Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
It was NOT brought up before SCOTUS as a tax.
The LAW was never re-written after it finally passed. AS written -- not by mistake, but by deliberative CHOICE -- the mandate was a PENALTY, not a "tax."
It is ruled Constitutional as a tax...by a conservative Justice.It is not constitutional because it will force people to buy health care. The gov't. has no business doing that. If you agree with the ruling then you must be a liberal deep down.They were right by saying it isn't Constitutional under the Commerce Clause, and they are right that it is a tax and therefor is constitutional.
Don't get me wrong, Obamacare is a BAD bill and will ruin the economy and healthcare, but the damage was done when we elected obama as POTUS and not when the justices correctly enterpreted the Constitution.
It's a tax for purposes of making it Constitutional under the taxing authority granted under the Constitution. BUT, it's NOT a tax for purposes of apportionment? Come again? I say WHAT?
AND it's not a tax for purposes of the anti-injunction law that would have prohibited any court from adjudicating the case UNTIL someone had actually BEEN taxed (paid the tax) under the law -- which has not happened yet and could not have happened yet.
What is this? Judicial analysis based on Through the Looking Glass?
It's a tax for purposes of making it Constitutional under the taxing authority granted under the Constitution. BUT, it's NOT a tax for purposes of apportionment? Come again? I say WHAT?
AND it's not a tax for purposes of the anti-injunction law that would have prohibited any court from adjudicating the case UNTIL someone had actually BEEN taxed (paid the tax) under the law -- which has not happened yet and could not have happened yet.
What is this? Judicial analysis based on Through the Looking Glass?
page 1: 1st paragraph:
One key provision is the individual mandate...Beginning in 2014, those who do not comply with the mandate must make a "hared responsibility payment" to the Federal Government...The Act provides that this "penalty" will be paid to the Internal Revenue Service with an individual's taxes, and "shall be assessed and collected in the same manner" as tax penalties.
The IRS was involved from day one. The IRS...the Government Tax Collector
Congress already had that power. The difference now is that rather than interpretation being up for grabs, it no longer is. If they say we must by fruits or get penalized with a tax, they could do that. They can not however, simply mandate that we buy fruits.
This tax isn't FOR buying something, it's for NOT buying something. The government can now tax you for NOT purchasing whatever they deem.
But they already had that power. No new amendments to the constitution had to be written to allow this. It already existed.
It's a tax for purposes of making it Constitutional under the taxing authority granted under the Constitution. BUT, it's NOT a tax for purposes of apportionment? Come again? I say WHAT?
AND it's not a tax for purposes of the anti-injunction law that would have prohibited any court from adjudicating the case UNTIL someone had actually BEEN taxed (paid the tax) under the law -- which has not happened yet and could not have happened yet.
What is this? Judicial analysis based on Through the Looking Glass?
page 1: 1st paragraph:
One key provision is the individual mandate...Beginning in 2014, those who do not comply with the mandate must make a "hared responsibility payment" to the Federal Government...The Act provides that this "penalty" will be paid to the Internal Revenue Service with an individual's taxes, and "shall be assessed and collected in the same manner" as tax penalties.
The IRS was involved from day one. The IRS...the Government Tax Collector
They referred to it as a "penalty" not as a "tax". That's the whole point Liability is making.
AS WRITTEN, the bill calls it a "penalty"; the SC is the one who said "it's a tax" and ruled from there.
They could have argued that is was moon cheese, doesn't matter. The bill was written with the mandate as a "penalty" NOT a "tax".
This tax isn't FOR buying something, it's for NOT buying something. The government can now tax you for NOT purchasing whatever they deem.
But they already had that power. No new amendments to the constitution had to be written to allow this. It already existed.
They already had the power to tax you for NOT purchasing something?
What else do they levy a tax on for non-purchasing?
page 1: 1st paragraph:
One key provision is the individual mandate...Beginning in 2014, those who do not comply with the mandate must make a "hared responsibility payment" to the Federal Government...The Act provides that this "penalty" will be paid to the Internal Revenue Service with an individual's taxes, and "shall be assessed and collected in the same manner" as tax penalties.
The IRS was involved from day one. The IRS...the Government Tax Collector
They referred to it as a "penalty" not as a "tax". That's the whole point Liability is making.
AS WRITTEN, the bill calls it a "penalty"; the SC is the one who said "it's a tax" and ruled from there.
They could have argued that is was moon cheese, doesn't matter. The bill was written with the mandate as a "penalty" NOT a "tax".
