Money comes in.Exhibit A of OP's point /\/\/\/\
If the people who are giddy about being able to redistribute our money tell you, out of their own mouths, that this money grab has nothing to with the environment, tells you to free yourself from that line of thinking, and re-iterates that it is a redistribution of wealth plan,and you still don't get it, then you are too brainwashed to try to get through to. For the last time:
IPCC official Ottmar Edenhofer, speaking in November 2010, advised that: “…one has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. Instead, climate change policy is about how we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth…”
De facto means actually, or in reality. You need a dose of reality. Global warming is an illusion, like magicians use, to trick the eye and mind.
Here's the real reason for your climate change:
In Their Own Words: Climate Alarmists Debunk Their 'Science'
Exactly I don't want to talk about boring science stuff like C02 ppms, because we know during in the dino era it had 5 times more CO2 in the atmosphere, it has been suggested during the Roman era it has been much warmer, using science we know the deaths history always changed and has been known to change in a blink of an eye like the great Sahara changing tropical to dry fast in cosmic terms.
My specialty is politics news and currant events, my other specialty is temperature instruments been using them for over 30 years and I know how they evolved and how different people read and record them different
I want to talk motives behind the science I want to know facts
Just like gruber and obama manipulating obama care to the public to get it passed and once they succeeded to get it passed an the genie out of the bottle..
They just shrugged their shoulders and said "we bad" with a grin.
The Gruber Confession
.
The article you cited provides a fine illustration of not knowing what one is talking about.
Gruber said, the bill’s authors manipulated the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, which issues gold-standard cost estimates of any legislative proposal: “This bill was written in a tortured way to make sure CBO did not score the mandate as taxes.” Why? Because “if CBO scored the mandate as taxes, the bill dies.” And yet, the president himself openly insisted that the individual mandate — what you must pay the government if you fail to buy health insurance — was not a tax.
The fact of the matter is that what is and is not a tax is a matter of legal definition. The sum one must pay for failing to buy health insurance is not a tax. Why isn't it? Because it is a fine, a penalty. What's the difference?
Is the distinction noted above reflective of the abstruse details of law? Absolutely it is; however, as taxes and fines payable to a governmental body are only mandated/enforceable by law, it isn't unreasonable to demand that one know the legal definition of tax vs. law and adhere to it when discussing what is and what is not a tax.
- Being subject to a tax is not avoidable by law abiding people (even for folks who have no tax liability). That's so of ad valorem, transfer, gratuitous transfer, tariffs and income taxes. For all of them whether one is subject to them is not a matter of one's own volition. One might obtain an exemption or credit or other concession that absolves one from having to pay a given tax liability, but that doesn't alter the fact that one was nonetheless subject to the tax. Everyone is subject to a given tax even if everyone doesn't actually incur a tax debt.
- A fine is entirely avoidable. Nobody is involuntarily subject to a fine.
Is there any difference in terms of what sum leaves one's own pocket and enters governmental coffers? Perhaps not, but that's not the point. What is the point, as goes Charles Krauthammer's opinion is that there is no excuse for his failing to distinguish between what is a tax and "what feels like a tax even though it's not actually a tax." I don't what words he may have chosen to communicate to readers that there is a distinction so long as he did so. Well informed readers of his column will know that the penalty for not adhering to the "mandate" isn't a tax; poorly informed readers may not and thus come, if only by dint of their regard for Mr. Krauthammer, to think it in fact is a tax.
Note:
Do I think everything need be distilled to the level of detail noted above? No, of course not. On matters of law or accounting, for example, "hair splitting" is at the heart of what can and often does make very material differences between what's allowable and what's not. Context determines when form rightly carries equal weight with substance.
The fact of the matter is that what is and is not a tax is a matter of legal definition.
Seriously dude and your the one who says I don't know what I am talking about? Him what did the supreme court say about the mandate to approve it?
It was a tax....
There for obama care should never been legal because the Bill originated in the Senate.
Okay...you tell me. What makes it a tax and not a fine? What distinguishes a governmentally assessed fine from a governmentally assessed tax?
Money goes to govt.
Tax.