Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
And how many Americans know the details of the decision..that the WH argued it was a tax ?
All they know is that it passed. The WH is now back to saying it's not a tax because that is what they said in the past. The lemmings heard this argument once before and will not pay attention.
I was at lunch yesterday with 4 coworkers. These are middle class/upper middle class white collar workers with college degrees in Engineering. You would think these would be "informed" people wouldn't you ? Not a one knew the details of the Supreme Court ruling. When I told them, they shrugged and then commented that I shouldn't spend so much time reading about politics.
There used to be two other folks at work that kept up with politics and we used to have some good, lively debates without getting personal about it. Sadly those 2 got layed off last year
Exactly.
The heart of Verrilli’s argument, that the mandate should be considered justified under the Congress’ taxing power, seemed to center on this point, which he made twice that day -- that the mandate would be administered by the Internal Revenue Service, the agency responsible for taxation.
“With respect to the question of characterization,” Verrilli told Justice Scalia, “the -- this is -- in the Internal Revenue Code, it is administered by the IRS; it is paid on your Form 1040 on April 15th.”
A few minutes later, pressed by Justice Roberts, he reiterated the point. “[i]t is in the Internal Revenue Code,” Verrilli said. “It is collected by the IRS on April 15th.”
dont pay, I know people right now that shall not pay at all. they are the type of people to tell the feds to go suck an egg to their faces.
You are wrong, the people who are struggling and have no insurance are generally the poorer working people. The ones who can afford to pay and have insurance it will not affect them unless their premiums go sky high in the future which in all probablility it will.. some had insurance but had to drop it for financial reasons and some never had insurance . They will be taxed for not paying.
We know that health insurance is expensive and many pay out of pocket if they have to go to the doctor. This is no longer an option for many. It will have a negative impact on many who have to pay the hefty fine or get insurance as the rates will definitely go up and the tax for not getting coverage will go into the thousands.
Some college kids are strapped with college loan debt and housing , car payment, yet they look like they can afford insurance.. some are eating ramen noodles to make it work. There are all kinds of scenarios out there and it will be an extra burden on many.
all this extra money going into healthcare, and it will gobble up millions if not billions , and will rob other areas of the economy. The movie houses , the extras that once were will be gone for many. The economy will be diminished as health care takes over our dollars.
His lawyers argued for it as a tax in front of the Supreme Court because they knew it was the only chance he'd have to get it through and now that everyone is calling it a tax, he wants us to move along, nothing to see here.
How is something a tax if only 2% percent of the population will be effected by it? And, they don't have to be effected by it, it's their choice. As I continue to state, if I choose to park in a handicap sopt and get a ticket, that's a penalty not a tax.
So, if I choose to work, it's a penalty, not a tax on my earnings?
If I chose to buy gas, it's a penalty and not a tax?
Just because something affects only 2% of the population, because of a choice they made, does not mean it's a penalty, and not a tax.
And even though you already bought gum for yourself you have to help buy gum for the ones who didn't want any gum.
Not exactly. You don't want any gum because you don't really need gum or want it but you are forced to buy gum for everyone else in the store. That is closer to the mandate.
Not exactly. You don't want any gum because you don't really need gum or want it but you are forced to buy gum for everyone else in the store. That is closer to the mandate.
IT'S A TAX.
Actually you have to do both. You pay a tax because you didn't buy gum AND you have to pay "your fair share" for everyone else to buy gum.
His lawyers argued for it as a tax in front of the Supreme Court because they knew it was the only chance he'd have to get it through and now that everyone is calling it a tax, he wants us to move along, nothing to see here.
Oh no, it's got and will maintain our full attention for all time to come.
"Remember the Alamo" was the old call to action.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
