The general problem is that a guy could be in a state where they got the tax credits and the guy benefits. Then the guy moves to another state, finding himself in a state that didn’t get the credits.
Fairness creeps into the conversation and it’s to say this is acceptable....even for a short period of time. Do they intend to keep this practice in place for the next fifty years?
I just don’t see how it passes the logic test. Even the liberal side of the Supreme Court will ask some stupid questions and be more inclined to note this as a tax credit issue and not a health care issue. Taxes at the federal level....have to be level and fair...you can’t invent some gauged system to reward some taxpayers and not others.
What do you think we've been using for over a hundred years?...........
What if one doesn’t live in a State or lives in more than one State?
fairness is fairness for obumblers voters. not the rest of us.
Taxes at the federal level....have to be level and fair...you can’t invent some gauged system to reward some taxpayers and not others
***************************************************
But that is exactly what progressive tax systems such as the income tax and the so-called loop holes do. However this is a step beyond, and so may very well invoke the equal protection clause. Don’t hold your breath though.
I would be suprised if the Supreme Court did anything to over rule the Administrations propensity to rule by Regulatory Degree, and a stroke of the pen.