Tax incentives are mandates

[yiostheoy]

Taxes are the price of government.

Government is the price of justice, domestic tranquility, defense, general welfare, liberty.

Without government there would be anarchy, and in addition we would then all be speaking Chinese, Russian, Japanese, or German already, and Negroes would still be slaves.

ACA is like the title says -- affordable health care.

Without affordable health care a lot of poorer people and those between early retirement and Medicare (yet another thing the GOP fanatics do not like) would suffer and not be able to get medical care.

Q.E.D.

Yes taxes are
Tax incentives for certain behaviors, which is the topic of this thread, are a different matter

102 years ... start holding your breath now.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Take the 20% R&D tax credit that businesses get for investing in new technology, which can also be applied to labor expenses for small businesses. You'd rather get rid of that and instead of those companies having an extra 20% to invest back into their business you want the fed government to get it? How does that makes sense?

Get rid of ALL tax incentives PERIOD

Why would you rather have the government get that money instead of businesses investing in innovative technologies and growth?

If the fucking government didn't collect taxes and then give money back to people then taxes could be lowered and the people would keep that money to begin with

Why do you want to pay higher taxes so the government can give tax breaks to businesses or to people who buy electric cars?

if we didn't have a drug war, we wouldn't need to collect as much in taxes.

Correct, this falls under Justice, Tranquility, and general welfare.

Wrong
rewarding a few people for specific behaviors is not the "general welfare"

 

[imawhosure]

Republicans were elected to repeal ACA, most especially the 'individual mandate' requiring everyone to buy federally approved insurance or pay extra taxes. But Republicans in Congress aren't about to betray their lobbyists. They're planning to "replace" the individual mandate with tax incentives to achieve the same purpose - pushing as many people as possible into the pens of the insurance companies.

And our idiot citizenry will fall for it. They'll think that, somehow, calling it something different makes it OK.

Chuck Schumer still has veto power by the filibuster, and with his other 48 senators he and they will make sure ACA does not change.

So don't fret your cookies over this, Cupcake, not to worry.

The GOP does not get dictatorial powers until the People elect 60 GOP senators.

The GOP is still 9 senators short of that.

High school civics. You should have paid attention.

Now this is person is funny, and uninformed. The Dems can't stop anything, and the repubs can pass anything for the next 2 years.

Oh wait, wait, yios is correct, under the CONSTITUTION we had UNTIL Obama got elected, and the Democrats controlled all 3 branches of government from 08 till 10. But Harry Reid, Chucky Shumer, and Nancy showed HOW TO GO AROUND the constitution after they lost Ted Kennedy's seat.

We conservatives told you libs, don't do it, don't do it........... and you laughed, believing you would hold the Presidency until you could get YOUR KINDA Supreme Court justices in there; and besides..........no way, no, way, no freakin way, would the Republicans EVER have all 3 branches of government again, especially with the "shift in demographics."

OOOOOOOOPPPPPPPPPPs, little miscalculation there far lefties, since now you control NOTHING! (how did that happen, hehehehehehe) And now, YOU far leftists are going to get hosed by those same rules YOU used to put your whole agenda in for the last 8 years; but oh, we learned something from you for sure------------> we learned to pass LAWS, and unlike you overly confident fools did.....NOT use EOs because the next President can wipe them away with a stroke of a pen. Oh yes! And we learned with the new laws, AND 1 or 2 more of our justices sitting on the Supreme Court, you people will be in deep doo-doo to ever pull off again, what you did in the last 8 years.

Watch the laws that will be coming out rather quickly, and I betcha at least 1/2 of them are to neuter your people in unelected positions, from EVER passing laws without having to get elected again! Your MMGW initiative for at least 20 years will be DOA!

Have fun lefties, we are-)

 

[kaz]

Taxes are the price of government.

Government is the price of justice, domestic tranquility, defense, general welfare, liberty.

Without government there would be anarchy, and in addition we would then all be speaking Chinese, Russian, Japanese, or German already, and Negroes would still be slaves.

ACA is like the title says -- affordable health care.

Without affordable health care a lot of poorer people and those between early retirement and Medicare (yet another thing the GOP fanatics do not like) would suffer and not be able to get medical care.

Q.E.D.

You want roads, you get Marxism! If government can take $1 from you to pay for the police, they can take millions and buy socialism! What a stupid argument. You're on a roll with those.

Still waiting to know if you're in the legislature or on the SCOTUS, so?

 

[kaz]

besides the commerce clause is to regulate commerce between the states not to reward individuals or businesses

Thanks for your opinion again.

Until you become a Supreme Court justice your opinion is still worthless as the day is long.

Yes, let's all go home and not discuss politics because we aren't on the SCOTUS or in congress and we can't change anything.

Moron

Can you hold your breath for 102 years too ?!

What does that have to do with what I said?

Moron.

I responded to your moronic post to STFU unless we are on the SCOTUS. What does holding my breath have to do with answering that question? And you call me a moron? A mirror would change your life

 

[kaz]

ALL tax incentives should be done away with.
It's none of the government's business what car you drive, how yo insulate your home or whatever else they give tax credits for.

The whole idea of manipulating behavior with taxes is ham handed social engineering and that is NOT the function of government

Take the 20% R&D tax credit that businesses get for investing in new technology, which can also be applied to labor expenses for small businesses. You'd rather get rid of that and instead of those companies having an extra 20% to invest back into their business you want the fed government to get it? How does that makes sense?

Get rid of ALL tax incentives PERIOD

Don't hold your breath.

The Federal tax code has been in existence since 1914 doing the same thing since 1914. That was 102 years ago.

Can you hold your breath for another 102 years ??

I do not think so.

So you are just b!tching and moaning about Weltschmertz, the Jewish word for complaining about reality.

With all due respect, who gives a shit? Are you in congress? What laws can you pass? So shut the fuck up and do as you're told as you advocate the rest of us do

You should leave legislation to the Congress and law to the Supreme Court and stop whining.

Then why are YOU whining? In the words of you, Shut The Fuck Up. You are not in the legislature or on the SCOTUS, so shut up, you have no say. That's your own argument, moron

 

[dblack]

Republicans were elected to repeal ACA, most especially the 'individual mandate' requiring everyone to buy federally approved insurance or pay extra taxes. But Republicans in Congress aren't about to betray their lobbyists. They're planning to "replace" the individual mandate with tax incentives to achieve the same purpose - pushing as many people as possible into the pens of the insurance companies.

And our idiot citizenry will fall for it. They'll think that, somehow, calling it something different makes it OK.

As much as I agree with your view on Obamacare, mandates and tax incentives, I'm not sure how you make the leap in the title. I oppose them both, but I don't see how a tax incentive is a mandate. A mandate means I have to do it, a tax incentive means I have to pay for others to do it. They are both wrong, but I don't see how they are equivalent

If you have time, read Justice Roberts decision on ACA's mandate. The equivalency of the two is why he wouldn't strike down the mandate. He recognized that Democrats were just playing word games, but the underlying concept was the same. It could have created exactly the same effect on taxpayers if they'd simply offered tax deductions to who followed the mandate.

The whole issue reminds me of the loyalty cards that many retailers try to get customers to use. In exchange for letting them track purchasing habits (via the stats collected by the card systems), consumers are 'rewarded' with lower prices. But it's just as valid to recognize that customers who don't want to participate are penalized with higher prices for refusing to carry the cards.

Likewise, offering tax discounts to people who do something, is no different than applying a penalty to those who don't. In either case, if you don't do whatever it is that the government is trying to get you to do, you're going to pay higher taxes.

 

[kaz]

Republicans were elected to repeal ACA, most especially the 'individual mandate' requiring everyone to buy federally approved insurance or pay extra taxes. But Republicans in Congress aren't about to betray their lobbyists. They're planning to "replace" the individual mandate with tax incentives to achieve the same purpose - pushing as many people as possible into the pens of the insurance companies.

And our idiot citizenry will fall for it. They'll think that, somehow, calling it something different makes it OK.

As much as I agree with your view on Obamacare, mandates and tax incentives, I'm not sure how you make the leap in the title. I oppose them both, but I don't see how a tax incentive is a mandate. A mandate means I have to do it, a tax incentive means I have to pay for others to do it. They are both wrong, but I don't see how they are equivalent

If you have time, read Justice Roberts decision on ACA's mandate. The equivalency of the two is why he wouldn't strike down the mandate. He recognized that Democrats were just playing word games, but the underlying concept was the same. It could have created exactly the same effect on taxpayers if they'd simply offered tax deductions to who followed the mandate.

The whole issue reminds me of the loyalty cards that many retailers try to get customers to use. In exchange for letting them track purchasing habits (via the stats collected by the card systems), consumers are 'rewarded' with lower prices. But it's just as valid to recognize that customers who don't want to participate are penalized with higher prices for refusing to carry the cards.

Likewise, offering tax discounts to people who do something, is no different than applying a penalty to those who don't. In either case, if you don't do whatever it is that the government is trying to get you to do, you're going to pay higher taxes.

That assumes a zero sum game, which is not actually the case

 

[dblack]

Imagine the howling if we passed an energy efficiency mandate, requiring all home owners to go solar or pay a fine. But that's exactly the policy we have, and the sales pitch works on gullible people.

If Congress wants everyone to go solar or pay a fine that would be perfectly legal if they can agree on it.

There would probably be another Supreme Court ruling on it just like before on ACA.

Nope - read Robert's decision (http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/Sections/NEWS/scotus_opinion_on_ACA_from_msnbc.com.pdf):

...
2. CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS concluded in Part III–A that the individual mandate is not a valid exercise of Congress’s power under the Commerce Clause and the Necessary and Proper Clause. ...

The only reason the individual mandate stood is because, stripped of the Democrat's creative verbiage, it was actually just a tax incentive, like all the others Congress has passed. They used the tax code to impose a mandate that they wouldn't be allowed to implement as a direct law, regardless of the fact that they can do exactly the same thing if they call it a tax policy.

 

[dblack]

Republicans were elected to repeal ACA, most especially the 'individual mandate' requiring everyone to buy federally approved insurance or pay extra taxes. But Republicans in Congress aren't about to betray their lobbyists. They're planning to "replace" the individual mandate with tax incentives to achieve the same purpose - pushing as many people as possible into the pens of the insurance companies.

And our idiot citizenry will fall for it. They'll think that, somehow, calling it something different makes it OK.

As much as I agree with your view on Obamacare, mandates and tax incentives, I'm not sure how you make the leap in the title. I oppose them both, but I don't see how a tax incentive is a mandate. A mandate means I have to do it, a tax incentive means I have to pay for others to do it. They are both wrong, but I don't see how they are equivalent

If you have time, read Justice Roberts decision on ACA's mandate. The equivalency of the two is why he wouldn't strike down the mandate. He recognized that Democrats were just playing word games, but the underlying concept was the same. It could have created exactly the same effect on taxpayers if they'd simply offered tax deductions to who followed the mandate.

The whole issue reminds me of the loyalty cards that many retailers try to get customers to use. In exchange for letting them track purchasing habits (via the stats collected by the card systems), consumers are 'rewarded' with lower prices. But it's just as valid to recognize that customers who don't want to participate are penalized with higher prices for refusing to carry the cards.

Likewise, offering tax discounts to people who do something, is no different than applying a penalty to those who don't. In either case, if you don't do whatever it is that the government is trying to get you to do, you're going to pay higher taxes.

That assumes a zero sum game, which is not actually the case

What do you mean?

 

[kaz]

Republicans were elected to repeal ACA, most especially the 'individual mandate' requiring everyone to buy federally approved insurance or pay extra taxes. But Republicans in Congress aren't about to betray their lobbyists. They're planning to "replace" the individual mandate with tax incentives to achieve the same purpose - pushing as many people as possible into the pens of the insurance companies.

And our idiot citizenry will fall for it. They'll think that, somehow, calling it something different makes it OK.

As much as I agree with your view on Obamacare, mandates and tax incentives, I'm not sure how you make the leap in the title. I oppose them both, but I don't see how a tax incentive is a mandate. A mandate means I have to do it, a tax incentive means I have to pay for others to do it. They are both wrong, but I don't see how they are equivalent

If you have time, read Justice Roberts decision on ACA's mandate. The equivalency of the two is why he wouldn't strike down the mandate. He recognized that Democrats were just playing word games, but the underlying concept was the same. It could have created exactly the same effect on taxpayers if they'd simply offered tax deductions to who followed the mandate.

The whole issue reminds me of the loyalty cards that many retailers try to get customers to use. In exchange for letting them track purchasing habits (via the stats collected by the card systems), consumers are 'rewarded' with lower prices. But it's just as valid to recognize that customers who don't want to participate are penalized with higher prices for refusing to carry the cards.

Likewise, offering tax discounts to people who do something, is no different than applying a penalty to those who don't. In either case, if you don't do whatever it is that the government is trying to get you to do, you're going to pay higher taxes.

That assumes a zero sum game, which is not actually the case

What do you mean?

Read your argument. With both Obamacare and loyalty programs.

Say you have 10 players each paying $100. That raises 10 x $100 = $1,000

You cut the taxes of 2 players to $60. In a zero sum game, you have to raise the taxes of the other eight to $110.

That way you have 2 x $60 + 8 x $110 = $1,000.

Neither Obamacare nor loyalty programs work that way. If you don't have loyalty programs, you lose customers to competitors. In Obamacare, there is no direct mechanism to raise the taxes so it's paid for with deficit spending which leaves the debt disproportionately allocated across the tax base.

I'm not saying there is not some effect, I'm just saying it's not a zero sum game and therefore it's not as simple as you implied. Obamacare drives up deficit spending

 

[dblack]

Republicans were elected to repeal ACA, most especially the 'individual mandate' requiring everyone to buy federally approved insurance or pay extra taxes. But Republicans in Congress aren't about to betray their lobbyists. They're planning to "replace" the individual mandate with tax incentives to achieve the same purpose - pushing as many people as possible into the pens of the insurance companies.

And our idiot citizenry will fall for it. They'll think that, somehow, calling it something different makes it OK.

As much as I agree with your view on Obamacare, mandates and tax incentives, I'm not sure how you make the leap in the title. I oppose them both, but I don't see how a tax incentive is a mandate. A mandate means I have to do it, a tax incentive means I have to pay for others to do it. They are both wrong, but I don't see how they are equivalent

If you have time, read Justice Roberts decision on ACA's mandate. The equivalency of the two is why he wouldn't strike down the mandate. He recognized that Democrats were just playing word games, but the underlying concept was the same. It could have created exactly the same effect on taxpayers if they'd simply offered tax deductions to who followed the mandate.

The whole issue reminds me of the loyalty cards that many retailers try to get customers to use. In exchange for letting them track purchasing habits (via the stats collected by the card systems), consumers are 'rewarded' with lower prices. But it's just as valid to recognize that customers who don't want to participate are penalized with higher prices for refusing to carry the cards.

Likewise, offering tax discounts to people who do something, is no different than applying a penalty to those who don't. In either case, if you don't do whatever it is that the government is trying to get you to do, you're going to pay higher taxes.

That assumes a zero sum game, which is not actually the case

What do you mean?

Read your argument. With both Obamacare and loyalty programs.

Say you have 10 players each paying $100. That raises 10 x $100 = $1,000

You cut the taxes of 2 players to $60. In a zero sum game, you have to raise the taxes of the other eight to $110.

That way you have 2 x $60 + 8 x $110 = $1,000.

Neither Obamacare nor loyalty programs work that way. If you don't have loyalty programs, you lose customers to competitors. In Obamacare, there is no direct mechanism to raise the taxes so it's paid for with deficit spending which leaves the debt disproportionately allocated across the tax base.

I'm not saying there is not some effect, I'm just saying it's not a zero sum game and therefore it's not as simple as you implied. Obamacare drives up deficit spending

Hmmm... I still don't see how "zero-sum" enters into it. Sure, the specifics of any given policy are likely to be different, but that's not the point. Any given tax incentive program can be rewritten as a tax-penalty mandate (like ACA's individual mandate) and vice versa. The Democrats could have completely avoided the Court challenge by simply raising taxes and giving deductions instead of penalties. They could have done this with exactly the same numbers and exactly the same impact on taxpayers and consumers. But they went with the mandate approach because they thought it would play better politically, that they could convince people it was about "responsibility" while hiding the fact that they were raising taxes.

Roberts did us at least a small favor in highlighting this equivalence. Obama's lawyers had argued that the ACA's mandate was part of the government's power to regulate commerce and the Court squarely rejected that argument. Instead, he pointed out that, despite the Democrats doublespeak, the mandate was just a tax increase on people who refused to buy government-approved insurance, and a deduction for those who didn't - and heck, we've been doing that kind of thing for a long time, so it must be ok, right?

Overall his decision, in my view, was cowardly. He recognized that the government forcing us to buy insurance was wrong, but he didn't have the balls to strike it down because doing so would have undermined all the other ways that government uses the tax code to manipulate behavior.

 

[Slade3200]

ALL tax incentives should be done away with.
It's none of the government's business what car you drive, how yo insulate your home or whatever else they give tax credits for.

The whole idea of manipulating behavior with taxes is ham handed social engineering and that is NOT the function of government

Take the 20% R&D tax credit that businesses get for investing in new technology, which can also be applied to labor expenses for small businesses. You'd rather get rid of that and instead of those companies having an extra 20% to invest back into their business you want the fed government to get it? How does that makes sense?

Get rid of ALL tax incentives PERIOD

Why would you rather have the government get that money instead of businesses investing in innovative technologies and growth?

If the fucking government didn't collect taxes and then give money back to people then taxes could be lowered and the people would keep that money to begin with

Why do you want to pay higher taxes so the government can give tax breaks to businesses or to people who buy electric cars?

I dont want to pay higher taxes, which is why if I can pay less in tax for investing back in my business then I'll gladly take it. Why you'd oppose that makes no sense

 

[Skull Pilot]

ALL tax incentives should be done away with.
It's none of the government's business what car you drive, how yo insulate your home or whatever else they give tax credits for.

The whole idea of manipulating behavior with taxes is ham handed social engineering and that is NOT the function of government

Take the 20% R&D tax credit that businesses get for investing in new technology, which can also be applied to labor expenses for small businesses. You'd rather get rid of that and instead of those companies having an extra 20% to invest back into their business you want the fed government to get it? How does that makes sense?

Get rid of ALL tax incentives PERIOD

Why would you rather have the government get that money instead of businesses investing in innovative technologies and growth?

If the fucking government didn't collect taxes and then give money back to people then taxes could be lowered and the people would keep that money to begin with

Why do you want to pay higher taxes so the government can give tax breaks to businesses or to people who buy electric cars?

I dont want to pay higher taxes, which is why if I can pay less in tax for investing back in my business then I'll gladly take it. Why you'd oppose that makes no sense

investing in your business is already a tax deduction you don't need extra back from the government.
I oppose it because it's not the government's responsibility to give extra money to individuals or businesses for engaging in specific behaviors

 

[Slade3200]

Take the 20% R&D tax credit that businesses get for investing in new technology, which can also be applied to labor expenses for small businesses. You'd rather get rid of that and instead of those companies having an extra 20% to invest back into their business you want the fed government to get it? How does that makes sense?

Get rid of ALL tax incentives PERIOD

Why would you rather have the government get that money instead of businesses investing in innovative technologies and growth?

If the fucking government didn't collect taxes and then give money back to people then taxes could be lowered and the people would keep that money to begin with

Why do you want to pay higher taxes so the government can give tax breaks to businesses or to people who buy electric cars?

I dont want to pay higher taxes, which is why if I can pay less in tax for investing back in my business then I'll gladly take it. Why you'd oppose that makes no sense

investing in your business is already a tax deduction you don't need extra back from the government.
I oppose it because it's not the government's responsibility to give extra money to individuals or businesses for engaging in specific behaviors

That's fine, you can have that opinion. Personally I think the less they take the better.

 

[dblack]

Get rid of ALL tax incentives PERIOD

Why would you rather have the government get that money instead of businesses investing in innovative technologies and growth?

If the fucking government didn't collect taxes and then give money back to people then taxes could be lowered and the people would keep that money to begin with

Why do you want to pay higher taxes so the government can give tax breaks to businesses or to people who buy electric cars?

I dont want to pay higher taxes, which is why if I can pay less in tax for investing back in my business then I'll gladly take it. Why you'd oppose that makes no sense

investing in your business is already a tax deduction you don't need extra back from the government.
I oppose it because it's not the government's responsibility to give extra money to individuals or businesses for engaging in specific behaviors

That's fine, you can have that opinion. Personally I think the less they take the better.

This is why it won't change. People can't see past the end of their noses and actually like being told how to live.

 

[Slade3200]

Why would you rather have the government get that money instead of businesses investing in innovative technologies and growth?

If the fucking government didn't collect taxes and then give money back to people then taxes could be lowered and the people would keep that money to begin with

Why do you want to pay higher taxes so the government can give tax breaks to businesses or to people who buy electric cars?

I dont want to pay higher taxes, which is why if I can pay less in tax for investing back in my business then I'll gladly take it. Why you'd oppose that makes no sense

investing in your business is already a tax deduction you don't need extra back from the government.
I oppose it because it's not the government's responsibility to give extra money to individuals or businesses for engaging in specific behaviors

That's fine, you can have that opinion. Personally I think the less they take the better.

This is why it won't change. People can't see past the end of their noses and actually like being told how to live.

Then explain it for us simple folk, please.

I support lower taxes. I also support tax credits that the "people" aka our elected leaders decide promote initiatives that spur business growth, innovation and environmental safety... If my business can spend 20K less on taxes in return for developing a new product or installing some solar panels, then it is a win for my business. I win and my community wins.

 

[easyt65]

Republicans were elected to repeal ACA, most especially the 'individual mandate' requiring everyone to buy federally approved insurance or pay extra taxes. But Republicans in Congress aren't about to betray their lobbyists. They're planning to "replace" the individual mandate with tax incentives to achieve the same purpose - pushing as many people as possible into the pens of the insurance companies.

And our idiot citizenry will fall for it. They'll think that, somehow, calling it something different makes it OK.

Is there a link to go with this rant?
Has this been passed yet?
No? Then for now it is your opinion this will happen. Got it.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Get rid of ALL tax incentives PERIOD

Why would you rather have the government get that money instead of businesses investing in innovative technologies and growth?

If the fucking government didn't collect taxes and then give money back to people then taxes could be lowered and the people would keep that money to begin with

Why do you want to pay higher taxes so the government can give tax breaks to businesses or to people who buy electric cars?

I dont want to pay higher taxes, which is why if I can pay less in tax for investing back in my business then I'll gladly take it. Why you'd oppose that makes no sense

investing in your business is already a tax deduction you don't need extra back from the government.
I oppose it because it's not the government's responsibility to give extra money to individuals or businesses for engaging in specific behaviors

That's fine, you can have that opinion. Personally I think the less they take the better.

I'm not talking abut what they take

A tax deduction and a tax incentive are 2 entirely different things.

 

[Skull Pilot]

If the fucking government didn't collect taxes and then give money back to people then taxes could be lowered and the people would keep that money to begin with

Why do you want to pay higher taxes so the government can give tax breaks to businesses or to people who buy electric cars?

I dont want to pay higher taxes, which is why if I can pay less in tax for investing back in my business then I'll gladly take it. Why you'd oppose that makes no sense

investing in your business is already a tax deduction you don't need extra back from the government.
I oppose it because it's not the government's responsibility to give extra money to individuals or businesses for engaging in specific behaviors

That's fine, you can have that opinion. Personally I think the less they take the better.

This is why it won't change. People can't see past the end of their noses and actually like being told how to live.

Then explain it for us simple folk, please.

I support lower taxes. I also support tax credits that the "people" aka our elected leaders decide promote initiatives that spur business growth, innovation and environmental safety... If my business can spend 20K less on taxes in return for developing a new product or installing some solar panels, then it is a win for my business. I win and my community wins.

So you think it's a good idea for the governemnt to take more in taxes than it needs so it can give incentive money to some people?

If all these government giveaways were gone the tax rates could be lowered for everyone