Obama solicitor general: If you don't like mandate, EARN LESS MONEY

[The Rabbi]

You've been arguing it's a tax for 3 pages.

Er, no. I've merely been pointing out that when it comes to the individual mandate, as with all aspects of the ACA, you're completely clueless. When virtually everything you say about it is incorrect, it becomes clear rather quickly that you lack even a passing familiarity with it. Which makes reading your learned opinions on the matter that much more valuable for the rest of us. Kudos.

IOw you cannot answer the question whether it is a tax or not.
And I'm the clueless one??

 

[thereisnospoon]

You've been arguing it's a tax for 3 pages.

Er, no. I've merely been pointing out that when it comes to the individual mandate, as with all aspects of the ACA, you're completely clueless. When virtually everything you say about it is incorrect, it becomes clear rather quickly that you lack even a passing familiarity with it. Which makes reading your learned opinions on the matter that much more valuable for the rest of us. Kudos.

Are you also going to maintain that employers will not pay the government mandated 8% payroll tax in lieu of insuring their employees?

Hmm, you're on the wrong bill. H.R. 3200 died two years ago. Employer responsibility in the ACA is structured differently than it was in that proposal. Where are you getting your information?

Yeah, ok.....I suppose you're going to try to convince me Obamacare is all fun and games. We will all have free and unfettered access to any kind of treatment at any time....Please.
This is nothing more than another taxpayer funded government entitlement

 

[Greenbeard]

Yeah, ok.....I suppose you're going to try to convince me Obamacare is all fun and games. We will all have free and unfettered access to any kind of treatment at any time....Please.
This is nothing more than another taxpayer funded government entitlement

I think I was actually pretty clear on what I was saying: some chunk of your talking points is two years out of date, pertaining to a bill that died in the last Congress. I was just curious where you're getting your information.

 

[The Rabbi]

Yeah, ok.....I suppose you're going to try to convince me Obamacare is all fun and games. We will all have free and unfettered access to any kind of treatment at any time....Please.
This is nothing more than another taxpayer funded government entitlement

I think I was actually pretty clear on what I was saying: some chunk of your talking points is two years out of date, pertaining to a bill that died in the last Congress. I was just curious where you're getting your information.

So is the penalty a tax or something else? If it is a tax, what is it a tax on? If it is a penalty, under what authority does the Fed Gov levy such a penalty?
WHy have you not answered these questions i 3 pages of discussion?

 

[Polk]

You are taxed at exactly the same rate whether you rent or own a house. There is no difference in rates paid. None.
Don't even bother responding because you are wrong.

Key phrase: effective rate.

The rate is exactly the same.
Some people can deduct some things others can't. By that logic you could say that people with 4 children are being subsidized by people with 3 children, etc. Or that people who lost money in the stock market subsidize people who made money.
It is a stupid way to look at deductions.

People will less children are subsidizing people with more children...

 

[Polk]

I do not.

I know that SCOTUS rarely allows taxpayers to challenge the basis of their taxation. I understand that the only way they allow this is if that taxation is discriminatory or unconstitutional. This decision specifically allowed one business to challenge the taxes that were placed on it that were not placed on other businesses specifically because they allege that the government wanted to engineer social policy through taxation. That specifically proves that your belief that it is permissible is wrong.

You claim that's not what you're doing, then run around and immediately state that's what you're doing. And it still runs into the same problem: inherent properties are substantively different.

Try this one one for size genius.

I pointed out that decision to show you were wrong about a specific point you were trying to make. I then talk to other people about other things that are not related to that specific decision that talk about the things your genius tells you I think that decision means. The reason you have a problem separating them is that you think that it is only possible to maintain one position at a time because your brain is not capable of using threading to maintain a cohesive defense on multiple fronts.

In other words, just because you cannot think does not mean everyone cannot.

You haven't shown anything. Your claim is still the same "it's unconstitutional because I say it is" junk you've been trotting out all along. You try to bring a Supreme Court case in to it, but the analogy you make doesn't hold, so you start throwing another temper tantrum.

 

[Polk]

Except it isn't a valid comparison.

Why not? Functionally, it's the same thing. If they weren't too chickenshit to use the word 'tax', they could have avoided the whole constitutional issue by simply calling it a tax increase, with an incentive/deduction in the same amount as the penalty. The only think different about the current setup is the terminology.

They already have avoided the constitutional issue if the courts stick to existing precedent, because previous rulings have said that taxes are like ducks: if walks like one and talks like one, it is one.

 

[Polk]

The so-called government "insurance exchanges". Which is a euphemism for "Single payer"...

