You are delusional. Roberts usurped congressional authority to write tax code. He called a penalty ( a fijne if you will) a tax. A fine is imposed as punishment. The government MUST prove that I broke the law before they can fine me (impose a penalty). I get a day in court. Ruleas of law apply. A tax is levied and if I believe it is unfair or unjust I MUST prove that I am innocent. I may or may not get a day in court. Moreover I have to pay the tax before I can appeal the tax. What the court has done is to allow the government to force you to do whatever they want or they wil impose a fine that can now by called a tax. The Constitution is very specific about taxing authority and what can and cannot be taxed. This violates that portion of the Constitution which apparently does not to bother Roberts.
We are so screwed. Do not delude yourself there is NOTHING good from this. With Roberts implied taxation ability the government no longer needs anything else to force compliance. Roberts has over turned 200 years of SCOTUS doctrine. The Marshall court settled this early on. The power to tax....etc
“.......Roberts usurped congressional authority to write tax code. He called a penalty......a tax. A FINE IS IMPOSED AS PUNISHMENT. THE GOVERNMENT MUST PROVE THAT I BROKE THE LAW BEFORE THEY CAN FINE ME (IMPOSE A PENALTY). I get a day in court. Rules of law apply. A TAX IS LEVIED AND IF I BELIEVE IT IS UNFAIR OR IS UNJUST I MUST PROVE THAT I AM INNOCENT. I may or may not get a day in court. Moreover I HAVE TO PAY THE TAX BEFORE I CAN APPEAL THE TAX. What the court has done is to allow the government to force you to do whatever they want or they will impose a fine that can now by called a tax. The Constitution is very specific about taxing authority and what can and cannot be taxed. This violates that portion of the Constitution which apparently does not to bother Roberts..........?
************************************************************************************
The part of your post that I CAPITALIZED brings to my mind the question of how would the IRS determine that the tax is due from an individual. My guess is that this tax will be treated as are other similar IRS items where the ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE that you have acceptable medical insurance will result in your automatically being assessed the “tax”. I guess acceptable “evidence” will be some “coverage” data employers will have be required to put on their employees’ W-2s and/or something akin to a 1099 form that insurance companies will be required to produce and send to the government and, probably, the covered individuals. And remember that the “covered individuals” will include all the secondary persons (spouse, “children”) who are on the policy and may be employed elsewhere without insurance company coverage. More tax related and bureaucratic paperwork and hours expended for everybody.
I sure hope that this monstrosity will be repealed before it goes into effect.