• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Obama’s ‘Unprecedented’ Remarks: Is the President Running Against the Supreme Court?

Re: Obama’s ‘Unprecedented’ Remarks: Is the President Running Against the Supreme Cou

Exactly, but he won't actually address the argument.

The argument is a stupid one.

If they set it up so you were not forced to buy health insurance, but rather there was a tax credit if you did, then you might be on track. But they now want to force you to buy it and penalize you if you do not. That is totally outside of the realm of the point of tax credits, thus it is NOT a tax credit, it is a penalty for inaction.

Perhaps you are missing the difference between incentives and penalties.
 
Re: Obama’s ‘Unprecedented’ Remarks: Is the President Running Against the Supreme Cou

The argument is a stupid one.

If they set it up so you were not forced to buy health insurance, but rather there was a tax credit if you did, then you might be on track. But they now want to force you to buy it and penalize you if you do not. That is totally outside of the realm of the point of tax credits, thus it is NOT a tax credit, it is a penalty for inaction.

Perhaps you are missing the difference between incentives and penalties.

An incentive is an encouragement. It seems there is more than "encouragement" going on here.

Just as this is not health "reform". It is moving the American people and its culture in a whole new direction, and a direction thats been failing everywhere else.
 
Re: Obama’s ‘Unprecedented’ Remarks: Is the President Running Against the Supreme Cou

The argument is a stupid one.

If they set it up so you were not forced to buy health insurance, but rather there was a tax credit if you did, then you might be on track. But they now want to force you to buy it and penalize you if you do not. That is totally outside of the realm of the point of tax credits, thus it is NOT a tax credit, it is a penalty for inaction.

Perhaps you are missing the difference between incentives and penalties.

The point is consistently, and blindingly, flying over your head. The point is that there is no functional difference between tax penalties and tax credits. In each case wealth is redistributed from those who don't take the incentive to those who do.
 
Last edited:
Re: Obama’s ‘Unprecedented’ Remarks: Is the President Running Against the Supreme Cou

The point is consistently, and blindingly, flying over your head. The point is that there is no functional difference between tax penalties and tax credits. In each case wealth is redistributed from those who don't take the incentive to those who do.




Again, tell me the last time the US Government levied a fine upon the American citizen for NOT buying a product or service. Your silly "no difference" argument, fails on it's face.


I am taxed, x number of dollars a year..... period. If the government wants to give me $1500 to upgrade my windows, it is not a penalty or fine if I choose not to. You are confusing incentive with punative action.
 
Re: Obama’s ‘Unprecedented’ Remarks: Is the President Running Against the Supreme Cou

Sounds the same to me. If you are filing taxes, and you get a deduction, or incentive, for having health insurance, it is the same thing as having a tax penalty for not having health insurance.

No, it's not. If I get a deduction for installing solar panels, but I choose not to install solar panels. I have bought nothing. I owe nothing to the government for not installing them. If I buy a Chevy Volt and receive a tax deduction, but if I choose not to buy a car at all, I have bought nothing and I owe nothing to the government.
 
Re: Obama’s ‘Unprecedented’ Remarks: Is the President Running Against the Supreme Cou

Again, tell me the last time the US Government levied a fine upon the American citizen for NOT buying a product or service. Your silly "no difference" argument, fails on it's face.


I am taxed, x number of dollars a year..... period. If the government wants to give me $1500 to upgrade my windows, it is not a penalty or fine if I choose not to. You are confusing incentive with punative action.

Asked and answered.

If I upgrade my windows then I receive the $1,500 tax credit that you don't receive. Thus your tax bill is $1,500 higher than mine. You, and everyone else who doesn't upgrade their windows, is paying for my tax credit. Granted, it's not as direct as paying a penalty. On average everyone else will pay for any tax incentive that they don't take advantage of, but individually it will vary depending on one's income. Of course the health insurance penalty works that way, too.
 
Re: Obama’s ‘Unprecedented’ Remarks: Is the President Running Against the Supreme Cou

Asked and answered.

If I upgrade my windows then I receive the $1,500 tax credit that you don't receive. Thus your tax bill is $1,500 higher than mine. You, and everyone else who doesn't upgrade their windows, is paying for my tax credit. Granted, it's not as direct as paying a penalty. On average everyone else will pay for any tax incentive that they don't take advantage of, but individually it will vary depending on one's income. Of course the health insurance penalty works that way, too.



Again, you concede it's "never", but continue to try to fit a square peg into a round hole.
 
Re: Obama’s ‘Unprecedented’ Remarks: Is the President Running Against the Supreme Cou

Asked and answered.

If I upgrade my windows then I receive the $1,500 tax credit that you don't receive. Thus your tax bill is $1,500 higher than mine. You, and everyone else who doesn't upgrade their windows, is paying for my tax credit. Granted, it's not as direct as paying a penalty. On average everyone else will pay for any tax incentive that they don't take advantage of, but individually it will vary depending on one's income. Of course the health insurance penalty works that way, too.

