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.
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.