“Taxes” are for Revenue. SCOTUS is Wrong.

Tenth Amendment Center ^ | 7 July 2012 | Rob Natelson

[sourcery]

Defects in the Supremes’ holding that the Obamacare penalty is a “tax”

Under the Constitution’s original meaning, the Supreme Court’s holding that Obamacare’s penalty for not purchasing health insurance is a tax is defective in at least two respects.

Continued

[dufekin]

It’s an income tax. It has to be. It even has a rate schedule.

For a $0 tax,
Income < {sum of personal exemption (2 if married filing jointly) and standard deduction for filing status}
Income < $17,950 (married)
Income < $12,850 (head of household)
Income < $10,000 (single)

The tax on income even slightly above that threshold is:
$695 for each taxpayer, spouse (if filing jointly), and dependent aged 18 or older, PLUS
$347.50 for each taxpayer, spouse, and dependent under age 18
BUT not more than a total of $2085.

If the 2.5% of difference between total household income and the filing threshold (listed earlier) exceeds this calculation, then you will pay this greater amount instead of the flat rate.

But, to protect the very rich, the tax cannot exceed the national average bronze premium for plans on exchanges.

So it’s a very regressive tax. For a single mother (or father) filing as “head of household” with four (or more) dependent children, a household income of just $12,850.01 triggers an automatic $2085 income tax, sending 16.2% of total income straight to the federal government. This tax payment provides no medical care or health insurance and indeed impedes access by driving the family into deeper poverty.

Moreover, if $10,000.01 of that household income comes from a 17-year-old dependent child (or a 24-year-old college student), that child (if single) must pay $347.50 (or $695 if over 18 years of age) in addition to the parents’ tax penalty on behalf of the same dependent child.

[sourcery]

Indirect taxes must be uniform—they must apply to everyone equally. The rule of law imposes the same requirement.

But this law exempts those who have health insurance. It also examples those with certain religious objections, and those who are illegal aliens.

So it's Unconstitutional as a violation of the uniformity requirement, as a violation of the principle of the rule of law, and as a Bill of Attainder (any laws that imposes a tax or penalty in a way that violates the rule of law is a Bill of Attainder.)

The Court has permitted Congress to use deductions and credits to get around those issues. But an income tax with a 100% standard deduction for those with health insurance (or a tax credit in the amount of the tax) isn't the law that Congress wrote.

That's why the dissent was correct: Roberts rewrote the law, he didn't interpret it.