[Repeal The 17th]

“...huge difference between offering a tax credit for someone deciding to do something and taxing someone for not doing something...”
-
Just semantics.
You don’t have kids? You don’t get the tax credit...
You don’t have a mortgage? You don’t get the tax credit...
You don’t give to charity? You don’t get the tax credit...
You don’t contribute to a 401K plan? You don’t get the tax credit...
You didn’t put in a new high efficiency air conditioner? You don’t get the tax credit...
You didn’t buy an alternative fuel vehicle? You don’t get the tax credit...
You don’t have health insurance? You don’t get the tax credit...

Such as it ever was, such as it ever was...

[goodnesswins]

I don’t think it’s going to be a “tax credit”....you will get CHARGED an extra $2000 for having no kids...

[old curmudgeon]

The one that makes my blood boil is the rule that you pass a law that does not allow anyone younger than 21 to drink a beer.

So we see these young men with no arms, no legs, a result of their volunteering to go to Afghanistan, unable to drink a beer even though they are encouraged to be killed....

But that is not manipulation by tax?

All states collect federal gas tax and various other road taxes, send it to DC but then are told to jump through hoops if they want to get any of it back.

But until now the federal gangsters have not had the power to shape our lives through taxation?

The taxation of the public and then the threat of withholding that tax from them has been one of the most dictatorial king-like powers of the federal government.

[skully]

Call it semantics if you want, but it's not a tax credit, its a tax penalty.
In the examples you gave, I don't have to pay the government for not having kids, or a mortgage etc.
If I do have kids, mortgage etc, I get my tax liability reduced via the tax credit.
If I do not to have health insurance, then my tax liability goes up via the tax penalty.
I call that not the same thing.

[Freedom_Is_Not_Free]

Epic fail.

NONE of the examples you cited included a person PAYING A TAX because he purchased NOTHING or peformed NO ACTIVITY.

Fail. You lose.

[Waryone]

You don’t buy health insurance, you don’t get a health insurance tax credit makes sense. If that is the way they had set it up, I would not say a word.

But forcing people to buy health insurance or they get a tax penalty is an entirely different story. It may just be semantics to you but giving people an incentive to do something is very much different from penalizing them for not doing something.

The first case you have a choice to get the incentive or not. It will only cost you the incentive. The second case costs you either way. You have to pay for something you would not normally buy. Or pay a tax for not doing it.

I would not label that mere semantics.

[tumblindice]

You don’t have any earnings or pay any taxes?
You get tax credits.
And now you get `free’ health care.

So don’t worry about paying that ambu-lance bill next time you
lay your old lady out `cause her tongue is hinged on both ends.