What is a tax? And why SCOTUS was wrong in Obamacare.

[Kal'Stang]

What is a tax exactly? It is a cost to the general populace paid to a central government in order for that government to provide certain services for the general public. It provides services like, a police force (in the US its the FBI, CIA etc etc), an armed force to defend the country, regulation of certain industries in order to make a safer environment and MANY other things, all of which benefits society as a whole.

Now here comes Obamacare. It was barely passed as constitutional because the mandate was considered as a tax by the government, a constitutional ability of our government. But what service does this "tax" provide? Answer: None. This "tax" is directed at the people who do not have insurance and yet they get absolutely NO benefit from this "tax". Indeed those people will still have to fully pay for any medical costs they may incur. In fact Healthcare.gov even stresses this point.

People without health coverage will also have to pay the entire cost of all their medical care. They won't be protected from the kind of very high medical bills that can sometimes lead to bankruptcy.
.
.
.
It's important to remember that someone who pays the fee won't get any health insurance coverage. They still will be responsible for 100% of the cost of their medical care.

Healthcare.gov



But then, the actual government, minus SCOTUS, actually does not call it a tax. What do they call it? A penalty. A fine. A fee. Only it is a fee which the IRS has been given the authority to take from people. Hence the ONLY reason why SCOTUS ruled it as a "tax". Again, despite the rest of the government, including Obama, saying that it is NOT a tax.

So, why exactly did SCOTUS deem Obamacare Mandate as a "tax"? When it meets none of the requirements of an actual tax and the government itself (particularly those that wrote it) saying that it is NOT a tax?

 

[sangha]

What is a tax exactly? It is a cost to the general populace paid to a central government in order for that government to provide certain services for the general public. It provides services like, a police force (in the US its the FBI, CIA etc etc), an armed force to defend the country, regulation of certain industries in order to make a safer environment and MANY other things, all of which benefits society as a whole.

Now here comes Obamacare. It was barely passed as constitutional because the mandate was considered as a tax by the government, a constitutional ability of our government. But what service does this "tax" provide? Answer: None. This "tax" is directed at the people who do not have insurance and yet they get absolutely NO benefit from this "tax". Indeed those people will still have to fully pay for any medical costs they may incur. In fact Healthcare.gov even stresses this point.



Healthcare.gov



But then, the actual government, minus SCOTUS, actually does not call it a tax. What do they call it? A penalty. A fine. A fee. Only it is a fee which the IRS has been given the authority to take from people. Hence the ONLY reason why SCOTUS ruled it as a "tax". Again, despite the rest of the government, including Obama, saying that it is NOT a tax.

So, why exactly did SCOTUS deem Obamacare Mandate as a "tax"? When it meets none of the requirements of an actual tax and the government itself (particularly those that wrote it) saying that it is NOT a tax?

You are misrepresenting the SCOTUS opinion about the health care penalty. SCOTUS did not call it a tax. Only one justice used the word tax when talking about the penalty and even he did not call the penalty a tax

What he said was that the penalty was allowed under the govt's taxing authority. That is not the same as saying it is a tax.

 

[GottaGo]

You are misrepresenting the SCOTUS opinion about the health care penalty. SCOTUS did not call it a tax. Only one justice used the word tax when talking about the penalty and even he did not call the penalty a tax

What he said was that the penalty was allowed under the govt's taxing authority. That is not the same as saying it is a tax.

Semantics games is what has been played on this from the get go.

The Administration specifically sold it as not being a tax. To force it through SCOTUS, it was presented as a tax.

If it's not a tax, then how does the IRS have any authority whatsoever, to collect it or enforce it's collection?

 

[sangha]

Semantics games is what has been played on this from the get go.

The Administration specifically sold it as not being a tax. To force it through SCOTUS, it was presented as a tax.

If it's not a tax, then how does the IRS have any authority whatsoever, to collect it or enforce it's collection?

The same way it has the authority to levy a penalty on those who misreport their income.

 

[Gaugingcatenate]

You are misrepresenting the SCOTUS opinion about the health care penalty. SCOTUS did not call it a tax. Only one justice used the word tax when talking about the penalty and even he did not call the penalty a tax

What he said was that the penalty was allowed under the govt's taxing authority. That is not the same as saying it is a tax.

Why don't you flesh that out for us then, see if it passes the ultimate smell test.

