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.
Is there any chance that this tax will be based on the income of the person being charged the tax/penalty? Well surely that is why the IRS was expanded immediately after the law was passed. Basing this tax on income was what they saw coming, I guess. The IRS collects taxes on income and will now be able to use income reports to determine how much people get to pay based on their reported incomes. Ze plot, she thickens the deeper we get into this one, and you left leaners are getting deeper than you have the ability to argue so you want to call it all off.
There is a good chance that some of you will read what one of our posters said about this being THE issue for November. Obama can't allow us to have this election if he wants to remain in office.
It - the mandate was/is unconstitutional under regulations of the commerce clause.
It - the mandate - now called a tax because it is a tax via IRS is the only way the mandate is
constitutional.
Did y'all not see that coming? It has been a well known argument that public option should have been the way at the minimum as you couldn't challenge its constitutionality, or that of Single Payer System which should have been. And that, if ACA were defeated in the SC, the next reform would have been guaranteed to be addressed via taxation. No fiscally responsible person would be comfortable with the idea of a trillion dollar annual spending by the federal government without the ability to pay for it.
Now, the SC didn't exactly call it a tax, but that the Congress has the power to levy a tax, just as it does on specific items as cigarettes.
I love spinning conservatives... so, if a mandate = tax, is auto insurance a state tax?
You guys keep wanting insurance to save lives and all that and you always bring in auto insurance since to you insurance is insurance. Is there a federal law concerning auto insurance or are you trying to compare state laws with federal laws by comparing apples to bananas? Like I said you people are running out of words as you get deeper into the plot.
The Obama administration may call it tax and the GOP can't? LOL
1- Let me see the exact quotes, not your version of it.
2- How does the premise on which SC made its decision depend on arguments made by Obama administration or being made by GOP today?
It is my opinion that this bill will not be repealed... at least in whole.
That will lead to a further tilt toward more and more people moving from traditional HC into government exchanges.
Eventually that will lead to insurance companies no longer providing HC and we will then be forced into a single payer system.
That is what this bill was intended to do. That is what is going to happen. We conservatives have lost this point. I dont care what Roberts calls the mandate.
For EG and others who suggest that Roberts doesnt conclude this to be a tax. Here is the link to the actual opinion.
Any reading of secions 3 and 4 clearly indicate that for the purposes of ruling this law as constitutional, the court must consider the individual mandate a tax.
3. CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS concluded in Part III–B that the individual mandate must be construed as imposing a tax on those who do not have health insurance, if such a construction is reasonable.
The most straightforward reading of the individual mandate is thatit commands individuals to purchase insurance. But, for the reasons explained, the Commerce Clause does not give Congress that power.It is therefore necessary to turn to the Government’s alternative argument: that the mandate may be upheld as within Congress’s power to "lay and collect Taxes." Art. I, §8, cl. 1. In pressing its taxingpower argument, the Government asks the Court to view the mandate as imposing a tax on those who do not buy that product. Because "every reasonable construction must be resorted to, in order tosave a statute from unconstitutionality," Hooper v. California, 155
U. S. 648, 657, the question is whether it is "fairly possible" to inter4 NATIONAL FEDERATION OF INDEPENDENT BUSINESS v. SEBELIUS Syllabus
pret the mandate as imposing such a tax, Crowell v. Benson, 285
U. S. 22, 62. Pp. 31–32.
4. CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS delivered the opinion of the Court with respect to Part III–C, concluding that the individual mandate may beupheld as within Congress’s power under the Taxing Clause. Pp. 33–
44.
(a) The Affordable Care Act describes the "[s]hared responsibilitypayment" as a "penalty," not a "tax." That label is fatal to the application of the Anti-Injunction Act. It does not, however, control whether an exaction is within Congress’s power to tax. In answering that constitutional question, this Court follows a functional approach,"[d]isregarding the designation of the exaction, and viewing its substance and application." United States v. Constantine, 296 U. S. 287,
294. Pp. 33–35.
(b) Such an analysis suggests that the shared responsibilitypayment may for constitutional purposes be considered a tax. The payment is not so high that there is really no choice but to buy healthinsurance; the payment is not limited to willful violations, as penalties for unlawful acts often are; and the payment is collected solely by the IRS through the normal means of taxation. Cf. Bailey v. Drexel Furniture Co., 259 U. S. 20, 36–37. None of this is to say that payment is not intended to induce the purchase of health insurance. But the mandate need not be read to declare that failing to do so is unlawful. Neither the Affordable Care Act nor any other law attaches negative legal consequences to not buying health insurance, beyond requiring a payment to the IRS. And Congress’s choice of language—stating that individuals "shall" obtain insurance or pay a "penalty"—does not require reading §5000A as punishing unlawful conduct. It may also be read as imposing a tax on those who go without insurance. See New York v. United States, 505 U. S. 144, 169–174. Pp. 35–40.
(c) Even if the mandate may reasonably be characterized as atax, it must still comply with the Direct Tax Clause, which provides:"No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken." Art. I, §9, cl. 4. A tax on going without health insurance is not like acapitation or other direct tax under this Court’s precedents. It therefore need not be apportioned so that each State pays in proportion toits population. Pp. 40–41.
That is cheating, to use the actual words over editorial opinion as the Ghost tried to do. I am very proud that someone put these words out there for some of the left leaners to see instead of all the opinions they want to use. Thanks.
You guys keep wanting insurance to save lives and all that and you always bring in auto insurance since to you insurance is insurance. Is there a federal law concerning auto insurance or are you trying to compare state laws with federal laws by comparing apples to bananas? Like I said you people are running out of words as you get deeper into the plot.
Three steps to logical conversation:
1- Read.
2- Comprehend what you read.
3- Upon completion of 1 and 2, make your argument.
What is going on here in this thread and all over the web is that the misinformation army has been sent out to do the bidding of the administration. They are trying to help Obama and his lying scumbags to convince uninformed Americans that this is NOT a tax when it clearly is or the mandate is struck down. They are banking on Americans being ignorant and they are trying really hard to keep it that way. There is no way that you people aren't hired to post this crap, just no way in the world. It's quite obvious...
Will you soon be showing a link to the federal law that requires auto insurance? Surely you have one.
Comprehension is your friend.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost
I love spinning conservatives... so, if a mandate = tax, is auto insurance a state tax?
May be, you failed at #1? I was giving you unnecessary credit for getting past #1.
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.
