>> what about federal excise taxes on cigarettes and alcohol? Those surely are taxes, but their apportionment across states depends on the extent of smoking and drinking and hence would not end up being apportioned by population <<
Those are excise taxes — that is, taxes on things rather than taxes on persons.
(A poll or capitation tax is a tax on persons.)
“Those are excise taxes — that is, taxes on things rather than taxes on persons.”
Got it. But one’s exposure to such taxes depends on personal behavior: if I don’t drink, I won’t be paying liquor taxes etc. So it seems that this would establish the precedent of taxes that vary with behavior.
The individual mandate admittedly is a “tax” on “non-behavior” i.e., failure to do something, as opposed to purchasing a good or service. But is that any different than many income tax exemptions? The tax exclusion for health benefits, for example, could be viewed as a tax on people who don’t buy health insurance since their taxes are higher than they otherwise would be had they elected to do so. Same with the mortgage interest deduction.
Both are implemented through the income tax, but have effects on defined classes of individuals who do NOT do something society views as beneficial—i.e., get employer-provided HI or borrow to buy a house etc. An individual mandate seems very similar.
A related point is that many taxes have exemptions of one sort or another. Thus, we tax-privilege those who get employer-provided insurance, but don’t provide the equivalent tax deduction for those who may have purchased the identical coverage in the non-group market. So why can’t an individual mandate be framed as a universal head tax for which we are awarding an exemption to selected individuals, i.e., those who purchase qualified HI plans?