Skip to comments.What type of tax is it?
Posted on 07/01/2012 8:44:32 AM PDT by Sodbuster
The Obamacare penalty was ruled a tax by Robers. I am trying to identify what type of tax it is. Is it an income tax? No. Is it a property tax? No. I wouldn't be taxed on property that I own. I would be taxed on services that I didn't buy. Is it a sales tax? No. I wouldn't be paying a percentage sales tax on soemthing that I bought, I would be paying a tax on something that I didn't buy. Is there anything like this 'tax' in existence today? I truly need to know. How can a person be taxed for not buying something? Is there some type of obscure tax (corporate or otherwise) that this qualifies as? Somebody please explain this to me.
It’s the Hey Whatever Makes It Work Tax.
I will not comply.
If it IS a tax as Roberts somehow found it was. It’s a unconstitutional tax.
"In the name of the general welfare," read Wesley Mouch, "to protect the people's security, to achieve full equality and total stability, it is decreed for the duration of the national emergency that--
"Point One. All workers, wage earners and employees of any kind whatsoever shall henceforth be attached to their jobs and shall not leave nor be dismissed nor change employment, under penalty of a term in jail. The penalty shall be determined by the Unification Board, such Board to be appointed by the Bureau of Economic Planning and National Resources. All persons reaching the age of twenty-one shall report to the Unification Board, which shall assign them to where, in its opinion, their services will best serve the interests of the nation.
"Point Two. All industrial, commercial, manufacturing and business establishments of any nature whatsoever shall henceforth remain in operation, and the owners of such establishments shall not quit nor leave nor retire, nor close, sell or transfer their business, under pentalty of the nationalization of their establishment and of any and all of their property.
"Point Three. All patents and copyrights, pertaining to any devices, inventions, formulas, processes and works of any nature whatsoever, shall be turned over to the nation as a patriotic emergency gift by means of Gift Certificates to be signed voluntarily by the owners of all such patents and copyrights. The Unification Board shall then license the use of such patents and copyrights to all applicants, equally and without discrimination, for the purpose of eliminating monopolistic practices, discarding obsolete products and making the best available to the whole nation. No trademarks, brand names or copyrighted titles shall be used. Every formerly patented product shall be known by a new name and sold by all manufacturers under the same name, such name to be selected by the Unification Board. All private trademarks and brand names are hereby abolished.
"Point Four. No new devices, inventions, products, or goods of any nature whatsoever, not now on the market, shall be produced, invented, manufacturerd or sold afer the date of this directive. The Office of Patents and Copyrights is hereby suspended.
"Point Five. Every establishment, concern, corporation or person engaged in production of any nature whatsoever shall henceforth produce the same amount of goods per year as it, they or he produced during the Basic Year, no more and no less. The year to be known as the Basic or Yardstick Year is to be the year ending on the date of this directive. Over or under production shall be fined, such fines to be determined by the Unification Barod.
"Point Six. Every person of any age, sex, class or income, shall henceforth spend the same amount of money on the purchase of goods per year as he or she spent during the Basic Year, no more and no less. Over or under purchasing shall be fined, such fines to be determined by the Unification Board.
"Point Seven. All wages, prices, salaries, dividends, profits, interest rates and forms of income of any nature whatsoever, shall be frozen at their present figures, as of the date of this directive.
"Point Eight. All cases arising from and rules not specifically provided for in this directive, shall be settled and determined by the Unification Board, whose decisions will be final.""
It is an income tax.
As the United States Constitution requires all revenue-related bills to originate in the House, the Senate took up this bill since it was first passed by the House as a revenue-related modification to the Internal Revenue Code. The bill was then used as the Senate’s vehicle for their health care reform proposal, completely revising the content of the bill.
This also sidesteps the constitution on the requirement that direct taxes must be apportioned.
It’s the Roberts Tax.
More likely it would be a sumptuary tax ~ albeit one designed to deprive you of the "luxury" of indulging in the "sin of freeloading" (presumably).
