Announcement

Collapse

Forum Rules - You must read(Updated!)

DISCLAIMER

You agree to NOT use this site or its affiliated sites, services you may have access to as a result of being a member here (subscriber or otherwise), to post items (images, textual material, etc.) that are pornographic in nature, illegal in the United States and/or the country you reside in, support or encourage illegal activities (e.g., terrorism), advertise for your own personal profit, or send unsolicited messages (i.e. SPAM) to members or non-members.

AND

You agree that if any clause or component of this document is found to not be legally binding in a court of law of proper jurisdiction then the remainder of this document shall remain fully binding and in full force.

AND

You agree to NOT hold Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd. (makers of the forum software), uspoliticsonline.com, sites affiliated with uspoliticsonline.com, its administrators, its moderators, others associated with its operation, and its owners liable for any and all of the following (in whole or in part):
Personal insults/attacks by other members.
The content posted by other members, whether directed at you personally or a label/classification you associate with. This includes remarks you consider to be libelous or slanderous in any way.
Any financial or time loss due to your participation here or as a result of something you read at this site, including posts/PMs by other members and feature(s)/software available at the domain uspoliticsonline.com.
The dissemination of any personal information about you as a result of either your negligence (e.g. staying logged into a computer that others have access to) or willingness to post such information on a public and or private forum, private message or chat box. This includes using your real name or other details that could allow other members and/or the general public to determine your true identity. You are prohibited from using your real name on these forums, either as your username or in posts / PMs you write.

FORUM RULES, IN ADDITION TO THE DISCLAIMER

1. These rules apply to all sections of USPOL, including public and private forums, blogs, and visitor messages.

2. You cannot attack and/or personally insult someone. You cannot bait other forum members; this includes referring to posters by derogatory terms. Please, remain courteous and respectful to all forum members at all times. You agree to take responsibility for reporting such posts when you come across them. Please, use the ignore feature if need be. Any member who intentionally and continually posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response, or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion, may be regarded as a troll by staff, and have their account suspended or banned.

3. You cannot harass (sexually or otherwise) other members. This includes malicious, slanderous, or defamatory comments. If you are not sure if something you write is inappropriate or not then don't say it. Err on the side of caution.

4. Copying and Pasting Articles, and Starting New Threads. You cannot simply cut and paste in posts or when starting threads. You MUST provide the identifying information (source, author, date, and URL). You must also offer some original thoughts along with the cut and paste. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts from the article. Excerpts really shouldnt be more then a paragraph or two. Furthermore, if you use images or other copyrighted material in your posts or signature you must have permission of the copyright holder unless you know for a fact that the image is in the public domain. In addition:
a. It must include the identifying information; e.g., where available, the author, the publication, the date, the URL.
b. The member must offer some context, including: How did you hear of this article? What is your opinion? Why is it important to you? Why should it be important to forum readers? The more context you provide, the more you assist others in gauging the excerpted information's significance.
c. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts, not the whole thing or even the majority of the whole thing to encourage people to read the entire article.

A violation of any of the above will result in the deletion or closing of the post or thread and could earn you a warning or suspension. If you have any questions concering any of the above please PM a moderator and we will be happy to clarify.

5. You cannot post the same thing in multiple forums. You must not open similar threads about the same or a similar topic. You cannot spam the board or send unsolicited messages to members via PM, email or any other means.

6. Do not post off-topic. You cannot derail a thread with off topic posts.

7. You cannot shout in posts. This includes posting in all CAPS, bold, lIkE tHiS, and extra large font. Posts should also be one color, although you may use an additional color for highlighting ideas you wish to address.

8. You may not alter quotes in a way that misrepresents what was originally said.

9. Multiple accounts are not allowed. If you are found to have more than one account all accounts will be permanently terminated.

10. You cannot have a user name, avatar, signature, or post images that are deliberately offensive. That includes the display of overly explicit or graphic images that may not be suitable for minors.

11. Signatures can not have more than three lines of text, with a font size no larger than "4", and no more than two font colors. Images in signatures cannot be any larger than 800 pixels wide x 200 pixels tall. Animated images are not allowed.