Or perhaps it might be too difficult to type what you are actually trying to express? Not criticizing so much as pointing out that some are congenitally unable to do other than issue drive by statements in what is, ostensibly, a debate website.

 

[GottaGo]

The same way it has the authority to levy a penalty on those who misreport their income.

Income is a taxable source, and is the basis of what is taxable.

Health insurance is not a taxable income.

 

[sangha]

Income is a taxable source, and is the basis of what is taxable.

Health insurance is not a taxable income.

Which explains why I didn't say that health insurance is taxable income

 

[Gaugingcatenate]

The same way it has the authority to levy a penalty on those who misreport their income.

Reporting for the purposes of which they have to pay a tax if they make over certain levels, meet certain circumstances... a penalty within a taxing authority, presumably, would be associated with some tax, right or wrong?

 

[GottaGo]

Which explains why I didn't say that health insurance is taxable income

But then the IRS has no authority to enforce anything regarding health insurance, the lack there of, or anything else.

Unless you want to declare them a collection agency, which then completely separates them from the authority of the US Government.

 

[sangha]

But then the IRS has no authority to enforce anything regarding health insurance, the lack there of, or anything else.

In NATIONAL FEDERATION OF INDEPENDENT BUSINESS v. SEBELIUS (ie the Obamacare case) the court decided that the Fed govt does have the power to compel people to purchase health insurance and that "Once we recognize that Congress may regulate a particular decision under the Commerce Clause, the Federal Government can bring its full weight to bear."

The IRS is part of the federal govt's "full weight"

IOW, your claim that "the IRS has no authority to enforce anything regarding health insurance" is directly contradicted by Justice Roberts who said that the govt can use the IRS to enforce anything that Congress has rightfully regulated

 

[Deuce]

Since when does a tax have to provide direct benefits to that particular taxpayer?

 

[soccerboy22]

Here is one of the major parts of the opinion where Kennedy mainly argues it is a tax, not a penalty.

Under the mandate, if an individual does not maintain health insurance, the only consequence is that he must make an additional payment to the IRS when he pays his taxes. That, according to the Government, means the mandate can be regarded as establishing a condition—not owning health insurance—that triggers a tax—the required payment to the IRS. Under that theory, the mandate is not a legal command to buy insurance. Rather, it makes going without insurance just another thing the Government taxes, like buying gasoline or earning income. And if the mandate is in effect just a tax hike on certain taxpayers who do not have health insurance, it may be within Congress’s constitutional power to tax.

The question is not whether that is the most natural interpretation of the mandate, but only whether it is a “fairly possible” one. As we have explained, “every reasonable construction must be resorted to, in order to save a statute from unconstitutionality.” The Government asks us to interpret the mandate as imposing a tax, if it would otherwise violate the Constitution. Granting the Act the full measure of deference owed to federal statutes, it can be so read.

 

[Kal'Stang]

You are misrepresenting the SCOTUS opinion about the health care penalty. SCOTUS did not call it a tax. Only one justice used the word tax when talking about the penalty and even he did not call the penalty a tax

What he said was that the penalty was allowed under the govt's taxing authority. That is not the same as saying it is a tax.

The same way it has the authority to levy a penalty on those who misreport their income.

There is a huge difference between penalizing those that do not report their taxable income correctly and penalizing someone for simply not having insurance. One is directly about taxes. The other has nothing to do with taxes. How can obamacare be under the taxing authority of the government when the ONLY thing that links Obamacare and the taxing division of our government (IRS) is that they made it to where the IRS could collect the penalty...because frankly that was the ONLY way that they were going to be able to enforce such a penalty. So, it either is a tax and therefore under government authority, or it is not a tax and therefore it does not apply as SCOTUS applied it.

Roberts, the deciding judge, specifically said that if they had tried to defend Obamacare under the commerce clause then it would have definitely failed. So not even that would have kept Obamacare alive. Instead Roberts chose some obscure reasoning to allow it as it "being apart of the governments ability to tax".

Now, if it is not a tax, which you apparently agree that it is not. Why does the IRS, a division of our government dedicated solely to taxation, have control of this fine? Where is their power to handle what would be considered a LEO responsibility at best.

 

[Kal'Stang]

Income is a taxable source, and is the basis of what is taxable.

Health insurance is not a taxable income.

Agree. Indeed it is the exact opposite of "income". It is in fact an expenditure.