You can read a brief on the history of this class of taxes in America at: http://www.urban.org/books/TTP/davie.cfm
Only to point this out....it’s a tax that has no effect on the wealthy of America. It’s aimed at the working class and those just above poverty. Once you lay this out in front of the 35 million folks who don’t have health insurance today....they will make up their mind about the logic of this. It fails to help.
There are all sorts of taxes on certain items the government deems "bad". Cigarettes, alcohol, sugary drinks. Taxes imposed to stifle use or consumption. In other words taxes to control behavior.
This tax is also punitive as in it wants to PUNISH people for not doing what the government deems as good.
Now, if we are to look at taxes as punitive, as the government has. Lets look at 2 taxes. Income and property taxes.
If the government deems taxes are punitive actions, then government views income and property ownership as actions that require punitive actions against them.
It is the Dread Pirate Roberts tax
He made it up. It’s the unicorn tax.
In Bizzaro World all your questions would be easily answered by word salad.
a. a tax levied by the Norman and early Angevin kings on their Crown lands and royal towns
b. a toll levied by a lord upon his tenants or by a feudal lord upon his vassals
The only way left open for us to stop this crap is a Constitutional Amendment — not even the Supreme Court can rule on it.
We would need 38 states to ratify it, and I have heard that Republicans control 33 state legislatures, so it is within grasp. State legislatures would ratify it, not a popular vote.
We need to get busy, and the anger has to be harnessed NOW.
It is a skittle dropping unicorn tax.
Ahh, you may be right
0bamatax is a “sin” tax
The progressives believe many things are bad for you, and as your nanny, penalize you for bad behavor.
Sin Taxes are not limited to the sins of : smoking, drinking alcohol, freeloading, not eating your peas,drinking more than 16oz of soda pop per minute, or what pops into dingbat Pelosi’s head on any given day
Take your pick.
It is a tax that will be calculated through your tax return...
Line 43c: Are you are self-employed and currently have health insurance policy?
If NO add $8000.00 to your tax due.
It’s made up out of thin air. No such tax exists. It’s Robert’s Tyranny Tax.
Since it will take too long before someone is actually taxed under Robert’s health care bill [In order to challenge it in Court], Congress needs to pass a direct tax of their own.
“There will be a 10,000 tax on every individual not voting for a conservative candidate this election” or some such outrageous mandate illustrating the damage Robert’s and his gang of Commies did to the Constitution.
Another Freeper pointed out that what we need is a tax on not buying a gun. If you don't buy two guns, you would be taxed twice as much.
Now, if we could get this introduced as a bill, it could be called "The Affordable Gun Act".
I believe they are calling the mandate an excise tax.
First of all, it is not really a tax, it is a command plus a penalty, like most laws. But Roberts has made his ruling, and according to the Supreme Court it is a tax.
So what kind of tax is it?
It is a DIRECT TAX.
And it is illegal because it is not apportioned among the states as required by the Constitution.
Why is it a direct tax?
Because it is a tax on someone explicitly assessed against that person for DOING NOTHING.
If the statute is a tax merely on existing as a human being, (even though there may be an additional provision exempting certain people who do certain things), then it is a DIRECT tax.
On the other hand, if the statute is a tax on the taking of an action (even though there may be an additional provision exempting various categories) then it is an EXCISE tax.
For example, a tax that applies to the purchase of gasoline is an EXCISE TAX.
On the other hand, a tax that is laid on all people, except those who purchase gasoline, is a DIRECT tax to which a category of exemption has been attached.
In other words, the fact that there is an exemption for a class of people or for people who do some certain thing, does not change the nature of the tax in the first place.
Roberts in his opinion reformulated the statute into a tax on not obtaining health insurance.
But a tax on not doing something is simply a direct tax on someone.
In reality it is a direct tax on you UNLESS you do the thing specified.
