Obama admits to the largest tax increase in history

[hortysir]

The people who will benefit from all of this don't pay taxes to begin with so why should they care, its a win win for them.

Just remember what the mouth piece pelosi said and feel comfort "”It’s like the back of the refrigerator. You see all these wires and the rest. All you need to know is, you open the door. The light goes on".

But no one's home

 

[Greenbeard]

Requiring every man, woman, and child to purchase an insurance policy that could cost them thousands of dollars a year is the smallest taxes increase in history? I think your spin cycle has warped your brain.

Take stock of the actual situation. I'll use CBO numbers to illustrate the point but you can vary them as you wish, it doesn't really change the point:

• The 84% of the population that already has coverage...will still have coverage. Some may shift to the exchanges from the group market but in terms of insurance uptake, there won't be a change.
• About 16 million people will gain insurance through Medicaid. I'm not sure how you could consider that to be a tax increase on those people.
• Somewhere around 22 million will continue to be uninsured. However, many of them will be illegal immigrants who I assume aren't particularly relevant to this thread of the conversation. Citizens in this category will face a penalty of $695 that doesn't phase in fully for several years.
• Around 24 million will be entering the new health insurance exchanges. Most of them will receive premium tax credits that limits their personal contribution to a certain percentage of their income (to play with actual numbers, you can use the KFF calculator).

The only part of that could even be argued to be a tax is the mandate penalty (the $695), should one choose to pay it instead of buying coverage. A relatively small sum that applies to a small segment of the population. I can't see how you could argue that's the largest tax increase in history with a straight face.

 

[Bfgrn]

Which also lays to waste the lie that the 16,000 new IRS agents are for anything other than enforcement of ObamaCare

There is no mandate, it was de-fanged by the Democrats. Republicans in Congress know it, Fox News knows it and anyone that READS the bill knows it.

Joint Committee on Taxation Confirms that ObamaCare Does Not Enforce Individual Mandate - Big Government

However, it is not subject to the enforcement provisions of subtitle F of the Code. The use of liens and seizures otherwise authorized for collection of taxes does not apply to the collection of this penalty. Non-compliance with the personal responsibility requirement to have health coverage is not subject to criminal or civil penalties under the Code and interest does not accrue for failure to pay such assessments in a timely manner.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Requiring every man, woman, and child to purchase an insurance policy that could cost them thousands of dollars a year is the smallest taxes increase in history? I think your spin cycle has warped your brain.

Take stock of the actual situation. I'll use CBO numbers to illustrate the point but you can vary them as you wish, it doesn't really change the point:

• The 84% of the population that already has coverage...will still have coverage. Some may shift to the exchanges from the group market but in terms of insurance uptake, there won't be a change.
• About 16 million people will gain insurance through Medicaid. I'm not sure how you could consider that to be a tax increase on those people.
• Somewhere around 22 million will continue to be uninsured. However, many of them will be illegal immigrants who I assume aren't particularly relevant to this thread of the conversation. Citizens in this category will face a penalty of $695 that doesn't phase in fully for several years.
• Around 24 million will be entering the new health insurance exchanges. Most of them will receive premium tax credits that limits their personal contribution to a certain percentage of their income (to play with actual numbers, you can use the KFF calculator).

The only part of that could even be argued to be a tax is the mandate penalty (the $695), should one choose to pay it instead of buying coverage. A relatively small sum that applies to a small segment of the population. I can't see how you could argue that's the largest tax increase in history with a straight face.

You are going to try to snow me with CBO estimates? Do you have any idea what the track record of the CBO is for being right in their estimates?

The White House and the Department of Health and Human Services are admitting that almost everyone will be paying more for health insurance, the CBO estimates assumed that everyone would be able to keep their current plans because they had to be based on the law as it was written, not the real world. That screws up your claim about the estimated 84% of the population that has insurance currently is not going to pay more.

The 16 million new people qho will be getting Medicaid are going to raise someone's taxes, so I think that counts a tax increase.

The law requires everyone to buy insurance, which actually increases their taxes, as the administration is now calling the mandate a tax. The inconvenient fact that most people will opt out of the expensive tax and choose the inexpensive fine does not change the fact that their taxes are higher, it just gives them incentive to be scofflaws.

