Roberts Didn't Expand Government's Taxing Power

realclearpolitics.com ^ | July 5, 2012 | Sean Trende

[neverdem]

I've been a little surprised by the continued outrage on the right and chest-thumping on the left regarding the Supreme Court's health care decision. The right got everything it wanted in the ruling, save for the actual outcome. The left got legal reasoning that, up until the minute the decision was handed down, it had maintained would mark the end of government as we know it. Sad to say, but the main takeaway is that most court-watchers, left and right, care a lot about the outcome and very little about the law.

Some on the right are latching onto one bit of doctrine as cause for unhappiness in the case. In particular, they claim that John Roberts expanded the government’s taxing power substantially, such that it now provides an endless capacity that Congress lacked with the commerce clause.

This is nonsense. There are two reasons why. First, all nine justices, and even some of the lawyers arguing against the health care law, agreed that the individual mandate could be enforced under the power to tax. Here’s the joint dissent: “Of course in many cases, what was a regulatory mandate enforced by a penalty could have been imposed as a tax upon permissible action, or what was imposed as a tax upon permissible action could have been a regulatory mandate enforced by a penalty. . . . The issue [here] is not whether Congress had the power to frame the minimum-coverage provision as a tax, but whether it did so."

In other words, the fight among the justices was not an epic struggle regarding the extent of the taxation power. It was a rather mundane fight over statutory interpretation, and whether the mandate, as written, could be construed as a tax or not...

[Repeal The 17th]

Go all the way back up to post 10.

“...There is so much social engineering already in the income tax code that either taxes you; or exempts you from taxes; or grants you a “tax credit; that I don’t really know why this particular one makes people more upset than all of the other ones...”
-
The point is that once you go down the slippery slope of social engineering in the tax code, (reward you for this; penalize you for that) that this kind of thing should be expected as a “next step” down the slope.

It is just like when “minimum wage” laws went into effect and people not being able to see the possibility of legislating a “maximum wage”.

[hinckley buzzard]

That's Judge Judy right? She has a firmer grip on reality than five Supreme Court justices, and numerous turd polishers roaming about the internet. This whole thread has slipped the surly bonds of sanity.

[Monorprise]

He seems to think taxing inaction is ok, equally he seems to forget that boundless taxing power has never sat well with the American people nor is it anywhere enumerated that congress may carve out such social engineering “exceptions”.

There are non-uniform powers congress & the president have usurped from the people and had rubber stamped by their hand picked employees in black robes.

By attacking both and condemning Roberts for his treacherous (not merely foolish) act against the Constitution. We are asserting and calming ground that was rightfully reserved to us. Ground we must hold.

[Repeal The 17th]

“When we release the surly bonds of sanity,
we don the shimmering wings of madness,
and fly on wings of great power.”

[Republican Wildcat]

The right got everything it wanted in the ruling, save for the actual outcome.

Uh...what?

[Cyropaedia]

Yep. This is the first time the government gets to impose a direct tax on an individual simply for going without something.

Don't actually meet the new national guidelines for the HHS' new health regimen?

Well, I'm afraid that'll be something else you'll have to tabulate on your 1040...

[Monorprise]

It is a gigantic “slip”,into the endless domain. Whereas before you actually had to earn or do something to be taxed and could only be taxed as much as(presumably much less than) what you earned. Now by your mere existence you can be taxed into debt.
That is right it is now possible under this usurpation for the government to not only make us collective debt slaves but individual debt slaves. Compete slaves to the State now.

[outofstyle]

This is crap. The outcome is everything. This entitlement is the final nail in the American coffin & it will never be undone. SCOTUS was the last hope.

[sargon]

Interesting article. I think I see things a lot more clearly now.

Since all this bullshit would be impossible without the 16th Amendment, it confirms my suspicion that we have always been potential slaves ever since the the Marxist abomination known as the "progressive" income tax was implemented.

Repeal the 16th Amendment, and there is no such thing as a non-apportioned direct tax, thus there is no effectvie mechanism for Congress, the President, or the Judiciary to enslave the People in this manner.

Income taxation has always represented the power to turn us into virtual slaves, and it's time to admit the truth and repeal this central plank of the Communist Manifesto.

