Skip to comments.You can't mandate that we eat broccoli, but you can tax us if we don't (vanity)
Posted on 06/30/2012 9:53:23 AM PDT by teg_76
There was nothing positive in this for our side, regardless of some of the articles trying to spin it that way.
Thanks John Roberts. We wouldn't want you to tarnish your "legacy" with the liberal media.
Thank GW Bush for nominating Roberts.
Why do the liberal appointees never disappoint their side? Why aren't all of our nominees reliable, like the liberals?
title: very well said.
Democrats make no pretense of believing in the Constitution - they believe in getting their way and consolidating power. We're trying to keep the country and freedoms we love - we're playing on different fields/
Roberts is out of the closet.....
playing pocket pool with the democrats...
Because the natural order of things is that government always grows bigger and more socialist until it fails. It happened to Rome, it happened to Britain, and now it’s happening to America. No judge, President, or voter can do anything to stop it. imho...
The Obamacare tax is a healthcare jizya - instead of a tax for not accepting the subjugation of islam, it’s a tax for not accepting government mandated healthcare.
the issue in play is that it is not in the enumerated powers so it should have been overturned as unconstitutional , PERIOD ! simple as that !
It’s because the left-wing idealogues come in declaring that they’re left-wing idealogues and intend to vote as such. Whereas conservatives tend to be objective, and how can you be objective if you never side with the opposition?
Just wait until they start taxing people for not earning money. It’s coming, citizen!
You’re almost right. It’s because the judges appointed by Republicans always have to be blank slates who are devoid of any controversial opinions that might indicate that they would vote to overturn Roe v. Wade. So, we don’t know who they really are going in, and we should never be surprised, if we allow the left to force us to pick judges that way, when the judges we pick turn out not to be what we thought they “might” be.
Despite the Chief Justice’s rather cursory and shallow analysis, it seems to me that if a tax, it is a direct tax. It certainly isn’t an income tax (which is permitted only because the 16th amendment includes an explicit waiver of the proportionment requirement), despite the fact that the IRS administers it.
It isn’t an excise tax (or luxury or sin tax) as these apply to the seller, not the buyer.
And, in all of the above examples, what is taxed is something that actual happens (sale of a good or service, earning income or dividends, etc. This is a “tax” on nothing other than existing.
So, I’m left with the conclusion that it is a direct tax (for not doing something) which does not pass Constitutional muster.
What do you know I just found the clip I was looking for of Obama saying it is wrong to be forced to pay a fine to have insurance but still not be able to buy inurance. This is what I see happening to myself
Save for one exception...."When in the course of human events...."
If the government is worried about obesity just slap on a fat surtax with income tax filers having to provide certified scale readings along with their 1040 form.
That’s NOT what will happen.
Oh, they’ll tax you alright, and probably give away free broccoli to the poor, elderly, minorities, transgendered or whatever other fictional “group-rights” recipients they can concoct and parade around.
They will hire their buddies to run the broccoli collection and distribution pipeline.
And they will spend the extra tax money elsewhere.
Next is Negative Tax increases.
Mathematically a deduction for one group is no different than an increase on everyone else that can't take the deduction. Everyone of us that doesn't get some special deduction from the government is penalized for not doing that thing required to receive the deduction.
Logically correct, but still it seems to me that none of these are direct taxes in the sense contemplated by the framers (although, in the alternative, any of them which are paid as a part of income tax are specifically waived from the direct tax proportionality requirement).
When a family is so poor that they can not afford health insurance, how the devil are they expected to pay the penalty? This is foolish!
Think about it....This is a tax penalty, totally different from any other tax deductions or credits. This tax penalty kicks in if one either does not purchase health insurance or a health insurance policy that “unexpectedly” does not meet “expected” requirements. This ia a catch 22 situation, basically the way the ACA is written (which can be modified by the Secretary) all policies or selected policies may be deemed ineligible.
You are exactly right - on this bill. The doom and gloom on my part is because of the precedent that has been set here. The Feds can mandate we do anything they want and penalize us if we don’t comply. There is no limit to this sort of nonsense.
This tax is not a joke. It is a ground breaking precedent.If Chief Justice Roberts thought the mandate was OK under the governments taxing power he should have said so and told them to go back and rewrite it as tax law. But no..in a classic case of judicial activism, he rewrote the law himself. In the process he opened the door to unlimited taxes levied as punitive measures or in an attempt to coerce certain behaviors. One example that comes to mind is a Natural Disaster Insurance. The federal government spends billions of dollars every year on disaster relief in the wake of fires, floods, earthquakes,hurricaines, tornados, etc. Just think of the money they could save if every property owner was forced to buy National Disaster Insurance to cover any damage from such events. If an owner declined to participate in the program, he could simply be punished with a tax disguised as a fine. The insurance companies could even be directed to pay a portion of any claims to the government to help pay for cleanups that arent covered by an owners policy. Surely no one could object to such a policy; after all, it is all in the interest of the “greater good” of all Americans and follows the precedent laid down by Roberts.
I agree with you. This not a tax, IMHO. But if it is, it is an unconstitutional direct tax (also IMHO -— but I’m quickly learning a lot more about this area than I ever wanted to).
Your closing point (”all policies or selected policies may be deemed ineligible”) gets, I think, to the core ideological goal: to destroy the insurance industry and force everyone into a single payer system run by the Feds.
Obama stated a desire for a single payer system well before he was elected but noted that going directly to it would be “too disruptive”. Maybe Roberts was alluding to this when he said in the decision “Its not our job to protect people from their political choices” (a lot nicer thing to say than HL Menckens’ “the people know what they want and they deserve to get it good and hard”). Unfortunately, nobody asked Roberts to protect us from “our” political choice, only to make a sound legal decision. I don’t think he did so.
You think people care about that? Ends justify the means for most leftists and liberal communists.
We shouldn’t have to pay a tax for something that should be FREEEEEE!
I guess the dimwits that think 0bamacare is a good thing haven’t figured this out yet.
Exactly...this fine/penalty disguised as a tax is so ambiguous in description, since the ACA was not passed as a tax but as a penalty. I have stated previously the ACA has nothing to do with “Health Care”. The entire purpose is to decimate the health insurance industry to put the federal government in total control of health care.
What good is socialized medicine if you are taxed so high your quality of life sucks? Might as well die and end it quickly.
Interesting that the plan in Mass proposed by Romney and which he got mostly passed (heavily modified since by the legislature and the next Governor) also had a “mandate” (no Federal tax issue there) -— but the amounts were very low (~$350 or so, as I recall) or you could post a bond as you can do for driving liability (that, too, was pretty low). His major idea was to push private insurance with an emphasis on catastrophic protection, and there was clearly no “end game” of a single (government) payer.
OMG! You’ve tumbled onto their planned solution to the Social Security/Medicare financial crisis! :))
OMG! You’ve stumbled onto their planned solution to the Social Security/Medicare financial crisis! :))