 

[Kal'Stang]

In NATIONAL FEDERATION OF INDEPENDENT BUSINESS v. SEBELIUS (ie the Obamacare case) the court decided that the Fed govt does have the power to compel people to purchase health insurance and that "Once we recognize that Congress may regulate a particular decision under the Commerce Clause, the Federal Government can bring its full weight to bear."

The IRS is part of the federal govt's "full weight"

IOW, your claim that "the IRS has no authority to enforce anything regarding health insurance" is directly contradicted by Justice Roberts who said that the govt can use the IRS to enforce anything that Congress has rightfully regulated

Except that they did not argue Obamacare on the Commerce clause. According to Roberts if they had then it would definitely have been shot down.

 

[Kal'Stang]

Since when does a tax have to provide direct benefits to that particular taxpayer?

I never said to a "particular taxpayer". I said to the general populace.

 

[Deuce]

I never said to a "particular taxpayer". I said to the general populace.

The insurance mandate clearly has a benefit to the general populace though.

 

[sangha]

There is a huge difference between penalizing those that do not report their taxable income correctly and penalizing someone for simply not having insurance. One is directly about taxes. The other has nothing to do with taxes. How can obamacare be under the taxing authority of the government when the ONLY thing that links Obamacare and the taxing division of our government (IRS) is that they made it to where the IRS could collect the penalty...because frankly that was the ONLY way that they were going to be able to enforce such a penalty. So, it either is a tax and therefore under government authority, or it is not a tax and therefore it does not apply as SCOTUS applied it.

Roberts, the deciding judge, specifically said that if they had tried to defend Obamacare under the commerce clause then it would have definitely failed. So not even that would have kept Obamacare alive. Instead Roberts chose some obscure reasoning to allow it as it "being apart of the governments ability to tax".

Now, if it is not a tax, which you apparently agree that it is not. Why does the IRS, a division of our government dedicated solely to taxation, have control of this fine? Where is their power to handle what would be considered a LEO responsibility at best.

I have already explained the questions you ask in your last paragraph. SCOTUS ruled that once the govt has properly used its' power to force individuals to do something, it can use its' "full weight" (including the IRS) to enforce it.

 

[Kal'Stang]

Here is one of the major parts of the opinion where Kennedy mainly argues it is a tax, not a penalty.

Thanks for that. It shows even more why SCOTUS is wrong in this instance. They had to twist and spin in order to get the Mandate accepted. It is not SCOTUS's job to "save a statute from unconstitutionality". In fact its actual job is to uphold the Constitution no matter what. Twisting and spinning is not doing that. Particularly when the rest of the government specifically says its not a tax....but if it will save it then consider it as such!.

 

[Deuce]

Thanks for that. It shows even more why SCOTUS is wrong in this instance. They had to twist and spin in order to get the Mandate accepted. It is not SCOTUS's job to "save a statute from unconstitutionality". In fact its actual job is to uphold the Constitution no matter what. Twisting and spinning is not doing that. Particularly when the rest of the government specifically says its not a tax....but if it will save it then consider it as such!.

Um, they did that. It doesn't matter what people say. It matters what the bill actually is.

 

[sangha]

Except that they did not argue Obamacare on the Commerce clause. According to Roberts if they had then it would definitely have been shot down.

No, the argument was that the mandate was allowed under the commerce clause, while the penalty was allowed under the govts authority to tax.

 

[Kal'Stang]

I have already explained the questions you ask in your last paragraph. SCOTUS ruled that once the govt has properly used its' power to force individuals to do something, it can use its' "full weight" (including the IRS) to enforce it.

Except that the government does not have the power to force ANYONE to buy from private entities...or else.

 

[Kal'Stang]

No, the argument was that the mandate was allowed under the commerce clause, while the penalty was allowed under the govts authority to tax.

I have to get back to work, but I will definitely address this later when I get back, with links no doubt as you are definitely wrong.

 

[GottaGo]

The insurance mandate clearly has a benefit to the general populace though.

No, actually it doesn't.

It benefits a small minority of people, only in the aspect that they believe it empowers them to receive 'health care', when in reality they always had access to health care. The only thing it does is change the method and route taken to pay for it.

 

[sangha]

Except that the government does not have the power to force ANYONE to buy from private entities...or else.

SCOTUS disagreed