For most people driving a car is a necessity. Some people can get away not driving a car, but for pretty much everyone else, you are forced to carry car insurance, and pretty much everyone does it and doesn't complain.Interesting position. Is there a "tax" for not driving a car? Is there a situation where you could just not have to pay car insurance? Answer is yup, don't drive a car.
What you're essentially doing is equating a voluntary action like "driving a car" to living. So, I guess in a way you're right, if you don't want to pay the tax or get bloated insurance you could just kill yourself, but I guess that logic would apply to any law really.
Just what exactly are those alternatives, self-pay?What people neglect are the alternatives to big bloated insurance that many people choose to use because they are more practical for them. No, your options aren't just buying a 400 buck a month insurance plan or leeching off the public dime.
I agree with you. It won't be a civil war.
It will have to be a revolution. The Constitution has been overturned. There are no more limits for government. So the government must go. This is an overwhelmingly bad thing that the Democrats and the Supreme Court has done.
the waivers are given to corporations (shocking, I know). Individuals who have taxes levied against them do not have an ability to get a waiver
again wrong.. but keep your streak alive... 0 for 1,000,000 is impressive in Obama land..
the waivers are given to corporations (shocking, I know). Individuals who have taxes levied against them do not have an ability to get a waiver
Can you ever stay on target or is your hatred against libertarians so much that you can't control yourself?
Another example of why we cannot have an intelligent debate on this subject.
the waivers are given to corporations (shocking, I know). Individuals who have taxes levied against them do not have an ability to get a waiver
If corporations are people, do t hey have to have health insurance too?
If corporations are people, do t hey have to have health insurance too?
Moderator's Warning: |
Going to say this...one more time since it's been about 300 posts. This is a hot button issue that is extremely contentious. There have been thread bans handed out and there undoubtably will be more. Stick to the topic and to responses regarding the fallout of this ruling. If you wish to flame, bait, or attempt to derail you'll find the exit quickly. This is going to be a major topic of discussion and those seeking to derail it will not be allowed to remain |
20 pages of Albert Di Salvo talking about how this is a problem for the white middle class and all of a sudden I'm derailing the thread? Your selective vision is selective.
I like all that you said but the supreme court precedent that eliminates limits on the federal government. So there is no stopping this no matter what happens. We are in a full blown tyranny now. Is there any way out short of a revolution? I would love to see any other option.Well, My thoughts very preliminarily are really several fold here.
1. I think that Roberts was wrong to side with the liberal wing of the court here, largely on the unequal taxation that this will now enshrine that the government has the right to do. So, the court today just wiped out a piece of the constitution in that regard.
2. The ruling has energized those who are and have been against this law from the begining, the group we saw in 2010 sweep elections. Romney, if his team is smart enough to take advantage of this will win November in a landslide on the anger of the 60% of Americans against this law.
3. Even though Obama said to George Snufolupogus in 2009 that 'no way was this a tax' and then repeated that over, and over, until they got in front of the court, now it is a tax. The largest tax on the middle class in history! Good job libs...$4000. to every middle class family estimated by the CBO.
4. The court, and Obama have just dropped the hammer on small business, in this time of anemic growth at best is plain stupid! Many now will drop Health Insurance offered to employees, and take the tax because it will be cheaper to do so. Or, they will go out of business all together under the weight of cost.
This was a fraud from the beginning, and remains a lie to this day that Obama has given us...I am saddened, but at the same time hopeful that America will wake up and stop the progressive nightmare.
If that is to have any effect at all then the "tax penalty" has to be greater than the cost of compliance.
the USA isn't as weak as you appear to think it is.
and no, this ruling has NOTHING to do with private-property rights.
Well, My thoughts very preliminarily are really several fold here.
1. I think that Roberts was wrong to side with the liberal wing of the court here, largely on the unequal taxation that this will now enshrine that the government has the right to do. So, the court today just wiped out a piece of the constitution in that regard.
2. The ruling has energized those who are and have been against this law from the begining, the group we saw in 2010 sweep elections. Romney, if his team is smart enough to take advantage of this will win November in a landslide on the anger of the 60% of Americans against this law.
3. Even though Obama said to George Snufolupogus in 2009 that 'no way was this a tax' and then repeated that over, and over, until they got in front of the court, now it is a tax. The largest tax on the middle class in history! Good job libs...$4000. to every middle class family estimated by the CBO.
4. The court, and Obama have just dropped the hammer on small business, in this time of anemic growth at best is plain stupid! Many now will drop Health Insurance offered to employees, and take the tax because it will be cheaper to do so. Or, they will go out of business all together under the weight of cost.
This was a fraud from the beginning, and remains a lie to this day that Obama has given us...I am saddened, but at the same time hopeful that America will wake up and stop the progressive nightmare.
No it's not. It definitely is not my country and that's why I just sent an email to the offices of both Massachusetts Senators asking how one goes about renouncing one's US Citizenship.
If that is to have any effect at all then the "tax penalty" has to be greater than the cost of compliance.
Please — you better check who's playing the race card here. :roll:
Granted that I havent read through the entire strata of responses, has anyone referenced all those waivers? They are waivers against a tax yes? You cant apply a tax selectively or grant waivers selectively. Are those waivers constitutional? If they are not, what then? There are literally millions of people affected by those waivers as well.
Then we move onto the argument of taxing whatever the heck you want, from cell phones (you need them to call for emergency care, as an argument) to green policies (has to have a certain MPG) or lulz here but how about taxing for NOT having a gun for self protection. All of those could be applied from this ruling. This didnt stop the problems, its just the beginning of the mess we are going to have to sort out, this ruling was probably the largest since Wickard---which was somewhat derailed by this ruling in an odd way by sidestepping into the tax area and not ruling on the limitation of the commerce clause.
the waivers are given to corporations (shocking, I know). Individuals who have taxes levied against them do not have an ability to get a waiver
Who do you think pays for it when an uninsured person goes to the emergency room and doesn't pay the bill?
In a perfect world everyone would pay for themselves, and they could all afford it happily, and it would rain champagne. It's not a perfect world. We did manage to pass a bill that does insure a large group of those that didn't previously had it which will allow many people to actually practice preventative medicine and such, which will save some money.
Actually, it would have to be about equal to the cost of compliance. Either you purchase insurance or the cost will be billed to you without any additional benefits of insurance, people will then purchase insurance instead.If that is to have any effect at all then the "tax penalty" has to be greater than the cost of compliance.
Good to know you only came to complain about "race bomb" after I came in - and not you know - the last 20 pages where Albert Di Salvo has been making this into a race issue.
Your hypocrisy gets thicker every day and I love to expose it.
I think you are grossly overestimating America's appetite for this issue to continue.
Go back and see who the first person was to bring up race in this thread. It wasn't a liberal.
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?