I can refer to anything in any way I want. That doesn't make anything a reality. The bill was written with words the ruling quoted:
---
page 1: 1st paragraph:
One key provision is the individual mandate...Beginning in 2014, those who do not comply with the mandate must make a "hared responsibility payment" to the Federal Government...The Act provides that this "penalty" will be paid to the Internal Revenue Service with an individual's taxes, and "shall be assessed and collected in the same manner" as tax penalties.
The IRS was involved from day one. The IRS...the Government Tax Collector
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/11-393c3a2.pdf
But they already had that power. No new amendments to the constitution had to be written to allow this. It already existed.
They already had the power to tax you for NOT purchasing something?
What else do they levy a tax on for non-purchasing?
"The government can now tax you for NOT purchasing whatever they deem." about as factual a statement as anything "Baghdad Bob" uttered as US tanks surrounded the capital of Iraq
Muhammad Saeed al-Sahhaf - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
They referred to it as a "penalty" not as a "tax". That's the whole point Liability is making.
AS WRITTEN, the bill calls it a "penalty"; the SC is the one who said "it's a tax" and ruled from there.
They could have argued that is was moon cheese, doesn't matter. The bill was written with the mandate as a "penalty" NOT a "tax".
I can refer to anything in any way I want. That doesn't make anything a reality. The bill was written with words the ruling quoted:
---
page 1: 1st paragraph:
One key provision is the individual mandate...Beginning in 2014, those who do not comply with the mandate must make a "hared responsibility payment" to the Federal Government...The Act provides that this "penalty" will be paid to the Internal Revenue Service with an individual's taxes, and "shall be assessed and collected in the same manner" as tax penalties.
The IRS was involved from day one. The IRS...the Government Tax Collector
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/11-393c3a2.pdf
It was written with the words "penalty", Obama et all repeatedly claimed "it is not a tax", the SC repeatedly corrected the gov't lawyers that it was a "penalty" whenever the lawyers called it a "tax" ... penalty, penalty, penalty ... then SC decided what the government reallllly meant was "tax" not "penalty" . . . .even though it was written as a "penalty".
Again, what the government meant and what was actually written are two different things. The SC decided to go with 'words' vs. 'what was actually written in the bill'.
Didn't know that telling the gov't what it (the gov't) really meant was the SC's job.
They already had the power to tax you for NOT purchasing something?
What else do they levy a tax on for non-purchasing?
"The government can now tax you for NOT purchasing whatever they deem." about as factual a statement as anything "Baghdad Bob" uttered as US tanks surrounded the capital of Iraq
Muhammad Saeed al-Sahhaf - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
They say you must have health insurance and if you choose not to purchase it they will tax you on that.
"In pressing it's taxing power argument, the Government asks the Court to view the mandate as imposing a tax on those who do not buy that product."
"The government can now tax you for NOT purchasing whatever they deem." about as factual a statement as anything "Baghdad Bob" uttered as US tanks surrounded the capital of Iraq
Muhammad Saeed al-Sahhaf - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
They say you must have health insurance and if you choose not to purchase it they will tax you on that.
"In pressing it's taxing power argument, the Government asks the Court to view the mandate as imposing a tax on those who do not buy that product."
You must be exact in your words in law. "They say you must have health insurance and if you choose not to purchase it they will tax you on that." - your statement fails the smell test here. Look to page 4::::: Page 4 - 4: a & b
a shared responsibility tax penalty. no jail. none of the other crap people here post about.
The tax is on, not that you refuse to purchase a product in the way you would refuse to purchase any other product, this is a shared product, unlike a car, a house, an office...
read the ruling slowly
The people did through their elected representatives.They say you must have health insurance and if you choose not to purchase it they will tax you on that.
"In pressing it's taxing power argument, the Government asks the Court to view the mandate as imposing a tax on those who do not buy that product."
You must be exact in your words in law. "They say you must have health insurance and if you choose not to purchase it they will tax you on that." - your statement fails the smell test here. Look to page 4::::: Page 4 - 4: a & b
a shared responsibility tax penalty. no jail. none of the other crap people here post about.
The tax is on, not that you refuse to purchase a product in the way you would refuse to purchase any other product, this is a shared product, unlike a car, a house, an office...
read the ruling slowly
And who decides what a 'shared product' is?
Look at the big picture slowly.
A friend's friend gave him the following analysis which he then passed on to me, and I found it rather interesting. All I can say about its author is he's a conservative with a background in law and tax accounting.
"Justice Roberts is brilliant. I believe his siding with the liberals in the Obamacare decision was for the following reasons:
1. Calling the penalty a tax is reasonable since money extracted from a citizen under duress and absent a quid pro quo is a tax. This decision enables two shots at overturning Obamacare as enumerated next.
2. Sustaining Obamacare removes a victim issue for the Dems to campaign on this year and gives the GOP an opportunity to present a positive view of healthcare changes. Done right, a new president and Congress will make the changes.