Somebody has to pay for those tax credits, which again amounts to a tax increase on someone else.

Just because you can point to people that will not be paying a tax does not mean the tax does not increase when a new tax is passed, it just means that some people have to pay more. Like a typical liberal, you seem to thing that a free lunch doesn't cost anything.

There ain't no such thing as a free lunch.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Which also lays to waste the lie that the 16,000 new IRS agents are for anything other than enforcement of ObamaCare

There is no mandate, it was de-fanged by the Democrats. Republicans in Congress know it, Fox News knows it and anyone that READS the bill knows it.

Joint Committee on Taxation Confirms that ObamaCare Does Not Enforce Individual Mandate - Big Government

However, it is not subject to the enforcement provisions of subtitle F of the Code. The use of liens and seizures otherwise authorized for collection of taxes does not apply to the collection of this penalty. Non-compliance with the personal responsibility requirement to have health coverage is not subject to criminal or civil penalties under the Code and interest does not accrue for failure to pay such assessments in a timely manner.

Yet the Obama administration is now calling you out and saying that it is a tax, which was the point of my OP. Your source is dated.

 

[Bfgrn]

Which also lays to waste the lie that the 16,000 new IRS agents are for anything other than enforcement of ObamaCare

There is no mandate, it was de-fanged by the Democrats. Republicans in Congress know it, Fox News knows it and anyone that READS the bill knows it.

Joint Committee on Taxation Confirms that ObamaCare Does Not Enforce Individual Mandate - Big Government

However, it is not subject to the enforcement provisions of subtitle F of the Code. The use of liens and seizures otherwise authorized for collection of taxes does not apply to the collection of this penalty. Non-compliance with the personal responsibility requirement to have health coverage is not subject to criminal or civil penalties under the Code and interest does not accrue for failure to pay such assessments in a timely manner.

Yet the Obama administration is now calling you out and saying that it is a tax, which was the point of my OP. Your source is dated.

So is the Bill, it is dated and PASSED.

I'm not a lawyer, are you? I surmise the DOJ was forced to contest the suit on an existing law that uses the language 'tax'. The mandate would be a penalty. The problem is, there IS NO penalty.

This is an effort on the part of the lying sack of shit 'word bound' right to pander to pea brains. And these state AT's are wasting taxpayer's money on frivolous lawsuits.

 

[hortysir]

Then explain to me, Bfgrn, why would there be an unenforceable penalty.
Do you honestly think that all these newly created IRS jobs are going to let this little nugget slip right past them?

 

[Bfgrn]

Then explain to me, Bfgrn, why would there be an unenforceable penalty.
Do you honestly think that all these newly created IRS jobs are going to let this little nugget slip right past them?

There are no newly created IRS jobs. That is just a LIE created by the lying sack of shit 'word bound' right to pander to pea brains.

 

[Claudette]

I'm not sure that he has said anything that was purely truthful since he entered office. Maybe not before, either.

The Big 0 cannot tell a truth. He is always trying to sell something and always leaving out or twisting the facts that will expose the fullness of any issue.

Wow you guys are slow on the uptake.

Everything he is doing and the way he does it was all predicted over and over by many on the right leading up to the election. But we were simply called racists and shouted down.

Obama is nothing more than a Chicago Gangster wanna be thug with 0 qualifications for the job other than he speaks well from a teleprompter and lies like a hooker with no legs.

I said it over and over during the election. I could care less about his color my problem is he is a liar and a Marxists who does not like America the way it is.

What part of "were about to fundementally change AMerica" did you people not get? What part of "Spread the wealth" was to hard to grasp? What Part of “I happen to be a proponent of a single payer universal health care program.” DID YOU NOT GET DAMN IT~~~~!!!!!!

Why did anyone buy the lies he sold during the Campaign, are you all that dense or did most of you just vote for him because he was black? Or cool? Or good looking?

sad.

As it happens, I didn't vote for him. After he was elected, I was willing to give him a chance. He used it and now he has my unremitting distrust.