12. You are prohibited from taking any action to disturb the use of the services by others, distribute material that contains viruses, spyware or any other malicious code or harmful programs. This includes interfering with the working of the network, attempts to gain unauthorized access to a service or other computer systems that are part of the site or any other site, by use of the available services.

13. Discussion of moderation actions in public and/or private forums is not permitted. Moderation actions include warnings, suspensions and the editing or deletion of posts. If a member has a concern about a moderation action, he or she is invited to address it with the board staff via Private Message. This rule exists to protect the privacy of all posters with regards to disciplinary action. The moderator team will never publicly discuss the warnings/suspensions of any posters, and we ask that you return the favor, whether about yourself or another poster. Posting about moderation actions in the public forums constitutes a violation. You are free to discuss a moderation action via Private Message with the moderator involved, but you may not harass or abuse the moderators (as already specified in the forum rules). In practical terms, this means that once a moderator tells you his or her decision is final, no further PMs about that moderation action are permitted. If you have a concern about a moderation action, you are free to appeal to a Forum Administrator via Private Message. You may only discuss moderator activities or discussion of moderation with staff member if you chose to private message and are not under any circumstances allowed to use the PM function to forward or promote moderator discussion in regards to specific forum action, amongst other regular members. Administrators do reserve the right to read said PMs and may do so ; if that results in discovery of messaging between posters of such moderator discussion then it will lead to the same violation being received for discussing said moderator actions on the forum. If you receive a message to the effect of having been given moderator information, please report it to a member of staff. Engaging back in that discussion with the original violator will earn you just as stiff a sanction.

14. Do not ignore moderators or administrators. Do not repost something a moderator or administrator has deleted. You cannot have moderators or administrators on your ignore list.

15. Only post in English. Short passages in foreign languages may be acceptable if its use seems helpful for the ongoing discussion and when there is no indication of a potential violation of the forum rules. Always provide a translation into English in such cases. In case of doubt, the incident will be regarded as a violation, no matter of the actual meaning of the foreign language text.

16. The use of words/comments etc. written by other posters, without approval of the poster in your personal signature is not allowed nor are references, by name, to other posters allowed.

17. Please pay attention to announcements by Forum staff that will be found in the "Welcome! / News & Announcements" forum from time to time.

18. Use of "liar", "lies", "lying", etc. Accusing someone of being a "liar" or similar accusations towards other posters will generally be regarded as implying an insult and therewith as a violation of the forum rules. "I question the validity of your statement because...", "That's not the truth" or "you are wrong about that" are sufficient for any decent discussion if you want to disagree with somebody's assertions.

19. Thread opening restriction for new members. In order to control SPAM, new members must have moderator approval to start their own threads.

20. Thread titles must relate to the discussion within. Do not make misleading titles, or titles such as "Guess what..." or "You'll never believe this...". Members need to be able to identify the general gist of the thread via the title. Profanity in thread titles is not permitted.

21. Forum members are instructed to use forum tools and abilities for their intended purposes and no other. If members identify a forum glitch or weakness of any kind that allows you to see or do something you know you shouldn't, please report it. Being aware of any unintended access to the Forum and failing to take appropriate steps to notify staff of said access issues, will create a presumption of seeking to take advantage of the issue, will result in either account suspension, or banishment.

22. Any link to a site that contains graphic content, must contain a warning describing what a person might reasonably expect to view if they click on said link. No graphic pictures are to be posted on the Forum.

23. Threats or advocations of violence toward a public figure, or member of the Forum, will not be tolerated. Conversation about revolution or the like is not prohibited by this rule; directly calling for violence is, eg It's time to kill every <redacted> that voted for the bill, is not permitted.

24. Accounts with no posts will be deleted after 30 days. Inactive accounts with low post histories may be deleted after one year.

25. Private forums are something offered to members that decide to contribute directly to this site via donations. These donations help immensely in keeping this site up and running. Private forums are designed to allow the contributing member discuss whatever he/she wants to and to have the power to direct that discussion in whatever way he/she chose. They were not designed nor are they intended for simply talking trash about members that don't have access to the forum. While the targeted members cannot see the forum or the comments, it creates a negative atmosphere that really isn't necessary. If you want to totally rip apart ideas, ideologies, political parties, etc. that is fine. We simply ask that you don't use the private forums as a means to attack other members that aren't privy to such comments. It is difficult enough to have a political discussion forum because the discussion of politics is inherently heated as people are so passionate about their beliefs...the ones that take the time to come to such a site in the first place at least. The idea of private forums is so people of similar political persuasions can discuss whatever they want without fear of being attacked. Nonetheless, we hope that a certain level of maturity would foster itself within such an arena and not simply lend itself to a bashing forum.