3. Failing success in number 2, the payment of the tax in 2014 will enable persons to challenge the tax on the grounds that the taxing authority of Congress, now thought to be limited, is indeed limited if used to compel behavior otherwise prohibited by the Constitution. That is, if Congress cannot use the commerce clause to compel behavior, it cannot use another power granted in the Constitution to negate the specifically prohibited power of another section of the Constitution. Thus, that is why SCOTUS specifically ruled that Congress cannot use the commerce clause to compel the purchase of health insurance.
Leaving Obamcare in place also allows the HHS mandate for all employers to provide birth control, etc. to continue to be challenged under the First Amendment by the Bishops, Notre Dame, etc."
Very interesting take on it. Thanks.
A friend's friend gave him the following analysis which he then passed on to me, and I found it rather interesting. All I can say about its author is he's a conservative with a background in law and tax accounting.
"Justice Roberts is brilliant. I believe his siding with the liberals in the Obamacare decision was for the following reasons:
1. Calling the penalty a tax is reasonable since money extracted from a citizen under duress and absent a quid pro quo is a tax. This decision enables two shots at overturning Obamacare as enumerated next.
2. Sustaining Obamacare removes a victim issue for the Dems to campaign on this year and gives the GOP an opportunity to present a positive view of healthcare changes. Done right, a new president and Congress will make the changes.
3. Failing success in number 2, the payment of the tax in 2014 will enable persons to challenge the tax on the grounds that the taxing authority of Congress, now thought to be limited, is indeed limited if used to compel behavior otherwise prohibited by the Constitution. That is, if Congress cannot use the commerce clause to compel behavior, it cannot use another power granted in the Constitution to negate the specifically prohibited power of another section of the Constitution. Thus, that is why SCOTUS specifically ruled that Congress cannot use the commerce clause to compel the purchase of health insurance.
Leaving Obamcare in place also allows the HHS mandate for all employers to provide birth control, etc. to continue to be challenged under the First Amendment by the Bishops, Notre Dame, etc."
reality check!!!
except it was the Obama administration that argued the Court should view the mandate as a tax.
"In pressing it's taxing power argument..." for the clueless... the Chief Justice is using one of the government's arguments before the Court.
If it's argued as a tax and ruled as a tax then it's?>>>>>>>> II know you can say it.A friend's friend gave him the following analysis which he then passed on to me, and I found it rather interesting. All I can say about its author is he's a conservative with a background in law and tax accounting.
"Justice Roberts is brilliant. I believe his siding with the liberals in the Obamacare decision was for the following reasons:
1. Calling the penalty a tax is reasonable since money extracted from a citizen under duress and absent a quid pro quo is a tax. This decision enables two shots at overturning Obamacare as enumerated next.
2. Sustaining Obamacare removes a victim issue for the Dems to campaign on this year and gives the GOP an opportunity to present a positive view of healthcare changes. Done right, a new president and Congress will make the changes.
3. Failing success in number 2, the payment of the tax in 2014 will enable persons to challenge the tax on the grounds that the taxing authority of Congress, now thought to be limited, is indeed limited if used to compel behavior otherwise prohibited by the Constitution. That is, if Congress cannot use the commerce clause to compel behavior, it cannot use another power granted in the Constitution to negate the specifically prohibited power of another section of the Constitution. Thus, that is why SCOTUS specifically ruled that Congress cannot use the commerce clause to compel the purchase of health insurance.
Leaving Obamcare in place also allows the HHS mandate for all employers to provide birth control, etc. to continue to be challenged under the First Amendment by the Bishops, Notre Dame, etc."
reality check!!!
except it was the Obama administration that argued the Court should view the mandate as a tax.
"In pressing it's taxing power argument..." for the clueless... the Chief Justice is using one of the government's arguments before the Court.
Yes, taxes are put to Congressional vote and either pass or die. That's why the liberals all lied. Now it can be put to a vote to overturn and win with only 51 votes by the same process. They can try to tax anything and everything, that's why we need to elect honest representation....the left who voted for this all lied.This tax isn't FOR buying something, it's for NOT buying something. The government can now tax you for NOT purchasing whatever they deem.
But they already had that power. No new amendments to the constitution had to be written to allow this. It already existed.
They already had the power to tax you for NOT purchasing something?
What else do they levy a tax on for non-purchasing?
If it's argued as a tax and ruled as a tax then it's?>>>>>>>> II know you can say it.reality check!!!
except it was the Obama administration that argued the Court should view the mandate as a tax.
"In pressing it's taxing power argument..." for the clueless... the Chief Justice is using one of the government's arguments before the Court.