Couldn't be further from the truth, but feel free to believe what you want.

Really? What's your version? Are you implying there are no government insurance exchanges?
Are you also going to maintain that employers will not pay the government mandated 8% payroll tax in lieu of insuring their employees?
That Obamacare law is a 2500 pages of bureaucratic nightmare. Hell, there is a real estate transfer tax in there that will fund transfer payments to those who cannot afford the new "free" government health insurance.
What makes you think you should be able to walk into any doctors office or medical facility and receive on demand medical care without any out of pocket expense?
This ought to be good.

How does the existence of exchanges create a single-payer system? Under current law in effect, I can go online and purchase an individual health insurance policy. That policy is governed by the rules for insurance set down by the state of Georgia. Does that mean Georgia has a single-payer system?

 

[dblack]

They already have avoided the constitutional issue if the courts stick to existing precedent, because previous rulings have said that taxes are like ducks: if walks like one and talks like one, it is one.

I've been curious to find precedent regarding this 'tax that isn't a tax but really is' stuff. Do you have links? Does the precedent specifically address deliberate deception?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

You claim that's not what you're doing, then run around and immediately state that's what you're doing. And it still runs into the same problem: inherent properties are substantively different.

Try this one one for size genius.

I pointed out that decision to show you were wrong about a specific point you were trying to make. I then talk to other people about other things that are not related to that specific decision that talk about the things your genius tells you I think that decision means. The reason you have a problem separating them is that you think that it is only possible to maintain one position at a time because your brain is not capable of using threading to maintain a cohesive defense on multiple fronts.

In other words, just because you cannot think does not mean everyone cannot.

You haven't shown anything. Your claim is still the same "it's unconstitutional because I say it is" junk you've been trotting out all along. You try to bring a Supreme Court case in to it, but the analogy you make doesn't hold, so you start throwing another temper tantrum.

Bullshit.

You know what the problem with trying to say you did not say something when everything you say is recorded? People can go back and show you what you said.

You posted this:

I disagree with your belief that "discriminatory taxation" is wrong. There is a legitimate public interest in incentivizing certain behaviors and actions. Where I do agree is that this action shouldn't be done via the tax code. It creates highly inefficient outcomes.

I then posted a Supreme Court case that specifically allowed a company to challenge taxes because they are discriminatory. That shows that your belief that taxes are allowed to discriminate if the intent is promote behaviors and actions that you find are legitimate.

My sole purpose was to show you that your belief did not fit the facts in the real world, and you have run around for a couple of pages accusing me making unsupported statements. If I express an opinion I know it is an opinion, and say so. This was not an opinion, you were wrong.

To reiterate.

I have proven your opinion that discriminatory taxation to enact social policy is indeed wrong under our law. You yourself have stated that you think using the tax code to accomplish social engineering, but you support it because you agree with the goal of the social engineering. My opinion (note that I am not going to back this up with any link, I will simply let you do so for me) is that you would scream if you disagreed with the social engineering goal, but I expect you view that as being consistent. Personally, I oppose using the tax code for social engineering period, even if I like the goals.

Two separate issues. One is your opinion that social engineering through discriminatory taxation is right, the other is the mandate itself. Discrimination is always wrong, which makes your support of it wrong. I believe that the mandate is unconstitutional, but I have seen some very good arguments about why it is not. A couple of them have been so persuasive that I believe that the Supreme Court might actually have some sound arguments to support it if they choose to do so. Not one of them came from anyone on this board because everyone here does exactly what you say I am going, and claiming it is constitutional simply because they say it is.

Yes, that includes you.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

They already have avoided the constitutional issue if the courts stick to existing precedent, because previous rulings have said that taxes are like ducks: if walks like one and talks like one, it is one.

I've been curious to find precedent regarding this 'tax that isn't a tax but really is' stuff. Do you have links? Does the precedent specifically address deliberate deception?

There is no precedent.

 

[Charles_Main]

Yeah, ok.....I suppose you're going to try to convince me Obamacare is all fun and games. We will all have free and unfettered access to any kind of treatment at any time....Please.
This is nothing more than another taxpayer funded government entitlement

I think I was actually pretty clear on what I was saying: some chunk of your talking points is two years out of date, pertaining to a bill that died in the last Congress. I was just curious where you're getting your information.

So is the penalty a tax or something else? If it is a tax, what is it a tax on? If it is a penalty, under what authority does the Fed Gov levy such a penalty?
WHy have you not answered these questions i 3 pages of discussion?

