Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Roberts Clarifies: Mandate is a Tax...Not a Penalty [For Campaign Purposes]
ATR ^ | 2012-07-26 | Justin Sykes

Posted on 07/27/2012 12:38:40 PM PDT by 92nina

In the weeks following the Supreme Court's ruling on the healthcare mandate, President Obama and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi have repeatedly stated to the public that the individual mandate contained in Obamacare is not a tax. The Democrats' hard line stance that the mandate is not a tax is illogical, as evidenced by Chief Justice Robert's constitutional analysis of the individual mandate.

Contrary to President Obama and the Democrat's interpretation of the mandate, Justice Roberts made ten key points in his analysis on why the mandate is a tax, and not a penalty:

  1. The Government asks us to read the mandate not as ordering individuals to buy insurance, but rather as imposing a tax on those who do not buy that product.
  2. According to the Government...the mandate can be regarded as establishing a condition - not owning health insurance - that triggers a tax - the required payment to the IRS.
  3. [The mandate] makes going without insurance just another thing that the Government taxes, like buying gasoline or earning income.
  4. The Government asks us to interpret the mandate as imposing a tax, if it would otherwise violate the Constitution.
  5. The exaction the Affordable Care Act imposes on those without health insurance looks like a tax in many respects.
  6. The process yields the essential feature of any tax: it produces at least some revenue for the Government.
  7. The same analysis here suggests that the shared responsibility payment may for constitutional purposes be considered a tax, not a penalty.
  8. The reasons the Court in Drexel Furniture held that what was called a "tax" there was a penalty support the conclusion that what is called a "penalty" here may be viewed as a tax.
  9. The shared responsibility payment merely imposes a tax citizens may lawfully choose to pay in lieu of buying health insurance.
  10. We have already explained that the shared responsibility payment's practical characteristics pass muster as a tax under our narrowest interpretations of the taxing power.

Justice Robert's concluded his analysis by stating that Obamacare's "requirement that certain individuals pay a financial penalty for not obtaining health insurance may...be characterized as a tax."

Read more: http://atr.org/roberts-clarifies-mandate-tax-penalty-a7072#ixzz21qxqSjsz


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Government; Politics; Reference
KEYWORDS: elections; obama; obamacare; scotus; taxes
10 points made by the Chief Justice clarifying why the individual mandate is a tax...and not a penalty. [Am not saying anything Justice Roberts says has value, but Obama does supposedly uphold the decision, so it's a political consideration.]
1 posted on 07/27/2012 12:38:55 PM PDT by 92nina
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: 92nina

Roberts knows Obama does not have to go by his language. It’s a penalty. It was only a tax for the purpose of the decision. Now it’s a penalty again, which it always was. And Roberts knows that.


2 posted on 07/27/2012 12:42:09 PM PDT by nickcarraway
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 92nina

I’ve heard enough out of you, Mr. Roberts.

Shut up.


3 posted on 07/27/2012 12:44:35 PM PDT by chris37 (Heartless.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: chris37

Roberts, you voted with Kagan, Sotormayor, Ginsburg and Breyer....so it really doesn’t matter what the hell you think.


4 posted on 07/27/2012 12:47:30 PM PDT by dfwgator (FUJR (not you, Jim))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway

I hear you, and it makes me feel torn about it. Then again, even if the GOP doesn’t have 60 seats in the Senate in Jan. 2013, so long as they also have the House, they can use Reconciliation to get rid of the Individual Mandate, as the taxing power covers it, according to Roberts. (Of course they need a president who opposes Obamacare to sign it.)


5 posted on 07/27/2012 12:54:11 PM PDT by 92nina
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: chris37

I agree. Roberts betrayed his own judicial philosophy by allowing the lawyers a multiple choice answer. The fact will always remain that the law was NOT passed as a tax. His name is mud.


6 posted on 07/27/2012 1:01:00 PM PDT by NotTallTex
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway

It is an effing tax, period. If you don’t pay a tax THEN you get a penalty. What?!


7 posted on 07/27/2012 1:09:24 PM PDT by poobear (Socialism, in the minds of the elites, is a con-game for the serfs, nothing more.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: NotTallTex
The fact will always remain that the law was NOT passed as a tax.
Would you like to be shown that it was presented as well as passed as a tax?

@ S. 1796 [Report No. 111–89]

Mr. BAUCUS, from the Committee on Finance reported the following original bill; which was read twice and placed on the calendar Snip Subtitle D—Shared Responsibility
PART I—INDIVIDUAL RESPONSIBILITY
Sec. 1301. Excise tax on individuals without essential health benefits coverage.

If it was presented as a tax wouldn't it be passed as a tax as well?

Are you sure you know what you're talking about
or do you believe you know what you're talking about?

8 posted on 07/27/2012 1:22:31 PM PDT by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: 92nina; nickcarraway; chris37; dfwgator; poobear

Ping to reply #8.


9 posted on 07/27/2012 1:24:40 PM PDT by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: All
Belated KUDOS to the owner of this website for an excellent gathering of info.

Legislative History on the Tax Issue, A Compilation of Selected Sources

10 posted on 07/27/2012 1:29:34 PM PDT by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: 92nina; P-Marlowe

Sorry, Robbie, but if I’m taxed because I DON’T own a picture of Obama, then I’m being penalized.

If I’m not taxed because I do own a picture of Obama, then I’m not being penalized.

Try to explain it away all you want, but the obvious is still the obvious.


11 posted on 07/27/2012 1:34:23 PM PDT by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! Those who truly support our troops pray for their victory!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 92nina

I doubt the GOP would overturn it if they had 65 Senators.