And what that is, is a direct tax (subject to an exemption) which in this case is unconstitutional because it is not apportioned.
If you're in the military and you sunburn your body, you can be punished for damaging government property.
It’s a tax on being rich.
No, wait, it’s a tax on being poor.
Well, it might better be called a tax on having income.
Actually, it’s a tax on being so stupid you go to work for some company that doesn’t offer health insurance.
That’s it! It’s a tax on being stupid.
Wait a minute, starting to sound more like it’s a tax on working and trying to support yourself and NOT relying on the government!
It might be a tax on not paying the penalty...
Or a tax on breathing...
Or a tax on trying to stay healthy. (Me personally, except for the dentist, I haven’t been in a doctors office for the last 20 years...)...
But if it’s a tax on people being healthy and not needing doctors, does that mean it’s just a tax on people who don’t complain?
It’s a direct tax, subject to apportionment.
It’s an indirect tax, subject to uniformity. Wait! If it’s supposed to be uniform, (which it ain’t) then it must be direct.
Roberts is either a traitor to the Constitution or he is a genius.
If they want to enforce this thing as a tax, trust me, it’ll be a long, long time before it get’s clarified to the point that it can go into effect.
According to Saul Alinski, Obomas prophet, the middle class is the enemy. They're the ones who have all the money and political power in elections. Because of that, they have to be destroyed or absorbed. The way to do that is to impoverish them, so they, too, become as dependent on the government as those below them. If the left could make that happen, the left would never again have to be concerned about elections. They'd be in power forever.
....that is being taxed.
Obama is also taxing you if your health care plan is too good.
It's not fair for some people to have better health care than others, so Obama will punish people who have premium plans.
So, this is a tax on something that you either buy too little of, or buy too much of. Obama will decide how much is good enough for you.
The next question is where will the tax money go? Probably the same place the Social Security money went.
The welfare and illegal crowds use the emergency room because they get a free ambulance ride and immediate care. This bill will not stop that, because they're not going to start driving themselves or paying for a taxi, and they're not going to wait 2-4 weeks to see a doctor like the rest of us will have to.
This bill is just a massive tax increase designed to pay for another massive entitlement program that will make welfare and food stamps look small in comparison.
Whoever gets put in charge of collecting had better have darn good health insurance.
In his decision, Roberts likened it to a capitation tax:
An assessment levied by the government upon a person at a fixed rate regardless of income or worth.
Since it is a tax upon the individual, and not upon merchandise, a capitation tax is frequently labeled a head tax. A poll tax is a capitation tax.
As soon as I saw it, I was thinking “that is a capitation tax...”...
A tax on everybody’s head, just for being alive.
Well, they claim the cost of ambulances and emergency rooms expenses by the uninsured are being passed on to the tax payers. They say this bill will stop that.
Why would this bill stop that? The democrat base is still going to use the "free" ambulances and "free" emergency rooms. Why pay a taxi or wait in line if they don't have to?
In fact, emergency room and ambulance costs are going to skyrocket. Even though the democrat base didn't pay it's own bills before, the ambulances and emergency rooms now have a "FREE" sign hanging on their doors. Now, the democrat base is going to be moving all their furniture in! They'll be using the emergency rooms as day care centers and ambulances as free public transportation!
It is not entirely clear to me what happens
If a state chooses not to participate and grow Medicaid.
It may be that the uninsured poor end those states end up being on the hook a considerable portion of what they “make” now in refundable tax credits in order to “pay” for their new “insurance” policies.
It’s a “Head Tax.” It’s also been called a “poll tax” (in the European sense of the word) and a “capitation tax.” IOW, it’s a tax on existence, and it’s in the constitution.
The courts will never strike it down, so if we want to get rid of it, it’s up to us.
LOL, words of wisdom Unk.....words of wisdom.
You nailed it. This tax is a dagger at the heart of the poor, and the left now realizes it. They will, believe it or not, likely join us to get rid of it.