Because in the answer to the question lies a serious problem for supporters of the bill. We like to call it the Constitution.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I think I was actually pretty clear on what I was saying: some chunk of your talking points is two years out of date, pertaining to a bill that died in the last Congress. I was just curious where you're getting your information.

So is the penalty a tax or something else? If it is a tax, what is it a tax on? If it is a penalty, under what authority does the Fed Gov levy such a penalty?
WHy have you not answered these questions i 3 pages of discussion?

Because in the answer to the question lies a serious problem for supporters of the bill. We like to call it the Constitution.

Specifically Article 1 Section 9 which requires that taxes be apportioned according equally among the states according to population. The 16th Amendment got around that by giving Congress the power to tax income and not proportion it back to the sates equally. If they argue that Obamacare is a tax they cannot argue that it is an income tax because it taxes everyone even if they do not earn an income.

Before someone tires to argue that it desn't because it exempts people who earn less than a certain amount, that is not what it does. As many people in this thread have argued it actually gives people a credit if their income is below a certain level, but they are still subject to the Obamacare tax. That makes it a direct tax, and subject to Art. 1 Sec. 9.

 

[Toronado3800]

So is the penalty a tax or something else? If it is a tax, what is it a tax on? If it is a penalty, under what authority does the Fed Gov levy such a penalty?
WHy have you not answered these questions i 3 pages of discussion?

Because in the answer to the question lies a serious problem for supporters of the bill. We like to call it the Constitution.

Specifically Article 1 Section 9 which requires that taxes be apportioned according equally among the states according to population. The 16th Amendment got around that by giving Congress the power to tax income and not proportion it back to the sates equally. If they argue that Obamacare is a tax they cannot argue that it is an income tax because it taxes everyone even if they do not earn an income.

Before someone tires to argue that it desn't because it exempts people who earn less than a certain amount, that is not what it does. As many people in this thread have argued it actually gives people a credit if their income is below a certain level, but they are still subject to the Obamacare tax. That makes it a direct tax, and subject to Art. 1 Sec. 9.

Are we saying this is a tax because Americans are forced to buy a product (insurance)?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Because in the answer to the question lies a serious problem for supporters of the bill. We like to call it the Constitution.

Specifically Article 1 Section 9 which requires that taxes be apportioned according equally among the states according to population. The 16th Amendment got around that by giving Congress the power to tax income and not proportion it back to the sates equally. If they argue that Obamacare is a tax they cannot argue that it is an income tax because it taxes everyone even if they do not earn an income.

Before someone tires to argue that it desn't because it exempts people who earn less than a certain amount, that is not what it does. As many people in this thread have argued it actually gives people a credit if their income is below a certain level, but they are still subject to the Obamacare tax. That makes it a direct tax, and subject to Art. 1 Sec. 9.

Are we saying this is a tax because Americans are forced to buy a product (insurance)?

Some people are.

 

[dblack]

Are we saying this is a tax because Americans are forced to buy a product (insurance)?

I don't think that's the reason. The mandate's equivalence to a tax has been raised by those who want to defend its constitutionality based on the government's power to levy taxes. Or more to the point, government's presumed power to grant discriminatory exemptions from taxes as favors to those who do as they're told. In this case, the argument is that the mandate is the same as an across the board tax hike, with 'incentive' rebates for those who maintain approved health insurance plans.

I have two problems with that. First, by making this argument, the President and Congress are essentially admitting to a lie. They forthrightly and deliberately denied that the ACA involved any tax increase. They lied for political reasons, but that doesn't make it ok. They knew that a good many people, who don't pay much attention to the details of politics, were only concerned with whether health care reform would raise taxes, and that these people's opposition would likely have been enough to doom ACA.

I honestly don't know how such a situation will be handled by the court. It seems like an obvious case of fraud to me. But the court seems willing to overlook or ignore lots of things about the Constitution that seem obvious to me, so the clear fraudulent nature of the law might not be enough for the court to strike it down.

The other problem I have with this argument is the assumption that, because we've been using discriminatory taxation to implement social engineering for a 'long time', that makes it acceptable. I disagree. What this equivalence between mandates and tax incentives points out is the corrupt nature of tax incentives. If this equivalence is true (and I agree with those making the argument, that they are the same), then it goes both ways. Tax incentives are the same as mandates. They're glaring examples of the state doing an end-run around constitutional limitations and dictating to us via the tax code.

 

[Polk]

Try this one one for size genius.

I pointed out that decision to show you were wrong about a specific point you were trying to make. I then talk to other people about other things that are not related to that specific decision that talk about the things your genius tells you I think that decision means. The reason you have a problem separating them is that you think that it is only possible to maintain one position at a time because your brain is not capable of using threading to maintain a cohesive defense on multiple fronts.