I've often made the same observation that you just did. He's a product of Chicago Machine Politics. While eloquent, he's agenda driven and will not comprimise. His only technique to drive his ideas is to create an enemy and assign blame. This happened to mesh with the mood of the country in blaming Bush.

He found his voice in the Oil Leak fiasco when he realized that the enemy was BP and he could attack BP. Until that epiphany, he was Wordless in Washington.

He has no ideas, no solutions and no hope to correct the mess we suffer under created largely by his politically motivated dithering. On the bright side of things, every new day reveals another very serious problem and this clown is a joke. We should all be smiling.

I didn't vote for him either.

I listened to him speak and my bullshit meter went right through the roof.

I heard the "Fundamental Change and the Lets Spread the Wealth" also. I would have voted for anyone but him at that point.

After he was elected I waited to see if he was going to govern from the center. Nope.

Guess my BS meter was dead on, as usual. Guys a disaster and the sooner he's gone, the better.

Oh Yeah, before anyone on this board forgets. ONe More TIME Its all BUUSSHHSS fault. LOL

 

[hortysir]

Then explain to me, Bfgrn, why would there be an unenforceable penalty.
Do you honestly think that all these newly created IRS jobs are going to let this little nugget slip right past them?

There are no newly created IRS jobs. That is just a LIE created by the lying sack of shit 'word bound' right to pander to pea brains.

Not yet:

http://camp.house.gov/UploadedFiles/HC_Overhaul_Dangerously_Expands_IRS_Authority.PDF

According to the Ways and Means Committee:

IRS may need to hire as many as 16,500 additional
auditors, agents and other employees to investigate and
collect billions in new taxes from Americans

 

[Greenbeard]

PolitFact is your friend. They do great work.

 

[Annie]

Even with the tax, the actions may, (unlikely), be struck down by the courts:

The Volokh Conspiracy So Much For the Commerce Clause Challenge to Individual Mandate Being ?Frivolous?

So Much For the Commerce Clause Challenge to Individual Mandate Being “Frivolous”
Randy Barnett • July 18, 2010 11:45 am

Remember when the Commerce Clause challenge to the individual insurance mandate was dismissed by all serious and knowledgeable constitutional law professors and Nancy Pelosi as “frivolous”? Well, as Jonathan notes below, the administration is now apparently telling the New York Times that the individual insurance “requirement” and “penalty” is really an exercise of the Tax Power of Congress.
Administration officials say the tax argument is a linchpin of their legal case in defense of the health care overhaul and its individual mandate, now being challenged in court by more than 20 states and several private organizations.
Let that sink in for a moment. If the Commerce Clause claim of power were a slam dunk, as previously alleged, would there be any need now to change or supplement that theory? Maybe the administration lawyers confronted the inconvenient fact that the Commerce Clause has never in history been used to mandate that all Americans enter into a commercial relationship with a private company on pain of a “penalty” enforced by the IRS. So there is no Supreme Court ruling that such a claim of power is constitutional. In short, this claim of power is both factually and judicially unprecedented.

Remarkably, and to its credit, the NYT informs its readers about 2 key facts that pose a problem with the tax theory–and without even attributing these to the measure’s opponents.
Congress anticipated a constitutional challenge to the individual mandate. Accordingly, the law includes 10 detailed findings meant to show that the mandate regulates commercial activity important to the nation’s economy. Nowhere does Congress cite its taxing power as a source of authority.
And
The law describes the levy on the uninsured as a “penalty” rather than a tax.
This is a sign that NYT’s reporter Robert Pear is on the ball. But wait! There is more that is not in the article...

So, like the invocation of the Commerce Clause, this invocation of the Tax Power is factually and judicially unprecedented. It is yet another unprecedented claim of Congressional power. Only this one is even more sweeping and dangerous than the Commerce Clause theory.

I responded to this theory in the Wall Street Journal back in April, in an op-ed the editors entitled The Insurance Mandate In Peril. Here is a key passage from my op-ed:
Supporters of the mandate cite U.S. v. Kahriger (1953), where the Court upheld a punitive tax on gambling by saying that “nless there are provisions extraneous to any tax need, courts are without authority to limit the exercise of the taxing power.” Yet the Court in Kahriger also cited Bailey with approval. The key to understanding Kahriger is the proposition the Court there rejected: “it is said that Congress, under the pretense of exercising its power to tax has attempted to penalize illegal intrastate gambling through the regulatory features of the Act” (emphasis added).
In other words, the Court in Kahriger declined to look behind Congress’s assertion that it was exercising its tax power to see whether a measure was really a regulatory penalty. As the Court said in Sonzinsky v. U.S. (1937), “nquiry into the hidden motives which may move Congress to exercise a power constitutionally conferred upon it is beyond the competency of courts.” But this principle cuts both ways. Neither will the Court look behind Congress’s inadequate assertion of its commerce power to speculate as to whether a measure was “really” a tax. The Court will read the cards as Congress dealt them.

My piece is not behind a subscription wall so interested readers can read (or reread) the whole thing.

Now the usual caveat. Just because the constitutional challenge to the health insurance mandate is not frivolous does not mean it will prevail. The odds are always that the Supreme Court will uphold an act of Congress. Given the wording of the Act, however, the implications of doing so using the Tax Power are so sweeping and dangerous that I doubt a majority of the Court would adopt this claim of power on these facts.

But the argument is far from over.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

PolitFact is your friend. They do great work.

Was that suppose to help your case? Did you bother reading it? They're only debating how close to 16,500 the number of new agents will be.

 

[rdean]

Only a true idiot and a party of morons would pass the biggest tax cut in history during a time when we are fighting two wars. Glad we don't know anyone who did that.

 

[boedicca]

Even with the tax, the actions may, (unlikely), be struck down by the courts:

The Volokh Conspiracy So Much For the Commerce Clause Challenge to Individual Mandate Being ?Frivolous?

So Much For the Commerce Clause Challenge to Individual Mandate Being “Frivolous”
Randy Barnett • July 18, 2010 11:45 am

Remember when the Commerce Clause challenge to the individual insurance mandate was dismissed by all serious and knowledgeable constitutional law professors and Nancy Pelosi as “frivolous”? Well, as Jonathan notes below, the administration is now apparently telling the New York Times that the individual insurance “requirement” and “penalty” is really an exercise of the Tax Power of Congress.
Administration officials say the tax argument is a linchpin of their legal case in defense of the health care overhaul and its individual mandate, now being challenged in court by more than 20 states and several private organizations.
Let that sink in for a moment. If the Commerce Clause claim of power were a slam dunk, as previously alleged, would there be any need now to change or supplement that theory? Maybe the administration lawyers confronted the inconvenient fact that the Commerce Clause has never in history been used to mandate that all Americans enter into a commercial relationship with a private company on pain of a “penalty” enforced by the IRS. So there is no Supreme Court ruling that such a claim of power is constitutional. In short, this claim of power is both factually and judicially unprecedented.

Remarkably, and to its credit, the NYT informs its readers about 2 key facts that pose a problem with the tax theory–and without even attributing these to the measure’s opponents.
Congress anticipated a constitutional challenge to the individual mandate. Accordingly, the law includes 10 detailed findings meant to show that the mandate regulates commercial activity important to the nation’s economy. Nowhere does Congress cite its taxing power as a source of authority.
And
The law describes the levy on the uninsured as a “penalty” rather than a tax.
This is a sign that NYT’s reporter Robert Pear is on the ball. But wait! There is more that is not in the article...

So, like the invocation of the Commerce Clause, this invocation of the Tax Power is factually and judicially unprecedented. It is yet another unprecedented claim of Congressional power. Only this one is even more sweeping and dangerous than the Commerce Clause theory.