Private Forums are governed by all of the above Forum rules. In addition:
  • Private forums that essentially become abandoned homes will be subject to deletion, donation or reorganization. Just like elsewhere in life, clubs sometimes lose their vitality and purpose for a myriad of reasons. If it becomes clear that a private forum has clearly lost its vitality and nobody is going to really use it anymore, owners are advised to consider whether to reuse the forum for something new and productive rather than let them linger or notify the Administration that the forum should be rearranged for other purposes, closed, merged with other compatible private forums, donated to others for new purposes, etc. Do not be concerned that your forum must be a membership and post count race with others to avoid falling under this policy; the question is whether your forum has actual vitality instead of being 'brain dead.'
  • Additionally, private forums may only be owned by subscribed members in the Platinum or Diamond categories.
  • Should the owner of a private forum be banned, quit USPOL or otherwise abandon the forum the PF will be transferred to another owner or closed.
  • Propriety of private forums. Administration staff will determine the desirability of a proposed private forum and enact any conditions upon it to ensure its purpose is productive.
  • Any and all instances of sharing accounts by allowing someone else to log in under their own account so they can see into private forums for which they are otherwise not permitted to access, will be deemed violation of the double account rule and all caught doing so will be permanently banned.
  • Relaying private forum posts and information to other posters who are not members of the particular private forum for any negative or destructive purpose (eg mean-spirited gossip, fueling interpersonal disputes, etc), is not permitted, and will constitute a violation of the Forum rules.
  • For purposes of monitoring USPOL Terms of Service Administrative staff (not Moderators) will have access to Private Forums.
  • All Private Forums must have at least one active Administrator as a member for purposes of handling issues which cannot be addressed through moderation permissions.
  • Discussion of moderation activities is prohibited on the open site and is likewise prohibited in Private Forums.

26. The administrators and moderators reserve the right to edit and/or delete a post,and/or close a thread, and/or delete a thread at any time if of the opinion that the post is too obscene, inappropriate, or the discussion has run its course.

27. 'Back seat moderating' is not allowed. If you take issue with another poster's contribution to the forum, you're welcome to report any posts you think are out of line, but you should not bring it up publicly within the forum.

28. Images in posts (whether embedded or hot linked) must be reasonable in size. 800x800 should be considered a good rule of thumb. Excessively large images make it difficult for users on mobile devices to load pages. If necessary please simply link to very large images using the URL tags. In addition, the following images are not permitted (including, but not limited to pages with images or videos containing):
  • Strategically covered nudity
  • Sheer or see-through clothing
  • Lewd or provocative poses
  • Close-ups of breasts, buttocks, or crotches

29. Any solicitation or communication involving sports betting / gambling / online casinos / bookies and or internet based card or slot machine systems or sites will lead to all said content being physically removed from the site and server, and will lead to any and or all parties involved being permanently removed and banned from the site to the farthest extent possible. This includes any links to any form of bookmaker, casino, any type of game or match or event where money transfers on the outcome or link of any sort to wire act violations and or anything in violation of either the Internet Gambling Regulation, Consumer Protection, and Enforcement Act, Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006, or the Federal wire Act. This applies not only to the open forum but all and or any chat rooms, articles, private messages and or private forums. All content that violates this rule will be deleted, without notice.

CONSEQUENCES

Failure to comply with any of the forum rules may result in your posts being edited or deleted and/or your account being temporarily or permanently banned from the forums. U.S. Politics Online uses a warning system that generates an automated Private Message to members when they are in violation of Forum rules. The decision to issue a warning is left to the discretion of the moderator or administrator handling the violation. If a member does not agree with an action taken by a moderator, they can appeal to an administrator after seeking clarification from the moderator who issued the warning/infraction and appealing to them in the first instance. Members MAY NOT harass a moderator or administrator by sending excessive PMs when they are discussing an appeal.

Violations are assigned a point value. Points are valid for 30 days. When a members earns 10 points, their account will be automatically suspended: five (5) days for a first suspension; ten (10) days for a second suspension; and twenty (20) days for a third suspension. If a member incurs an additional 10 points after having served three periods of suspension, then they will be permanently banned from the Forum.

Point values are as follows:
Zero (0) points Warning
Two (2) points - Minor infraction / Non post infraction (minor) / Off topic posts / spamming
Four (4) points - Academic dishonesty / Baiting / Discussing moderator or administrator actions / Implying an insult / Minor insults / Moderate infraction / Non-post infraction (moderate) / Thread dumping
Six (6) points - Direct insult at another member / major infraction / Non-post infraction (major)
Ten (10) points - Act of criminality, or advocating thereof

The administrators and moderators also bear the right to issue warnings, temporarily suspend or ban posters for continued trolling or other serious misconduct (eg. professional spamming) even if the poster has not yet reached the maximum warning points or suspensions level. Other options if the above consequences do not seem adequate include placing the member in a moderation queue, which means all posts will have to be approved before they are posted to the board.

PRIVACY POLICY

All information obtained by the end user via the registration process is for internal purposes only and will not be sold to or shared with any third parties. However, if the end user participates in illegal activities and a court of proper jurisdiction orders U.S. Politics Online to release certain information about said user then we will act according to the law. Furthermore, no information will be released on threat of a lawsuit, attempted or actual intimidation, or due to any other reason except as notated in the first sentence of this paragraph. Nonetheless, keep in mind that the information we do have is very limited and generally only consists of the IP address a member uses.

SUBSCRIPTIONS

U.S. Politics Online offers several subscription plans to help cover the operational costs of the site. As a thank you for your donation, you will receive special added benefits meant to enhance your U.S. Politics Online experience. Plans vary in price, starting at only $0.05/day, and benefits vary with the price. Benefits include ability to go straight to new posts, to search the forum, larger avatar, private forums, invisible mode, photo gallery, email, web hosting, and no advertisement banners. Please, click here for more details.
See more
See less

Why the mandate was valid under taxing power (edited from opinion 3 pages)

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Why the mandate was valid under taxing power (edited from opinion 3 pages)

    Congress may also lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for thecommon Defence and general Welfare of the United States. U. S. Const., Art. I, 8, cl. 1. Put simply, Congress may tax and spend. This grant gives the FederalGovernment considerable influence even in areas where it cannot directly regulate. The Federal Government may enact a tax on an activity that it cannot authorize, forbid,or otherwise control. See, e.g., License Tax Cases, 5 Wall. 462, 471 (1867). And in exercising its spending power,Congress may offer funds to the States, and may condition those offers on compliance with specified conditions. See, e.g., College Savings Bank v. Florida Prepaid Postsecondary Ed. Expense Bd., 527 U. S. 666, 686 (1999). These offers may well induce the States to adopt policies thatthe Federal Government itself could not impose. See, e.g., South Dakota v. Dole, 483 U. S. 203, 205206 (1987) (con-ditioning federal highway funds on States raising their drinking age to 21).

    The reach of the Federal Governments enumerated powers is broader still because the Constitution authorizes Congress to make all Laws which shall be necessary andproper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers.Art. I, 8, cl. 18. We have long read this provision to giveCongress great latitude in exercising its powers:

    Beginning in 2014, those who do not comply with themandate must make a [s]hared responsibility payment to the Federal Government. 5000A(b)(1). That payment,which the Act describes as a penalty, is calculated as a percentage of household income, subject to a floor based ona specified dollar amount and a ceiling based on the average annual premium the individual would have to pay for qualifying private health insurance. 5000A(c). In 2016, for example, the penalty will be 2.5 percent of an individuals household income, but no less than $695 and no more than the average yearly premium for insurance that covers 60 percent of the cost of 10 specified services (e.g., prescription drugs and hospitalization). Ibid.; 42 U. S. C. 18022. The Act provides that the penalty will be paid tothe Internal Revenue Service with an individuals taxes, and shall be assessed and collected in the same manner as tax penalties, such as the penalty for claiming too large an income tax refund. 26 U. S. C. 5000A(g)(1). The Act, however, bars the IRS from using several of its normal enforcement tools, such as criminal prosecutions and levies. 5000A(g)(2). And some individuals who are subject to the mandate are nonetheless exempt from the penaltyfor example, those with income below a certainthreshold and members of Indian tribes. 5000A(e).


    [describes split lower court rulings some striking down on commerce clause others finding it a tax and refusing to rule until it goes into effect per anti-injunction act]

    The text of a statute can sometimes have more than one possible meaning. To take a familiar example, a law that reads no vehicles in the park might, or might not, ban bicycles in the park. And it is well established that if a statute has two possible meanings, one of which violates the Constitution, courts should adopt the meaning thatdoes not do so. Justice Story said that 180 years ago: No court ought, unless the terms of an act rendered it unavoidable, to give a construction to it which should involve a violation, however unintentional, of the constitution.

    Justice Holmes made the same point a century later: [T]he rule issettled that as between two possible interpretations of a statute, by one of which it would be unconstitutional and by the other valid, our plain duty is to adopt that whichwill save the Act.

    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. See 5000A(b). That, according to the Government,means the mandate can be regarded as establishing aconditionnot owning health insurancethat triggers ataxthe 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.

    It is of course true that the Act describes the payment asa penalty, not a tax. But while that label is fatal to the application of the Anti-Injunction Act, supra, at 1213, it does not determine whether the payment may be viewedas an exercise of Congresss taxing power. It is up to Congress whether to apply the Anti-Injunction Act to anyparticular statute, so it makes sense to be guided by Congresss choice of label on that question. That choice does not, however, control whether an exaction is within Congresss constitutional power to tax.


    [speaks of precedent where they decide what is and is not in taxing power regardless of Congress calling it a tax (child labor casesliquor license cases, etc)]


    ([M]agic words or labels should not disable an otherwise constitutional levy (internal quotation marks omitted)); Nelson v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 312 U. S. 359, 363 (1941) (In passing on the constitutionality of a tax law, we are concerned only with its practical operation,not its definition or the precise form of descriptive wordswhich may be applied to it
    [more case law on functional approach to court analysis]


    [more case law on functional approach to court analysis]

    [i]The same analysis here suggests that the shared responsibility payment may for constitutional purposes be considered a tax, not a penalty: First, for most Americans the amount due will be far less than the price of insurance, and, by statute, it can never be more. Second, the individual mandate contains no scienter requirement. Third, the payment is collected solely by theIRS through the normal means of taxationexcept thatthe Service is not allowed to use those means most suggestive of a punitive sanction, such as criminal prosecution

    None of this is to say that the payment is not intended to affect individual conduct. Although the payment willraise considerable revenue, it is plainly designed to expand health insurance coverage. But taxes that seek to influence conduct are nothing new. . Today, federal and state taxes can compose more than half the retail price of cigarettes not just to raise more money, but to encourage people to quit smoking.

    Neither the Act nor any other law attaches negative legal consequences to not buying health insur-ance, beyond requiring a payment to the IRS. The Government agrees with that reading, confirming that ifsomeone chooses to pay rather than obtain health insurance, they have fully complied with the law.

    Indeed, it is estimated that four million people each year will choose to pay the IRS rather than buy insurance. Congress did not think it was creating four million outlaws.

    Suppose Congress enacted a statute providing that every taxpayer who owns a house without energy efficient windows must pay $50 to the IRS. The amount due is adjusted based on factors such as taxable income and joint filing status, and is paid along with the taxpayers income tax return. Those whose income is below the filing thresholdneed not pay. The required payment is not called a tax,a penalty, or anything else. No one would doubt that this law imposed a tax, and was within Congresss power to tax. That conclusion should not change simply because Congress used the word penalty to describe the payment. Interpreting such a law to be a tax would hardly mpos[e] a tax through judicial legislation.

    Our precedent demonstrates that Congress had thepower to impose the exaction in 5000A under the taxing power, and that 5000A need not be read to do more thanimpose a tax. That is sufficient to sustain it. The question of the constitutionality of action taken by Congressdoes not depend on recitals of the power which it undertakes to exercise.


    [talks extensively about direct tax evolution to rebut argument this tax is not fairly apportioned and sites case law that shows this cannot be considered a direct tax possibly since the days of Madison and at least since the late 1880s]


    A tax on going without health insurance does not fall within any recognized category of direct tax.

    If it is troubling to interpret the Commerce Clause as authorizing Congress to regulate those who abstainfrom commerce, perhaps it should be similarly troubling topermit Congress to impose a tax for not doing something.

    Three considerations allay this concern. First, and most importantly, it is abundantly clear the Constitution does not guarantee that individuals may avoid taxation through inactivity. Second, Congresss ability to use its taxing power toinfluence conduct is not without limits. A few of our cases policed these limits aggressively, invalidating punitiveexactions obviously designed to regulate behavior otherwise regarded at the time as beyond federal authority. . there comes a time in the extension of the penalizing features of the so-called tax when it losesits character as such and becomes a mere penalty with the characteristics of regulation and punishment. .. We have already explained that the shared responsibility payments practical characteristics pass muster as atax under our narrowest interpretations of the taxing power. Third, although the breadth of Congresss power to taxis greater than its power to regulate commerce, the taxingpower does not give Congress the same degree of controlover individual behavior. .. Congresss authority under the taxingpower is limited to requiring an individual to pay money into the Federal Treasury, no more.

    The Affordable Care Acts requirement that certain individuals pay a financial penalty for not obtaining health insurance may reasonably be characterized as a tax. Because the Constitution permits such a tax, it is not our roleto forbid it, or to pass upon its wisdom or fairness.

  • #2
    Re: Why the mandate was valid under taxing power (edited from opinion 3 pages)

    I notice that some administration defenders are still calling it a penalty, but it got struck down as a penalty. A penalty implies a violation, which would involve the government's power to regulate, not it's ability to tax.

    ?


    • #3
      Re: Why the mandate was valid under taxing power (edited from opinion 3 pages)

      Originally posted by adaher View Post
      I notice that some administration defenders are still calling it a penalty, but it got struck down as a penalty. A penalty implies a violation, which would involve the government's power to regulate, not it's ability to tax.
      "... the shared responsibility payment may for constitutional purposes be considered a tax, not a penalty..." The part I put in bold limits that ruling for constitutional purposes, not for the everyday life of the population. As I remarked, not every citizen is a jurist, and for them "tax" and "penalty" can mean greatly different things than for the Court. If they perceive it as a penalty, they're fully justified to call it a penalty, even if legally it's a tax. Because, in the end, it's what describes the most accurately what they will experience.
      I only have French examples for this but put me in front of a hill. By strict (French) definition, a hill becomes a mountain when it's higher than 600 meters. When I call a mountain a hill, I don't calculate its height, I compare it with the mountains I know and if it doesn't look like a mountain, it's not a mountain to me. Same with rivers, same with cities, same with facts and same with taxes and fees.
      And to be fair, this tax is intended as a penalty.

      It's not that the president and democrats shouldn't call it a tax - it would be virtuous and not very clever of them to do so - but if they want to call it a penalty, I think linguistically they're justified.

      ?


      • #4
        Re: Why the mandate was valid under taxing power (edited from opinion 3 pages)

        A penalty implies a violation. And in order for not buying insurance to be a violation, it requires the government to be able to regulate. Since the government is not allowed to regulate this, they cannot penalize it.

        ?


        • #5
          Re: Why the mandate was valid under taxing power (edited from opinion 3 pages)

          Originally posted by adaher View Post
          A penalty implies a violation. And in order for not buying insurance to be a violation, it requires the government to be able to regulate. Since the government is not allowed to regulate this, they cannot penalize it.
          The law is still the same. What it does is still the same. What it will mean, in practice, for people in 2014, is still the same. Before the ruling, people had to buy health insurance or pay a penalty. After the ruling, people who don't buy health insurance pay a tax. Seriously.
          What's more, when people hear of a tax they don't immediately think of the conditions attached to this tax - without any incentive to look further, and especially faced with catchphrases like "the highest tax raise on the middle-class since...", it's expected that they conclude there is no such condition, and they will have to pay that tax like income tax, whatever else they do. The "word" penalty force them to take conditions into account, so using that word might actually be even more accurate than "tax", even if technically it is one.
          Basically, if you say "there is a new tax" you immediately expect to have to pay it. If you say "there is a new penalty" you immediately expect not to have to pay it. That's the only actual stake in calling it a "tax" or a "penalty" here, for non-constitutional purposes. When a "war" is called an "intervention", that's no different.

          ?


          • #6
            Re: Why the mandate was valid under taxing power (edited from opinion 3 pages)

            Reagan's COBRA act to force hospital emergency rooms to accept illegals forces me to pay taxes top cover the expense.
            Where the Republican outrage?
            Or is cheap labor worth the distribution of such a tax?

            ?


            • #7
              Re: Why the mandate was valid under taxing power (edited from opinion 3 pages)

              Originally posted by adaher View Post
              A penalty implies a violation. And in order for not buying insurance to be a violation, it requires the government to be able to regulate. Since the government is not allowed to regulate this, they cannot penalize it.
              They don't penalize it, they grant a tax credit for having insurance.
              The court looks at whether congress has the power to do something under the constitution, it doesn't play gotcha with the wording.

              ?


              • #8
                Re: Why the mandate was valid under taxing power (edited from opinion 3 pages)

                I realize it's only philosophical, but it means something to me that the mandate is now morally neutral. I am not actually required to buy health insurance. I am not in violation of any law if I don't. As you imply goober, it is now akin to choosing to buy or not buy alcohol. Either choice is legally the same.

                If I'm paying a penalty or a fine, that implies that I broke the law. But since the mandate is only legal under Congress' tax power, that means I have broken no law, since Congress never had the authority to pass any such law. They only have the authority to encourage me to buy insurance by having me pay less taxes if I do.
                Last edited by adaher; 06-30-2012, 09:38 PM.

                ?


                • #9
                  Re: Why the mandate was valid under taxing power (edited from opinion 3 pages)

                  Originally posted by adaher View Post
                  I realize it's only philosophical, but it means something to me that the mandate is now morally neutral. I am not actually required to buy health insurance. I am not in violation of any law if I don't. As you imply goober, it is now akin to choosing to buy or not buy alcohol. Either choice is legally the same.

                  If I'm paying a penalty or a fine, that implies that I broke the law. But since the mandate is only legal under Congress' tax power, that means I have broken no law, since Congress never had the authority to pass any such law. They only have the authority to encourage me to buy insurance by having me pay less taxes if I do.
                  Does Congress have the power to raise your taxes? Does Congress have the power to give you a tax credit if you have health insurance?
                  So Congress has the power to do exactly what the ACA does.
                  So the point is, the Supreme Court (well, at least 5 of them) isn't going to play a gotcha game over wording.
                  Could Congress do exactly what the ACA says, if it was worded differently? If so, then it has the power to do what the ACA calls for.

                  Congress still can call it a penalty, in Massachusetts, we've had basically the same law for a number of years, and I think we have less than 5% uninsured.
                  And less than 2% of children uninsured. Compare that with Texas where 25% of the population is uninsured. Three people paying for what 4 people get, 1 out of 4 people is a free riding bum.

                  And the penalty in Massachusetts is like a third of what the ACA imposes.
                  Last edited by goober; 07-01-2012, 08:25 PM.

                  ?


                  • #10
                    Re: Why the mandate was valid under taxing power (edited from opinion 3 pages)

                    It's semantics. If you speed, you get a $100 ticket. Let's say you get caught once a year on average. It's a violation. How about a law, if you prove you didn't speed for a year, you get a $100 credit. Oh, and with the new law are tax increases increasing average taxes by $100 per person.

                    It's mostly shifting the burden of proof. You need to be caught speeding to pay the fine. To get a credit, you have to prove you qualify to the IRS.

                    ?


                    • #11
                      Re: Why the mandate was valid under taxing power (edited from opinion 3 pages)

                      Originally posted by goober View Post
                      Does Congress have the power to raise your taxes? Does Congress have the power to give you a tax credit if you have health insurance?
                      So Congress has the power to do exactly what the ACA does.
                      So the point is, the Supreme Court (well, at least 5 of them) isn't going to play a gotcha game over wording.
                      Could Congress do exactly what the ACA says, if it was worded differently? If so, then it has the power to do what the ACA calls for.