So whoever doesn't like this decision (I sure don't) should change their focus to repealing the 16th Amendment, IMHO. The enforcement and taxation mechanism under which this tax is being justified is the income tax, and I just don't see how the ferragummit could justify such power in the absence of the 16th Amendment.

To me, this is an epiphany. I've always hated the income tax, and now I see more clearly than ever why. The 16th Amendment is Tyranny incarnate...

[Stingray51]

I think the article is completely misleading. The dissent did not say that the penalty could have been imposed as a tax. The dissent did say that in many cases, things that would not be authorized by the Constitution as a regulation can be authorized as a tax. However, the dissent did not make a finding as to whether that was the case in this particular situation. And the reason they did not do so is because they did not see that as the issue - instead they saw the issue as whether the penalty actually was a tax. Roberts is a bum.

[skeama]

Exactly.

“(a) A buys a Volt, B does not. A therefore pays $17,500 in taxes, while B pays $25,000 in taxes.”

This is an inaccurate analogy for 10 reasons. Here’s one:

Let’s say Charles, who we will call ‘C’, chooses not to buy a car at all. Let’s say the government tells C he must pay 7500$ for not buying a car.

The problem is that the Constitution never promised it could prevent the lumpen electoriate from destroying itself. That’s ultimately Robert’s ill conceived point, a point that would be well conceived coming from a columnist or a senator, but not a Justice.

[William Tell]

sargon said: "To me, this is an epiphany. I've always hated the income tax, and now I see more clearly than ever why. The 16th Amendment is Tyranny incarnate... "

Very well said. The incentives and now the penalties that Congress has inserted into the income tax laws, along with its progressive nature, would make our Founders sick.

[griswold3]

‘The decision is a shattering betrayal of the concept of limited government.’
+1

[old curmudgeon]

There is no need to tell “C” that he must pay a tax because he already is by virtue of not buying.

Unless you tax him twice.

I can’t understand why the concept is so hard for some people that when you send your money to DC and they refuse to send it back that you are paying a tax.

You send in your money and they refuse to send it back because you do not purchase a Volt.

But your are not being taxed for doing nothing? The hell you aren’t.

Buy the Volt and you get your tax back and therefore you were not taxed.

Semantics is getting in the way of logic.

[Freedom_Is_Not_Free]

I agree with you about all of those unfair tax breaks and credits but my point is, Roberts just made the entire thing worse.

I’m not trying to say plus or minus columns, I’m saying you can not we taxed for doing nothing.

Let me just use one single example.

House buyers get to write off their interest and tax payments. It is not that the renter has to pay the government more, but that the house payer unfairly pays the government less than he should.

This hurts renters because he has to pay a larger share than the house owner does and he gets no benefit on top of it.

So yes, you are right that the renter who buys nothing is being hurt because he does not get to financially benefit in the way that the house owner does with lower taxes.

But this is still not a tax on the renter. This is a tax break for the owner. This still hurts the renter relative to the owner as you showed. But the fact is, the person who took some action (bought a house), gets a reward for doing so, with a tax break, so he pays less taxes.

This is the way it has always been and this is the way it stays. The renter who does nothing, he pays his regular tax rate and gets no benefit, while the guy who took an action to purchase a home, gets a tax break.

What Roberts did is to make it legally possible from now on for the renter to have to pay an additional tax above and beyond his regular taxes for not buying a home.

If the want to, Congress can now pass a law saying that all renters MUST buy a home and if they don’t, then they have to pay an additional $1,000 per year for not doing so.

Before Roberts ruling, you have a home owner and a renter. The homeowner gets a tax break. The renter does not get a tax break.

After Roberts ruling, you have a home owner and a renter. The home owner still gets a tax break. The renter still does not get a tax break, but now he has to pay a brand new $1,000 dollar per year tax penalty for failing to buy a house.

Do you see what I am saying?

Yes, all of those credits and tax breaks people get that others don’t get are unfair and they do hurt the people that don’t get them. I do agree with you there. But now with Roberts’ ruling, all of that unfairness still stays, but on top of that you can add the brand new unfairness of having to pay even more taxes than you did before, for just failing to buy or do what the government wants.

