Posted on 07/01/2012 8:44:32 AM PDT by Sodbuster
The Obamacare penalty was ruled a tax by Robers. I am trying to identify what type of tax it is. Is it an income tax? No. Is it a property tax? No. I wouldn't be taxed on property that I own. I would be taxed on services that I didn't buy. Is it a sales tax? No. I wouldn't be paying a percentage sales tax on soemthing that I bought, I would be paying a tax on something that I didn't buy. Is there anything like this 'tax' in existence today? I truly need to know. How can a person be taxed for not buying something? Is there some type of obscure tax (corporate or otherwise) that this qualifies as? Somebody please explain this to me.
It’s a direct tax.
All direct taxes MUST BE apportioned (collected by the states).
The only exception to that rule is the income tax.
So the federal government has to either apportion it OR ADMIT IT’S JUST AN INCREASE IN THE INCOME TAX!
The fat ladies are being auditioned now...
It’s an illegal tax.
Medicaid will have to be rationed, or the people of the state will have to accept a massive tax increase to pay for it. The feds will only pay for it until everything is in force (I think the bill allowed 2 years?). That's when the states taxpayers get the shaft. They won't know about this "new crises" until after the election if no one tells them ( and you know the democrats will never waste a good manufactured crises. They didn't set the bill up this way for nothing. They'll save us all by coming in with a "new way" (single payer), because the "old way" (private insurance) didn't work.)
Americas health care system was working just fine until the left decided to break it and take it.
Maybe it is a “RobertsTax” since he invented it!
Justice Rogers called it a tax but that does not change the bill. It was his activist ruling to justify his position of allowing the bill to stand as law. The bill does in no way call it a tax. Nothing has changes except for one fool on the SC, Justice Rogers.
As far as the commerce clause it could have been given the same lack of power as Rogers did and still repeal the entire or at least the penalty part of the bill. Think!!!!!
Its a tax period.
its a tax, a penalty, a reprimand, a fine.
Its designed to make Americas AFRAID of refusal, its a penalty to destroy a household just barely getting by.
Its a strategy to make any firm resistance family buckle under, the father will most likely have a firefight with any IRS officials, the children will be taken away to “be re-educated’ and the wife will be forced into prostitution.
Its designed to weaken the will, to break the will of freedom by making it such that no matter what there is no resistance, its futile.
its a culling tax to remove the independent spirited Resistance across America to socialism.
The MSM won’t report any sudden upswings of family deaths, especially when its because they lost all hope of fighting against Obamacare.
100% true. And I am quite confident the brainiacs over at IRS will find a way to make it pass that muster without classifying it as an income tax. Now, if some states refuse to cooperate with the apportionment, that will make for interesting viewing, wouldn't you say?
“As direct taxes, they are required to follow the rule of apportionment found in Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3.
The rule of apportionment requires the amount of a direct tax collected to be divided by the number of Representatives in the United States House of Representatives, the quotient is then multiplied by the number of representatives each State has to determine each State's share of the tax which it then needs to lay and collect through its own taxing authority.
Robert's is pulling this mythical tax option out of his arse. All Justices voting to uphold this Constitution KILLING decision should be impeached.
As I said, interesting viewing ahead. I’m stocking up on popcorn.
This isn’t a play for this upcoming election. It’s a play for a generation of elections employing rules with which most of us are not familiar. Now that a tax has to be called a tax the nature of elections, both state and federal, is changed.
We must adapt or die. And I think the new ground favors us, provided our Generals are well versed in Sun Tzu.
And we should point out to everyone that the protection against unapportioned direct taxes is VERY IMPORTANT.
The framers did not want the federal government to have the power to single out groups from within the population that they didn’t like and then lay direct taxes on that group.
Like laying a direct tax on everyone who is not an Episcopalian.
Or laying a direct tax on everyone who lives in a red state and not a blue state.
Or laying a direct tax on everyone who hasn’t happened to have entered into a certain insurance contract the government likes.
I my ststae I am required to have auto insurance, but to me the Obamacare tax is as if you had an auto, its broke down and isn’t being driven, you decide to suspend paying the insurance but they then penalize you, if you decline to pay the penalty you will have wages garnished, the vehicle will have a lien against it and you cannot sell it.
As long as you own it you must by law pay the inurance but then they say you cannot sell it.
Obamacare is pretty much the same, if you refuse to pay they will make it impossible to pay even the fines, in effect they want you to JUST DIE, to be GONE.
Its a break the willpower of those refusing socialistic mandates tax.
And those of you lurking from the DUmp, yeah you, you have to pay your fair share too buddies, see you all in hell!