12 posted on 07/27/2012 1:39:55 PM PDT by nickcarraway
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: 92nina

It’s a tax on being alive. Period.


13 posted on 07/27/2012 1:54:53 PM PDT by Clock King
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 92nina

**** roberts... he is just a white version of a kenyan communist.

LLS


14 posted on 07/27/2012 2:08:48 PM PDT by LibLieSlayer (Don't Tread On Me)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: philman_36

I appreciate you showing us this resource, it is useful, so thank you, and thanks to the original compiler. All in all, lots of unsurprising double-talk by Democrats on the definition of the Individual Mandate.


15 posted on 07/27/2012 2:25:27 PM PDT by 92nina
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: 92nina

Just more proof that when it’s said that “everyone knows that ‘such and such’ is ‘so and so’” isn’t always ‘so and so’ and that what “everyone knows” often isn’t what actually is.


16 posted on 07/27/2012 2:38:13 PM PDT by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: philman_36

I am not talking about how it was presented, I am talking about how it was passed by Congress. With all the difficulty of it being passed as a penalty, do you actually think it would have passed had it been passed, by Congress, as a tax? Roberts allowed it to be “presented” in a different manner than which it was passed. All the Democrats, including Obama, insisted it was NOT a tax!


17 posted on 07/28/2012 11:14:57 AM PDT by NotTallTex
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: NotTallTex
With all the difficulty of it being passed as a penalty, do you actually think it would have passed had it been passed, by Congress, as a tax?
You don't seem to grasp that it was passed as a tax by Congress. Changing the words from "excise tax" to "penalty" doesn't change anything. Read the debates.

All the Democrats, including Obama, insisted it was NOT a tax!
THEY LIED! They lied straight to your face smiling all the while. Don't you get it?!

18 posted on 07/28/2012 12:23:12 PM PDT by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: NotTallTex
Roberts allowed it to be “presented” in a different manner than which it was passed.
A Judge can't change how a Respondent presents their argument. The Judge can only ask the Respondent to clarify their argument.

@Supreme Court: The Health Care Law And The Individual Mandate

GENERAL VERRILLI: I don't think that that's a fair characterization of the actions of Congress here, Justice Kagan. On the — December 23rd, a point of constitutional order was called to, in fact, with respect to this law. The floor sponsor, Senator Baucus, defended it as an exercise of the taxing power. In his response to the point of order, the Senate voted 60 to 39 on that proposition.

The legislative history is replete with members of Congress explaining that this law is constitutional as an exercise of the taxing power. It was attacked as a tax by its opponents. So I don't think this is a situation where you can say that Congress was avoiding any mention of the tax power.

It would be one thing if Congress explicitly disavowed an exercise of the tax power. But given that it hasn't done so, it seems to me that it's — not only is it fair to read this as an exercise of the tax power, but this Court has got an obligation to construe it as an exercise of the tax power, if it can be upheld on that basis.

Here's another reply of mine with link to an article with some more info showing that it was always a tax...It Was Always a Tax

The brief that administration lawyers filed on behalf of President Obama argued at length that the mandate is a tax.

19 posted on 07/28/2012 12:48:56 PM PDT by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: philman_36

Well, from what I have read of the first day’s oral arguments, it was argued as a penalty. When that wouldn’t fly, Roberts allowed a secondary argument presented as a tax. You are right, we were lied to by everyone. The good side is that now, even after Pelosi and Obama and others denying it was a tax, it can now be easier to overturn. But who knows what else is hidden in the document which is equal in size to several War and Peaces.


20 posted on 07/28/2012 2:48:46 PM PDT by NotTallTex
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: NotTallTex
When that wouldn’t fly, Roberts allowed a secondary argument presented as a tax.
He didn't "allow" a secondary argument, he heard the second argument which had been presented to the Court to begin with!
Here's a clue for you... I. THE SEVERABILITY OF MOST PROVISIONS OF THE ACT MAY NOT BE CONSIDERED IN THIS CASE

II. IF THE COURT REACHES THE QUESTION, IT SHOULD HOLD THAT THE ACT IS SEVERABLE FROM THE MINIMUM COVERAGE PROVISION EXCEPT FOR THE GUARANTEED-ISSUE AND COMMUNITY-RATING PROVISIONS THAT TAKE EFFECT IN 2014

Get it? Two arguments from the Respondents, not from the Court.
If not one, the other.

Sol Gen - "Oh, the Commerce Clause doesn't cover it, Your Honor?"
USSC - "No, it doesn't."
Sol Gen - "Then uphold the individual mandate as it falls under the taxing power of Congress as we presented in our brief."
USSC - "You got it."
Sol Gen - "Thank you, Your Honor."

21 posted on 07/28/2012 4:24:19 PM PDT by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: philman_36

The way I understand it is that the power of taxation resides in the House, not the Senate. The Senate cannot attach taxation to a bill at the 11th hour that had not been approved by the House, but it appears they did it anyway.


22 posted on 07/30/2012 1:22:57 PM PDT by NotTallTex
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: NotTallTex
The way I understand it is that the power of taxation resides in the House, not the Senate.

It did start in the House.

Look into this...
@Service Members Home Ownership Tax Act of 2009 (Introduced in House - IH)[H.R.3590.IH]

@http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-111hr3590ih/pdf/BILLS-111hr3590ih.pdf

As you can see from that first link it got hijacked along the way.

23 posted on 07/30/2012 5:02:25 PM PDT by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: 92nina

Still can’t see how people can be singled out for not purchasing something,is there not supposed to be something called equal protection in the law,taxes are supposed to be apportioned to everyone not just certain groups


24 posted on 07/31/2012 1:31:23 PM PDT by ballplayer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson