Exactly, but he won't actually address the argument.
The argument is a stupid one.
If they set it up so you were not forced to buy health insurance, but rather there was a tax credit if you did, then you might be on track. But they now want to force you to buy it and penalize you if you do not. That is totally outside of the realm of the point of tax credits, thus it is NOT a tax credit, it is a penalty for inaction.
Perhaps you are missing the difference between incentives and penalties.
The argument is a stupid one.
If they set it up so you were not forced to buy health insurance, but rather there was a tax credit if you did, then you might be on track. But they now want to force you to buy it and penalize you if you do not. That is totally outside of the realm of the point of tax credits, thus it is NOT a tax credit, it is a penalty for inaction.
Perhaps you are missing the difference between incentives and penalties.
The point is consistently, and blindingly, flying over your head. The point is that there is no functional difference between tax penalties and tax credits. In each case wealth is redistributed from those who don't take the incentive to those who do.
Sounds the same to me. If you are filing taxes, and you get a deduction, or incentive, for having health insurance, it is the same thing as having a tax penalty for not having health insurance.
Again, tell me the last time the US Government levied a fine upon the American citizen for NOT buying a product or service. Your silly "no difference" argument, fails on it's face.
I am taxed, x number of dollars a year..... period. If the government wants to give me $1500 to upgrade my windows, it is not a penalty or fine if I choose not to. You are confusing incentive with punative action.
Asked and answered.
If I upgrade my windows then I receive the $1,500 tax credit that you don't receive. Thus your tax bill is $1,500 higher than mine. You, and everyone else who doesn't upgrade their windows, is paying for my tax credit. Granted, it's not as direct as paying a penalty. On average everyone else will pay for any tax incentive that they don't take advantage of, but individually it will vary depending on one's income. Of course the health insurance penalty works that way, too.
Asked and answered.
If I upgrade my windows then I receive the $1,500 tax credit that you don't receive. Thus your tax bill is $1,500 higher than mine. You, and everyone else who doesn't upgrade their windows, is paying for my tax credit. Granted, it's not as direct as paying a penalty. On average everyone else will pay for any tax incentive that they don't take advantage of, but individually it will vary depending on one's income. Of course the health insurance penalty works that way, too.
Again, tell me the last time the US Government levied a fine upon the American citizen for NOT buying a product or service. Your silly "no difference" argument, fails on it's face.
I am taxed, x number of dollars a year..... period. If the government wants to give me $1500 to upgrade my windows, it is not a penalty or fine if I choose not to. You are confusing incentive with punative action.
What you are being penalized for is not payng for a product you already have. Everyone in America has the right to free treatment in an emergency. Isn't that theft of services when you refuse to pay for that coverage?
No, it's not. If I get a deduction for installing solar panels, but I choose not to install solar panels. I have bought nothing. I owe nothing to the government for not installing them. If I buy a Chevy Volt and receive a tax deduction, but if I choose not to buy a car at all, I have bought nothing and I owe nothing to the government.
The argument is a stupid one.
If they set it up so you were not forced to buy health insurance, but rather there was a tax credit if you did, then you might be on track. But they now want to force you to buy it and penalize you if you do not. That is totally outside of the realm of the point of tax credits, thus it is NOT a tax credit, it is a penalty for inaction.
Perhaps you are missing the difference between incentives and penalties.
what???? Maybe the government should then levy a fine for not buying smokre dectectors, or not going to college, etc... this argument you all are on is insane. :lol:
If YOU had to pay for any damages when someone else doesnt't buy a smoke detector would you still not want to fine people for not having them?
Choosing to not have insurance is as much of a action as buying it. You are making the rest of us foot the bill for and health emergencies that arise.
The point is consistently, and blindingly, flying over your head.
Choosing to not have insurance is as much of a action as buying it.
Right, and insurance is a product that is sold in commerce, and the price of insurance is affected by buying AND NOT BUYING. Hence the authority to require purchase, or in this case, to create tax incentive to purchase.
I understand after watching you for a while the standard 'go to' is the 'you do not understand'. It has nothing to do with the comprehension of others. You repetitive idea that a penalty is an incentive falls flat.
Look up the words. Two different things.
Well, it's just the conclusion that follows when someone repeatedly dismisses an argument with little or no reasoning. You know, the "that tupid" or "LOL" response? So if you want to be treated like you understand ... act like you understand. :shrug:
what???? Maybe the government should then levy a fine for not buying smokre dectectors, or not going to college, etc... this argument you all are on is insane. :lol:
And go to an emergency room without insurance and you still get treated. You have bought nothing and owe nothing and still get the benefit. That's the way it should be?
Laughing at a stupid concept does not mean you do not understand it. Quite the contrary.
Now get back to repeating that incentives and penalties are the same thing. Maybe you'll fool someone into believing you.
For lawyers and political junkies, it is the Super Bowl: three days of Supreme Court arguments over one of the biggest domestic policy changes in decades.
But we economists can only scratch our heads. Why are we in court? What's the big deal? It's called an "individual mandate." Sounds ominous. But to economists it looks like nothing more than your everyday ordinary tax incentive. For as long as there has been a tax code -- and particularly in recent decades -- there has been a bipartisan consensus that tax incentives are an excellent way for Congress to get individuals and businesses to do what lawmakers want them to do.
The only difference between the mandate and your common tax incentive is that Congress framed the incentive as a tax penalty instead of a tax break. I recognize there might be a legal difference between the two approaches that is beyond my comprehension. But the Court, Congress, and the public should understand that economically the two approaches are exactly the same. Any tax penalty can easily be redesigned as a tax incentive. So, for example, a $1,000 tax penalty for not doing X could be replaced by a tax policy whereby all individuals' taxes are raised by $1,000 and then they are given a tax credit of $1,000 for doing X. (See the table below.)
A tax penalty and a tax incentive have the same economic impact on affected and unaffected individuals. They have the same effect on the goals the government is trying to achieve. They have the same effect on government revenues. It is possible, then, that they have the same effect on freedom and constitutional principles.
tax.com: If Mandate Is Struck Down, Are Tax Incentives Next?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?