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
“Yesterday, I was hearing that the tax is justified as similar to Social Security.”
It is, yes, and by extension SS and Obamacare both are justified as spending programs via the taxes. The idea being that if you’ve already raised the taxes you can spend them on whatever, I guess. See the infamous Helvering decision.
One problem among many is that SS taxes income, whereas the mandate penalty taxes...nothing, aside from the person as a person. It is a direct tax and direct taxes are illegal.
Excellent, excellent points. You both summed it up nicely.
It’s like saying: Everyone needs a house to live in. If you decide not to buy one, the gov’t will “tax” you and assign you to a house.
Or: Everyone should drive a hybrid car. If you refuse to buy one, the gov’t will “tax” you and give you one.
Or: Everyone should have solar/wind power. If you refuse to install it, the gov’t will “tax” you for it and have it installed.
Ok, those examples above sound ridiculous, but then again, we live in ridiculous times...