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.
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.
-PJ
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.
Bingo!
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.
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.