And those of you lurking from the DUmp, yeah you, you have to pay your fair share too buddies, see you all in hell!
The DUmmies are not happy at all. The most recent DUmmie FUnnies had a lot of unusually lucid thoughts posted, and the entire thread got a Kewpie Doll. The Left's slumbering behemoth is also being awakened with this news of a new tax almost exclusively on the poor.
I predict there will be a surprise upon who's side the Left will come down in this battle. We've been assuming they'll hit the streets yelling "Keep the beast!" but I am not so sure about that. We may be granted the spectacle if hippies yelling "Kill the tax!"
The pressure to find the "Act of Obamanation" Constitutional must have been truly irresistible.
Ok assuming this is declared an income tax, what about all the waivers handed out?
Also, how about the exemptions within the text of the ACA? If labelled as an income tax, will there be a checkbox on the 1040 stating “Are you in an exempted group?, if “YES” enter “0”, if “NO” enter tax amount from schedule “ACA 1” by using your line 7 income.
If your employer decides to discontinue your health insurance policies and pays the penalty...oops... fine.....mandate...tax then as an individual are you still required to to pay the penalty...oops... fine.....mandate...tax, since this was already paid by your employer?
” it wants to PUNISH people for not doing what the government deems as good.”
Following Roberts’ logic, or lack thereof, that Americans should be taxed for NOT doing something, that opens up so many cans of worms.
Because of Obamacare, many doctors will quit and move on to other careers. I guess they could be taxed for NOT practicing medicine when they’re qualified to do so. Uncle Sugar can and will screw all of us.
“Ok assuming this is declared an income tax, what about all the waivers handed out?”
Then that is no problem at all. There are waivers, and exemptions and tax credits, even credits that are refundable to the taxed person when total credits exceed tax liability, throughout the Income Tax Code already.
“Also, how about the exemptions within the text of the ACA? If labelled as an income tax, will there be a checkbox on the 1040 stating “Are you in an exempted group?, if “YES” enter “0”, if “NO” enter tax amount from schedule “ACA 1” by using your line 7 income?”
Yes.
“If your employer decides to discontinue your health insurance policies and pays the penalty...oops... fine.....mandate...tax then as an individual are you still required to to pay the penalty...oops... fine.....mandate...tax, since this was already paid by your employer?”
Not for that year of course, but in subsequent years if you do not buy a health insurance policy, you would be subject individually to the individual mandate tax.
DISCLAIMER: While I am sure all three of my answeres to your three questions are 100% correct, I have not as yet been supplied by my government with copies of the 2800 page Tax Law, nor have I been supplied with Chief Justice Roberts’s 193 pages of modifications to said Tax Law, therefore; I recommend that you also submit those questions and answers to at least three radio talk show hosts for further verification.
Not Board Certified for practice in the area of Legal Specialization in Unaffordable Health Care Act.
Many people scratch their heads because indirect taxes are not taxes on property, but taxes on activities and consumption. Indirect taxes are voluntary in the sense that a person can avoid paying the tax by avoiding the activity or commodity. Direct taxes are paid directly by the taxpayer with no intermediary. Direct taxes cannot be avoided and are compulsory. Direct taxes are taxes on property, revenues and production. Historically incomes have been considered personal property, regardless of the source that generated the income. With an indirect tax, income cannot be the subject of the tax, but can only serve as a yardstick to determine the tax owed for having participated in a taxable activity.
At this point many people might conclude that if the rule of apportionment no longer applied that through the process of elimination the rule of uniformity must apply and that the tax is an indirect tax. However, because the Amendment states nothing about moving the property class of incomes into the class of indirect taxation, the Amendment allowed taxes on income to be collected without the rule of uniformity.[13] In other words, with respect to the specific property of income only, taxes could be collected without any rules or restraints at all. Thus, the 16th Amendment truly emphasized the adage that the power to tax is the power to destroy. Under the 16th Amendment wealth redistribution would be as easy as cutting butter with a hot knife. That legislators immediately taxed anything that could arguably be labeled as income is evident in the 1913 revenue act. Legislators tried to tax “excess” wages and salaries. Such a tax was a direct tax regardless of the method used to collect the tax.
Great answers!
Have you read through the 2700 page ACA yet?
Many of us who pay monthly fees for a health insurance policy starting 1 January, 2014, may have a rude awakening when filing federal taxes in 2015 when we are informed our polices are deemed ineligible. The problem with the ACA is it is open ended, many HHS secretary rules have not been written, or aka to be determined.
It is an Intolerable Act.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.