I responded to this theory in the Wall Street Journal back in April, in an op-ed the editors entitled The Insurance Mandate In Peril. Here is a key passage from my op-ed:
Supporters of the mandate cite U.S. v. Kahriger (1953), where the Court upheld a punitive tax on gambling by saying that “nless there are provisions extraneous to any tax need, courts are without authority to limit the exercise of the taxing power.” Yet the Court in Kahriger also cited Bailey with approval. The key to understanding Kahriger is the proposition the Court there rejected: “it is said that Congress, under the pretense of exercising its power to tax has attempted to penalize illegal intrastate gambling through the regulatory features of the Act” (emphasis added).
In other words, the Court in Kahriger declined to look behind Congress’s assertion that it was exercising its tax power to see whether a measure was really a regulatory penalty. As the Court said in Sonzinsky v. U.S. (1937), “nquiry into the hidden motives which may move Congress to exercise a power constitutionally conferred upon it is beyond the competency of courts.” But this principle cuts both ways. Neither will the Court look behind Congress’s inadequate assertion of its commerce power to speculate as to whether a measure was “really” a tax. The Court will read the cards as Congress dealt them.

My piece is not behind a subscription wall so interested readers can read (or reread) the whole thing.

Now the usual caveat. Just because the constitutional challenge to the health insurance mandate is not frivolous does not mean it will prevail. The odds are always that the Supreme Court will uphold an act of Congress. Given the wording of the Act, however, the implications of doing so using the Tax Power are so sweeping and dangerous that I doubt a majority of the Court would adopt this claim of power on these facts.

But the argument is far from over.

This is very interesting - and cause for some hope.

The bait and switch of calling it a penalty for political purposes and then trying to reposition it as a tax for legal scrutiny will most likely not fool at least 4 and hopefull a 5th Supreme Court Justice.

 

[boedicca]

Only a true idiot and a party of morons would pass the biggest tax cut in history during a time when we are fighting two wars. Glad we don't know anyone who did that.

Only a true idiot and a party of morons would increase taxes with unemployment at nearly 10%, GDP forecasted at an anemic 3%, and expand the scope of government with a huge new entitlement while destroying our energy industry.

 

[Ava]

In order to protect the new national health care law from legal challenges, the Obama administration has been forced to argue that the individual mandate represents a tax -- even though Obama himself argued the exact opposite while campaigning to pass the legislation.
Late last night, the Obama Department of Justice filed a motion to dismiss the Florida-based lawsuit against the health care law, arguing that the court lacks jurisdiction and that the State of Florida and fellow plaintiffs haven't presented a claim for which the court can grant relief. To bolster its case, the DOJ cited the Anti-Injunction Act, which restricts courts from interfering with the government's ability to collect taxes.
The Act, according to a DOJ memo supporting the motion to dismiss, says that "no suit for the purpose of restraining the assessment or collection of any tax shall be maintained in any court by any person, whether or not such person is the person against whom such tax was assessed." The memo goes on to say that it makes no difference whether the disputed payment it is called a "tax" or "penalty," because either way, it's "assessed and collected in the same manner" by the Internal Revenue Service.

The American Spectator : AmSpecBlog : Obama Admin. Argues in Court That Individual Mandate Is a Tax

Remember when he insisted it is not a tax?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7UcxU8PtzRs&feature=player_embedded]YouTube - Obama on taxes and Merriam-Webster dictionary[/ame]

The fastest way to socialize an economy is to bankrupt it. Then you have tyranny, then you have anarchy, then you take over...

 

[daveman]

Did any intelligent citizen actually believe him when he said it wasn't a tax?

Just Obamatons.

Oh, wait...you said "intelligent". Never mind.

 

[daveman]

Then explain to me, Bfgrn, why would there be an unenforceable penalty.
Do you honestly think that all these newly created IRS jobs are going to let this little nugget slip right past them?

There are no newly created IRS jobs. That is just a LIE created by the lying sack of shit 'word bound' right to pander to pea brains.

"Word bound"? Oh...you mean people who know words have concrete meanings, not subject to the whim of the moment and political expediency.

And no, it doesn't depend on what the meaning of "is" is.

 

[Gremlin-USA]

Only a true idiot and a party of morons would pass the biggest tax cut in history during a time when we are fighting two wars. Glad we don't know anyone who did that.

Only a true idiot and a party of morons would increase taxes with unemployment at nearly 10%, GDP forecasted at an anemic 3%, and expand the scope of government with a huge new entitlement while destroying our energy industry.

Is his name Barack Hussein Obama?


.