So I’d be taxed on doing nothing? Will that be a line item on tax forms? Like, how many hours did you spend doing nothing last year? Insert amount on line “X” and pay $***
Why can’t they just admit that Roberts screwed up, and leave it at that?
This is a very important point. What Roberts has done, in effect, is invalidate the 5th Amendment “takings” clause. There is no way you can square the logic of this opinion with the 5th Amendment.
And the practical effect is that for years the socialists have been drooling over that pot of money out there in all our private retirement savings plans. All our 401(k), SEP, IRA’s, all of it. They have been wanting it so badly they can taste it. The only thing, from a Constitutional standpoint, that kept their grubby hands off it was the Takings Clause of the 5th Amendment.
Now, that is gone. It’s not a “taking” if they just call it a “tax.”
Outstanding analysis. This must be the first time in U.S. history where someone can be taxed for NOT doing something. Up until now, you can only be taxed for receiving income (earned or unearned), owning property or purchasing something, i.e. gasoline etc.
But now, we can be taxed for NOT purchasing something? Beam me up Mr. Speaker.
Roberts’ ridiculous contortions to justify the mandate are very much out-of-character.
I am suspicious there are other, unspoken reasons for his decision.
How many hours did you spend not campaigning or voting for Obama? If less than 1, then please pay 1,000.00 to the IRS. If more than 1, then please pay 1,000.00 dollars to the Obama campaign or if you should choose not to, please pay 1,000.00 to the IRS.
This MESS brought to you by Johnny Roberts, judicial mind extroidinaire and toast of all the cocktail parties that he is now invited to.
My question: Isn't social security only assessed against workers? If you have a stay-at-home spouse, that person does NOT pay social security, right? But that person will still be mandated to have health care coverage?
If that analogy is correct, then how are they similar? It's more like auto insurance. Only drivers have to pay auto insurance, not everyone. Social security is only paid by workers, not everyone.
But everyone must buy health insurance or the IRS will throw them in prison. It's not a tax, it's a coercive contract.
As you said, a tax is usually an assessment on an activity. If I earn an income, it is taxed. If I purchase a product, it is taxed.
People are calling this ruling a tax on behavior, but even a behavior has to be performed.
How can I be taxed for something that I do NOT do?
What it is is slavery. I no longer own the fruits of my labor. I can be compelled to do something that somebody else demands, or my property will be confiscated and I will be punished until I comply.
-PJ
“If Congress can pass a law taxing you on lack of activity we have for the first time legalized a direct capital tax.”
BAM! Exactly. Except most people have never heard of a head tax, and have no idea they’re illegal. Roberts probably doesn’t even know the difference between unconstitutional direct taxes and ever other kind of tax. That’s because he and other judges live in the world of precedent and the post-New Deal Constitution, and have never bothered to read for its own sake the actual Constitution.
They’ve no doubt never heard of the idea of taxes only being justified if they’re raised to carry out enumerated powers. I’m not sure they’ve heard of enumerated powers. What they probably do know is that they’ve made Congressional power limitless. And that’s okay, because Congress is a “political” branch and elections decide what happens there. Because we’re an absolutist centralized democracy, don’t you know, and federalism, checks and balances, etc. are retrogressive notions that only hold women, children, and minorities back.
One thing to be aware of here - This ruling just says that the Mandate is constitutional because it is a tax and Congress has the right to tax.
But, it did not rule whether this tax is in and of itself a constitutional tax. That cannot be determined until the tax is levied and someone then has standing to bring a suit challenging the constitutionality of the tax.
I know that is splitting hairs, putting lipstick on a pig, whatever you want to call it — but the bottom line is the legal challenges to Obamacare are not over and this tax can now be challenged as an unconstitutional tax.
"I have great respect for George Will, but his assertion that the Supreme Court decision is a "huge victory" that will "help revive a venerable tradition" of "viewing congressional actions with a skeptical constitutional squint" and lead to a "sharpening" of "many Americans' constitutional consciousness" is sufficiently delusional that one trusts mental health is not grounds for priority check-in at the death panel."
full article here: Mark Steyn: A lie makes Obamacare legal
They are not taxing inactivity, the people are breathing. If it breathes, tax it. This is the breath tax.