In other words, just because you cannot think does not mean everyone cannot.

You haven't shown anything. Your claim is still the same "it's unconstitutional because I say it is" junk you've been trotting out all along. You try to bring a Supreme Court case in to it, but the analogy you make doesn't hold, so you start throwing another temper tantrum.

Bullshit.

You know what the problem with trying to say you did not say something when everything you say is recorded? People can go back and show you what you said.

You posted this:

I disagree with your belief that "discriminatory taxation" is wrong. There is a legitimate public interest in incentivizing certain behaviors and actions. Where I do agree is that this action shouldn't be done via the tax code. It creates highly inefficient outcomes.

I then posted a Supreme Court case that specifically allowed a company to challenge taxes because they are discriminatory. That shows that your belief that taxes are allowed to discriminate if the intent is promote behaviors and actions that you find are legitimate.

My sole purpose was to show you that your belief did not fit the facts in the real world, and you have run around for a couple of pages accusing me making unsupported statements. If I express an opinion I know it is an opinion, and say so. This was not an opinion, you were wrong.

To reiterate.

I have proven your opinion that discriminatory taxation to enact social policy is indeed wrong under our law. You yourself have stated that you think using the tax code to accomplish social engineering, but you support it because you agree with the goal of the social engineering. My opinion (note that I am not going to back this up with any link, I will simply let you do so for me) is that you would scream if you disagreed with the social engineering goal, but I expect you view that as being consistent. Personally, I oppose using the tax code for social engineering period, even if I like the goals.

Two separate issues. One is your opinion that social engineering through discriminatory taxation is right, the other is the mandate itself. Discrimination is always wrong, which makes your support of it wrong. I believe that the mandate is unconstitutional, but I have seen some very good arguments about why it is not. A couple of them have been so persuasive that I believe that the Supreme Court might actually have some sound arguments to support it if they choose to do so. Not one of them came from anyone on this board because everyone here does exactly what you say I am going, and claiming it is constitutional simply because they say it is.

Yes, that includes you.

You keep falling in to the same hole. I never said the taxes were discriminatory. That was a quotation of your claim.

 

[Polk]

Are we saying this is a tax because Americans are forced to buy a product (insurance)?

I don't think that's the reason. The mandate's equivalence to a tax has been raised by those who want to defend its constitutionality based on the government's power to levy taxes. Or more to the point, government's presumed power to grant discriminatory exemptions from taxes as favors to those who do as they're told. In this case, the argument is that the mandate is the same as an across the board tax hike, with 'incentive' rebates for those who maintain approved health insurance plans.

I have two problems with that. First, by making this argument, the President and Congress are essentially admitting to a lie. They forthrightly and deliberately denied that the ACA involved any tax increase. They lied for political reasons, but that doesn't make it ok. They knew that a good many people, who don't pay much attention to the details of politics, were only concerned with whether health care reform would raise taxes, and that these people's opposition would likely have been enough to doom ACA.

I honestly don't know how such a situation will be handled by the court. It seems like an obvious case of fraud to me. But the court seems willing to overlook or ignore lots of things about the Constitution that seem obvious to me, so the clear fraudulent nature of the law might not be enough for the court to strike it down.

The other problem I have with this argument is the assumption that, because we've been using discriminatory taxation to implement social engineering for a 'long time', that makes it acceptable. I disagree. What this equivalence between mandates and tax incentives points out is the corrupt nature of tax incentives. If this equivalence is true (and I agree with those making the argument, that they are the same), then it goes both ways. Tax incentives are the same as mandates. They're glaring examples of the state doing an end-run around constitutional limitations and dictating to us via the tax code.

If making false claims about a proposal invalidated laws, there are a ton of laws conservatives love that would come off the books tomorrow.

 

[Polk]

Also, for those claiming today that the individual mandate is not a tax, and therefore unconstitutional, how do you square that with arguing at the time that Obama was lying because the individual mandate is a tax hike?

Obama Denies that Individual Mandate is a Tax Increase - WSJ.com

You can't have it both ways.

 

[Polk]

They already have avoided the constitutional issue if the courts stick to existing precedent, because previous rulings have said that taxes are like ducks: if walks like one and talks like one, it is one.

I've been curious to find precedent regarding this 'tax that isn't a tax but really is' stuff. Do you have links? Does the precedent specifically address deliberate deception?

I don't have links off the top of my head, but I'll try to find more information for you. I would note that the argument here is very similar to the one made against the constitutionality of Social Security and which the Supreme Court rejected 7-2 in Helvering v. Davis (1937).