- Joined
- Sep 23, 2011
- Messages
- 11,273
- Reaction score
- 5,733
- Location
- On a Gravy Train with Biscuit Wheels
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Very Liberal
I don't see the relevance
Nonsense. Allow me to ask again. ...Given that this is a supreme court precedent how do we undo it? I am open to suggestions.that is sedition.
that is sedition.
sure it did it constitutionalized forcible gooverment sponsorship of industrys.
You mean like the tax subsidy corporations receive for the portion of monthly insurance premiums they pay on behalf of their employees? (And mind you, the employee doesn't receive that same tax benefit.)
Or the tax subsidy oil companies recieve even when they show a profit on top of the subsidy?
How about the argiculture industry that's still receiving tax subsidies long after the Dust Bowl?
Pharmasautical companies?
We could play this game all day, but the fact is private industries have been receiving such tax breaks for years.
As to the tax penalty being upheld as constitutional under Congress' taxing power, I think the Right has once again :spin: the issue in an uncharacteristic fashion. There are tax pentalies written into our tax code for a wide variety of things, but most generally require you to pay a tax first or perform a certain administrative function before imposing a penalty. In this case where the enforcement mechanism for complying with the individual mandate is concerned, there is no "pre-tax" requirement before the "tax penalty" would be imposed. Instead, the penalty would work exactly like the "fine" does with not having auto insurance. If you don't have insurance, you pay a fine (penalty). Those who argue that tax penalties are not written into the Constitution have too strict a reading of this document. Not everything Congress or the President are authorized to do are written in the Constitution. Folks (pundits) always seem to forget that one part of the Constitution where it says "Congress has the power to write laws...". Back to the issue at hand...
Why did Justice Robert throw out the mandate under the General Welfare clause and the Necessary and Proper clause, but uphold it under Congress' taxing power? I believe there were two reasons for this:
1) The General Welfare clause has been over-used by Congress as justification to do just about anything. In this case, there was no immediate danger to the country if the population didn't have health insurance. Sure, the cost may have continued to rise over the years with or without health care reform, but the health and wellness of the nation was not at risk. And if it were, that's what the CDC is for.
2) The Necessary and Proper clause likewise doesn't quite work. Yes, it is necessary to get health care cost under control. And yes, it is necessary to find ways to make health services as accessible to the population as possible, but since less than 1/6th of the population is without "affordable" access to health care, the need was far more overblown than necessary under this clause (pun intended).
There are legal precedents as well for not justifying upholding the individual mandate under General Welfare and Necessary and Proper as outlined in Justice Robert's opinion, but the short and skinny of it was neither clause really met constitutional muster. However, by acknowledging Congress' taxing power, Justice Robert was simply saying, "this is the enforcement remedy Congress choose to resolve a problem within our health insurance and health services industry and though not a direct tax, tax penalties have long been part of the tax code. As such, it falls within Congress' power to tax whether directly (i.e., income tax, excise tax, use tax) or indirectly (i.e., fines, fees and penalties)."
We should be careful not to conflate the recognition that the government has the power to make a dumb law with the support of such a law.
There's a truth that many people seem to have forgotten (esp Scalia and Thomas). While we have many rights, the government does the ability to pass laws that we don't like. Laws don't become unconstitutional because we don't like them.
Besides being an example of extreme judicial activism, what effects would Scalia's dissent impart on the country? First, if the government does not have the right to impart a penalty on someone for inaction, how can they impart a benifit FOR action. The mortgage deduction is essentially a penalty on people who don't own a house. The first time home buyer tax credit was a penalty for everyone who wasn't a first time home buyer. The child tax credit is a penalty for everyone who does not have children.
Constitutionality of laws is NOT a left right thing, it's not liberal or conservative.
All I'm pointing out is that this law sets a dangerous precedent.
We should be careful not to conflate the recognition that the government has the power to make a dumb law with the support of such a law.
There's a truth that many people seem to have forgotten (esp Scalia and Thomas). While we have many rights, the government does the ability to pass laws that we don't like. Laws don't become unconstitutional because we don't like them.
Besides being an example of extreme judicial activism, what effects would Scalia's dissent impart on the country? First, if the government does not have the right to impart a penalty on someone for inaction, how can they impart a benifit FOR action. The mortgage deduction is essentially a penalty on people who don't own a house. The first time home buyer tax credit was a penalty for everyone who wasn't a first time home buyer. The child tax credit is a penalty for everyone who does not have children.
Constitutionality of laws is NOT a left right thing, it's not liberal or conservative.
The ruling did not set a precedent, but rather affirmed Obamacare is allowed under the already existing power to tax.
Look at this list. The government already punishes you for not buying a hybrid, for not adopting a child, for not having two children, for not being married, for not taking care of an old person, etc. This power -- right or wrong -- is well established and in practice.
Yet it is the FIRST in a list of tax penalties for simply NOT buying a specific good or service. This precedent is dangerous indeed, as by law it can apply to only 52% of the population, since 48% percent now pay no FIT at all. If you view letting you keep ANY of your wages as a privilege then I suppose it is no big deal, but it sets a BAD precedent for adding MANY unfunded mandates (or tax penalties result) for ANYTHING that most have, yet some choose not to buy. What is next? Smoke detectors, set-back thermostats, cars getting 30+ mpg, energy star appliances, painting your roof white, establishing a wildlife habitat on plots over 1/4 acre...
