses out of pocket. Tax payers don't pick up the tab and large evil corporations don't get a chunk.

How does it feel to pay for a CEO's $2000 shower curtains?

 

[The T]

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.

I was being generous. Actually, it's tyranny.

Yep.

 

[koshergrl]

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.

Not according to the Kaiser foundation:

1. Will the health reform law require nearly all Americans to have health insurance starting in 2014 or else pay a fine? Yes, the law will do this.

You answered this correctly. Yes. Starting in 2014, most U.S. citizens and legal residents will be required to obtain health coverage, or pay a penalty. Some exemptions will be granted, for example, for those with religious objections or where insurance would cost more than 8% of their income.

They say it's a fine. No. 1

Health Reform Quiz - Kaiser Health Reform

 

[DontBeStupid]

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?

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.

I disagree.

 

[The T]

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.

I disagree.

But the MONEY goes where, Stupid?

 

[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.

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.

 

[M14 Shooter]

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.

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.