[ctdonath2]

Up until this decision, a basic premise of tax law was that you had to _do_something_ to incur a tax liability, that your clean-slate starting tax bill was $0 until you did something to increase it.

Now, thanks to Roberts et al, you start with a base tax liability of ~$3000 JUST BECAUSE YOU EXIST. From there your liability may be adjusted.

This is, indeed, a profound change in tax law. Even King George didn’t have the gall to tax subjects for no more than breathing.

[old curmudgeon]

OK, OK, OK.

Let’s go back to the old way of doing things.

Bush tax cuts go out on January 1st.

Everyone is paying more taxes than now.

But if they will buy into the obummer health insurance plan, they get a $10,000 tax credit.

Now, do you feel better?

You weren’t really taxed for doing nothing, were you? It is just that you did not get the tax credit.

Wonder who pays for the freebies?

Could it possibly be the guy who does nothing?

[Freedom_Is_Not_Free]

“...A tax credit and a tax penalty are not the same thing...”

How so to the bottom line?

OK, say you and I both earn $50,000

Say I have a house and you don't.

So you owe $10,000 in Federal taxes and have no adjustments so you pay $10,000.

I also owe $10,000 in Federal taxes but I have a home mortgage write off. I spent $10,000 in interest so I get to write off $2,000 off my taxes. I only have to pay $8,000

This is how the law was before the Roberts ruling. WE both should owe the same amount on our equal incomes but I have a tax shelter in my house so my tax is reduced by $2,000. You pay $10,000. I only pay $8,000

The reason I took an adjustment is because I took an action (bought a home) and you took no action (did not buy a home). I got a tax break for taking an activity. You did not get a tax break on your inactivity.

Roberts comes along and now says it is Constitutional to tax inactivity.

Let's redo the above thing where you don't have a house and I do, except that let's say Congress just passed a new law that said if you don't buy a house, then you have to pay a $1,000 annual tax.

OK, I bought a house, so I still should owe $10,000 but I get to write off $2,000, so I only have to pay $8,000 in federal taxes.

You still don't buy a house so you still owe the full $10,000 in taxes, except the new law now requires you to own a home or you have to pay an extra $1,000. So now you owe $10,000 + $1,000 = $11,000.

Before Roberts upheld Obamacare, you would owe $10,000 and I would owe $8,000. I got a $2,000 benefit you don't get.

After the law was upheld, now you owe $11,000 because your $10,000 income tax was raised by $1,000 for a non-homeowner penalty.

So that is the point in a nutshell.

Before Roberts upheld Obamacare, they could lower people's taxes with credits and write-offs, and it hurts yo not to get them, but at least they couldn't directly raise your taxes on top of it, just because you didn't do the things necessary to get the credit.

What is new since Obamacare was upheld, is now they have the legal, constitutional power not only to give credits and write offs to the guy that say owns a home, but now they can tell you to buy a home and your failure to do so can be taxable. THEY CAN MAKE YOU PAY HIGHER TAXES FOR NOT BUYING A HOME.

What Roberts did is, for the first time in US history, people can have a direct tax increase put on them just because they didn't buy something or do something. They could make you buy a Chevy Volt and if you don't, then you have to pay a tax because you didn't. They could make you take annual flu shots, and if you don't, then you have to pay a tax.

[old curmudgeon]

What Roberts did is, for the first time in US history, people can have a direct tax increase put on them just because they didn’t buy something or do something. They could make you buy a Chevy Volt and if you don’t, then you have to pay a tax because you didn’t. They could make you take annual flu shots, and if you don’t, then you have to pay a tax.

---

Hallelujah!!

Because what Roberts did is wake up people who had no idea that a credit for one is a tax on another.

Now they know what is really happening to them and they can get off their dumb a$$ and vote for the guy who will stop it, whomever that might be.

[jocon307]

“It is the Dred Scott decision of our time.”

I completely agree with everything you said.

Dred Scott said “if you are a slave there is no escaping it”, this decision says “you are all wards of the state”.

Think of what it took to undo the Dred Scott decision!

I hope we can cure this abomination merely by electing a Republican President and congress. Because I know that ultimately we will cure it, the only question is how high will the cost be?