That "mortgage interest deduction" is NOT constitutional unless the gov't can show a "compelling state interest" in making it so, thus beating the "equal protection under the law" hurdle. One could assume that promoting home ownership would survive a SCOTUS challenge, as a compelling state interest. Using your example, but expressing the law as a penalty for NOT buying a home, would never pass congress, since a "renter's tax" would be unpopular. The "uninsured tax" is unpopular but, since it applies to a tiny minority, it is politically safe (85% now get medical insurance from their employer or the gov't). Since the tax law IGNORES employer provided medical insurance as income, or taxes it at a rate of ZERO, the PPACA law had a hard time making the tax law treat it as a deduction, so they had to enforce it as a penalty. ;-)
The ruling did not set a precedent, but rather affirmed Obamacare is allowed under the already existing power to tax.
Look at this list. The government already punishes you for not buying a hybrid, for not adopting a child, for not having two children, for not being married, for not taking care of an old person, etc. This power -- right or wrong -- is well established and in practice.[/QUOTE
no they reward me for buying one. This sets up the government to be able to force you to buy something as a component of citizenship and punish you if you don't.
no they reward me for buying one. This sets up the government to be able to force you to buy something as a component of citizenship and punish you if you don't.
What's the difference? Semantics?
Paying less in taxes for taking action is the same as paying more for not doing something.
I've always viewed "compelling interest" as being almost code-speak for "We know it's not technically Constitutional, but we're going to allow it anyway because we think it's a good idea... and we dare you to try and do anything about it."That "mortgage interest deduction" is NOT constitutional unless the gov't can show a "compelling state interest" in making it so, thus beating the "equal protection under the law" hurdle. One could assume that promoting home ownership would survive a SCOTUS challenge, as a compelling state interest. Using your example, but expressing the law as a penalty for NOT buying a home, would never pass congress, since a "renter's tax" would be unpopular. The "uninsured tax" is unpopular but, since it applies to a tiny minority, it is politically safe (85% now get medical insurance from their employer or the gov't). Since the tax law IGNORES employer provided medical insurance as income, or taxes it at a rate of ZERO, the PPACA law had a hard time making the tax law treat it as a deduction, so they had to enforce it as a penalty. ;-)
The ruling did not set a precedent, but rather affirmed Obamacare is allowed under the already existing power to tax.
Look at this list. The government already punishes you for not buying a hybrid, for not adopting a child, for not having two children, for not being married, for not taking care of an old person, etc. This power -- right or wrong -- is well established and in practice.
Not really (the same). An enticement to encourage a desired behavior is not the same as taxing as a punishment to coerce people into a desired behavior. Looking solely at the money aspect is shortsighted and incomplete. It's more than just that.What's the difference? Semantics?
Paying less in taxes for taking action is the same as paying more for not doing something.
Actually I do I make 60k a year straight out of college and pay into my own health care. I pay nearly 25 of my income in taxes!YoungConserv, someone who probably doesn't even pay taxes, is whining that the big bad gubbmint is making him do things in return for being a citizen of the US.
No wonder he's against the individual mandate, he must think free riders on our health care system are the truest Americans.
I disagree that not having a kid... and thus not being to take the deduction... is a penalty, but I wholeheartedly agree with your point that I highlighted in red.People act in what they think is their own best interest. Whether it is or not is not the question.
In some cases the government does compel people to act in the interest of society.
An example of that is when children are born the birth parents have a legal obligation to provide for them.
Since the government does compel this, it is recognized in tax law allowing a portion of income to be deducted before taxes are computed.
Likewise when a corporation is required to upgrade some equipment for example, a better scrubber on a coal power plant for the environment the company can deduct that expense.
A equivalent in tax law would be a credit for an expense for insurance.
Instead there is a penalty.
Don't have a child? Penalty.
Don't have a approved scrubber? Penalty.
The government can only give out so many credits before they have to actually give out money.
But with penalties there is no end to how many they can give out.
And with Congress hunger for money there is little outside of needing to get re-elected to avoid giving in to it.
Again, there's a huge difference between saying that the government can and the government should.
Contrary to the belief of many (including Scalia, Thomas, and Alito), the Supreme Court is not a political body that strikes down laws they don't like. I can dislike a law, and still say that it's constitutional.
The government can certainly make you pay a penalty for not doing something. However, they cannot make it illegal not to purchase something OR make the penalty punitive.
There are 50 Million uninsured who incur $50 Billion in unpaid hospital bills. That means the average uninsured individual generates $1000 per year in unpaid bills. The penalty for not having health insurance is $700. (Romneycare's is about double). If you don't want health insurance, you don't have to get it. You just pay a fine, which is only about 70% of the amount (on average) that you're going to cost the rest of us. Furthermore, the IRS is expressly BARRED from using any kind of criminal enforcement mechanisms to get you to pay.
It's obviously constitutional.
Just out of curiosity, why would the government need to show a compelling state interest to implement a deduction?
Actually I do I make 60k a year straight out of college and pay into my own health care. I pay nearly 25 of my income in taxes!
Penalties are punitive, by definition. Both terms derive their root concept and meaning from "punish(ment)".The government can certainly make you pay a penalty for not doing something. However, they cannot make it illegal not to purchase something OR make the penalty punitive.
Traditional draconian civil enforcement mechanisms still apply, I'm sure. Please forgive me if I view the lack of criminal enforcement as significant comfort....the IRS is expressly BARRED from using any kind of criminal enforcement mechanisms to get you to pay.
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?