                      Congress still can call it a penalty, in Massachusetts, we've had basically the same law for a number of years, and I think we have less than 5% uninsured.
                      And less than 2% of children uninsured. Compare that with Texas where 25% of the population is uninsured. Three people paying for what 4 people get, 1 out of 4 people is a free riding bum.

                      And the penalty in Massachusetts is like a third of what the ACA imposes.
                      The problem with getting for-profit insurance is that it is for-profit. You will likely spend more than if you had not bought it. Same with car insurance.

                      ?


                      • #12
                        Re: Why the mandate was valid under taxing power (edited from opinion 3 pages)

                        Originally posted by goober View Post
                        Does Congress have the power to raise your taxes? Does Congress have the power to give you a tax credit if you have health insurance?
                        So Congress has the power to do exactly what the ACA does.
                        So the point is, the Supreme Court (well, at least 5 of them) isn't going to play a gotcha game over wording.
                        Could Congress do exactly what the ACA says, if it was worded differently? If so, then it has the power to do what the ACA calls for.

                        Congress still can call it a penalty, in Massachusetts, we've had basically the same law for a number of years, and I think we have less than 5% uninsured.
                        And less than 2% of children uninsured. Compare that with Texas where 25% of the population is uninsured. Three people paying for what 4 people get, 1 out of 4 people is a free riding bum.

                        And the penalty in Massachusetts is like a third of what the ACA imposes.
                        You can call it what you want, but what you can't call it is a violation of the law to forego health insurance. Which is important to some people. Congress' ability to regulate commerce means they can punish wrongdoing. Their tax power includes no such power except to punish nonpayment of tax. But if I pay the penalty, I'm in full compliance. Legally, I am in exactly the same position in regards to the ACA as someone who does have insurance. This was not Congress' intent, but that is what the law is now.

                        ?


                        • #13
                          Re: Why the mandate was valid under taxing power (edited from opinion 3 pages)

                          Originally posted by Slon View Post
                          It's semantics. If you speed, you get a $100 ticket. Let's say you get caught once a year on average. It's a violation. How about a law, if you prove you didn't speed for a year, you get a $100 credit. Oh, and with the new law are tax increases increasing average taxes by $100 per person.

                          It's mostly shifting the burden of proof. You need to be caught speeding to pay the fine. To get a credit, you have to prove you qualify to the IRS.
                          Speeding is a violation and you can't just pay the fine and call it a day. If you get caught speeding too much, other sanctions ensue. That's why you can't call the mandate a fine, because there are no further sanctions possible by the government. Fines are generally initial punishments, I can think of no violations that involve ONLY fines no matter how much you commit the violation. Things escalate the more you violate the law. But the ability to do that with the mandate has been shut down by SCOTUS.

                          ?


                          • #14
                            Re: Why the mandate was valid under taxing power (edited from opinion 3 pages)

                            Originally posted by adaher View Post
                            Speeding is a violation and you can't just pay the fine and call it a day. If you get caught speeding too much, other sanctions ensue. That's why you can't call the mandate a fine, because there are no further sanctions possible by the government. Fines are generally initial punishments, I can think of no violations that involve ONLY fines no matter how much you commit the violation. Things escalate the more you violate the law. But the ability to do that with the mandate has been shut down by SCOTUS.
                            The way the law is written stays on the books.
                            They call it a penalty, if people are going to go without insurance and pay a tax, who would have had insurance to avoid paying a fine, then more power to them.
                            A certain % will go bankrupt from medical expense.
                            Because going uninsured only works if you have nothing, if you have assets, you'll pay, eventually.

                            ?


                            • #15
                              Re: Why the mandate was valid under taxing power (edited from opinion 3 pages)

                              Originally posted by Slon View Post
                              It's semantics. If you speed, you get a $100 ticket. Let's say you get caught once a year on average. It's a violation. How about a law, if you prove you didn't speed for a year, you get a $100 credit. Oh, and with the new law are tax increases increasing average taxes by $100 per person.

                              It's mostly shifting the burden of proof. You need to be caught speeding to pay the fine. To get a credit, you have to prove you qualify to the IRS.
                              You'll need to supply the IRS with proof of insurance to avoid the penalty.
                              We have it already in Massachusetts, it's a form of 1099 you get from your insurance company, that says you were insured and for how much of the year.
                              If you don't have it, you pay the fine.

                              ?

                              Working...
                              X