It’s ironic, because the left was fine when it was a penalty on the poor, but they’re freaking out now that it’s a tax.
I currently have a pretty good individual policy through blue cross, actually one that is affordable. If I go into the emergency room I still have a 150.00 co pay and if I use an ambulance I have a co pay. Plus there is a deductible for any hospitalization,prescriptions, etc. My question is, under Zerocare will these co pays and out of pocket costs go away? I see a major detail that no one is addressing.. What makes one think that the folks that will now get this new insurance pay any of those costs? Who gets to eat these deductibles, co pays,etc? I had heard that the people that are not insured can now get coverages but have high deductibles.
It’s a direct tax.
All direct taxes MUST BE apportioned (collected by the states).
The only exception to that rule is the income tax.
So the federal government has to either apportion it OR ADMIT IT’S JUST AN INCREASE IN THE INCOME TAX!
The fat ladies are being auditioned now...
It’s an illegal tax.
Medicaid will have to be rationed, or the people of the state will have to accept a massive tax increase to pay for it. The feds will only pay for it until everything is in force (I think the bill allowed 2 years?). That's when the states taxpayers get the shaft. They won't know about this "new crises" until after the election if no one tells them ( and you know the democrats will never waste a good manufactured crises. They didn't set the bill up this way for nothing. They'll save us all by coming in with a "new way" (single payer), because the "old way" (private insurance) didn't work.)
Americas health care system was working just fine until the left decided to break it and take it.
Maybe it is a “RobertsTax” since he invented it!
Justice Rogers called it a tax but that does not change the bill. It was his activist ruling to justify his position of allowing the bill to stand as law. The bill does in no way call it a tax. Nothing has changes except for one fool on the SC, Justice Rogers.
As far as the commerce clause it could have been given the same lack of power as Rogers did and still repeal the entire or at least the penalty part of the bill. Think!!!!!
Its a tax period.
its a tax, a penalty, a reprimand, a fine.
Its designed to make Americas AFRAID of refusal, its a penalty to destroy a household just barely getting by.
Its a strategy to make any firm resistance family buckle under, the father will most likely have a firefight with any IRS officials, the children will be taken away to “be re-educated’ and the wife will be forced into prostitution.
Its designed to weaken the will, to break the will of freedom by making it such that no matter what there is no resistance, its futile.
its a culling tax to remove the independent spirited Resistance across America to socialism.
The MSM won’t report any sudden upswings of family deaths, especially when its because they lost all hope of fighting against Obamacare.
100% true. And I am quite confident the brainiacs over at IRS will find a way to make it pass that muster without classifying it as an income tax. Now, if some states refuse to cooperate with the apportionment, that will make for interesting viewing, wouldn't you say?
“As direct taxes, they are required to follow the rule of apportionment found in Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3.
The rule of apportionment requires the amount of a direct tax collected to be divided by the number of Representatives in the United States House of Representatives, the quotient is then multiplied by the number of representatives each State has to determine each State's share of the tax which it then needs to lay and collect through its own taxing authority.
Robert's is pulling this mythical tax option out of his arse. All Justices voting to uphold this Constitution KILLING decision should be impeached.
As I said, interesting viewing ahead. I’m stocking up on popcorn.
This isn’t a play for this upcoming election. It’s a play for a generation of elections employing rules with which most of us are not familiar. Now that a tax has to be called a tax the nature of elections, both state and federal, is changed.
We must adapt or die. And I think the new ground favors us, provided our Generals are well versed in Sun Tzu.
And we should point out to everyone that the protection against unapportioned direct taxes is VERY IMPORTANT.
The framers did not want the federal government to have the power to single out groups from within the population that they didn’t like and then lay direct taxes on that group.
Like laying a direct tax on everyone who is not an Episcopalian.
Or laying a direct tax on everyone who lives in a red state and not a blue state.
Or laying a direct tax on everyone who hasn’t happened to have entered into a certain insurance contract the government likes.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.