Umm not exactly, your anology does not hold, the lowest income people are basically paying no taxes thus they are not contributing to yout 1500$. Income taxes are based on your income, less you make less you pay. Sales taxes are based on consumption, less you consume, less you pay. This is a situation where you pay if you take the product/service or pay even more if you don't take it. It has no reflection on your ability to pay and you have no way of reducing/avoiding the costs. It will actually hurt the lowest income earners the most.
 
Last edited:
Re: Obama’s ‘Unprecedented’ Remarks: Is the President Running Against the Supreme Cou

Again, tell me the last time the US Government levied a fine upon the American citizen for NOT buying a product or service. Your silly "no difference" argument, fails on it's face.


I am taxed, x number of dollars a year..... period. If the government wants to give me $1500 to upgrade my windows, it is not a penalty or fine if I choose not to. You are confusing incentive with punative action.

What you are being penalized for is not payng for a product you already have. Everyone in America has the right to free treatment in an emergency. Isn't that theft of services when you refuse to pay for that coverage?
 
Re: Obama’s ‘Unprecedented’ Remarks: Is the President Running Against the Supreme Cou

What you are being penalized for is not payng for a product you already have. Everyone in America has the right to free treatment in an emergency. Isn't that theft of services when you refuse to pay for that coverage?



what???? Maybe the government should then levy a fine for not buying smokre dectectors, or not going to college, etc... this argument you all are on is insane. :lol:
 
Re: Obama’s ‘Unprecedented’ Remarks: Is the President Running Against the Supreme Cou

No, it's not. If I get a deduction for installing solar panels, but I choose not to install solar panels. I have bought nothing. I owe nothing to the government for not installing them. If I buy a Chevy Volt and receive a tax deduction, but if I choose not to buy a car at all, I have bought nothing and I owe nothing to the government.

And go to an emergency room without insurance and you still get treated. You have bought nothing and owe nothing and still get the benefit. That's the way it should be?
 
Re: Obama’s ‘Unprecedented’ Remarks: Is the President Running Against the Supreme Cou

The argument is a stupid one.

If they set it up so you were not forced to buy health insurance, but rather there was a tax credit if you did, then you might be on track. But they now want to force you to buy it and penalize you if you do not. That is totally outside of the realm of the point of tax credits, thus it is NOT a tax credit, it is a penalty for inaction.

Perhaps you are missing the difference between incentives and penalties.

Choosing to not have insurance is as much of a action as buying it. You are making the rest of us foot the bill for any health emergencies that arise.
 
Last edited:
Re: Obama’s ‘Unprecedented’ Remarks: Is the President Running Against the Supreme Cou

what???? Maybe the government should then levy a fine for not buying smokre dectectors, or not going to college, etc... this argument you all are on is insane. :lol:

If YOU had to pay for any damages when someone else doesnt't buy a smoke detector would you still not want to fine people for not having them?
 
Last edited:
Re: Obama’s ‘Unprecedented’ Remarks: Is the President Running Against the Supreme Cou

If YOU had to pay for any damages when someone else doesnt't buy a smoke detector would you still not want to fine people for not having them?


A better argument would be that many municipalities require smoke detectors, you should try that argument.... :lol:
 
Re: Obama’s ‘Unprecedented’ Remarks: Is the President Running Against the Supreme Cou

Choosing to not have insurance is as much of a action as buying it. You are making the rest of us foot the bill for and health emergencies that arise.

Actually they will bill you afterwards, Unless of course you have given false identification. and this applies ONLY to emergency rooms. You got long term care problems it doesn't help. You need a non emergency surgery, SOL etc. It does not compare.
 
Re: Obama’s ‘Unprecedented’ Remarks: Is the President Running Against the Supreme Cou

The point is consistently, and blindingly, flying over your head.

I understand after watching you for a while the standard 'go to' is the 'you do not understand'. It has nothing to do with the comprehension of others. You repetitive idea that a penalty is an incentive falls flat.

Look up the words. Two different things.
 
Re: Obama’s ‘Unprecedented’ Remarks: Is the President Running Against the Supreme Cou

Choosing to not have insurance is as much of a action as buying it.

It is called freedom.
 
Re: Obama’s ‘Unprecedented’ Remarks: Is the President Running Against the Supreme Cou

Right, and insurance is a product that is sold in commerce, and the price of insurance is affected by buying AND NOT BUYING. Hence the authority to require purchase, or in this case, to create tax incentive to purchase.

Wow, really? What will you back that up with?
 
Re: Obama’s ‘Unprecedented’ Remarks: Is the President Running Against the Supreme Cou

I understand after watching you for a while the standard 'go to' is the 'you do not understand'. It has nothing to do with the comprehension of others. You repetitive idea that a penalty is an incentive falls flat.

Look up the words. Two different things.

Well, it's just the conclusion that follows when someone repeatedly dismisses an argument with little or no reasoning. You know, the "that tupid" or "LOL" response? So if you want to be treated like you understand ... act like you understand. :shrug:
 
Re: Obama’s ‘Unprecedented’ Remarks: Is the President Running Against the Supreme Cou

Well, it's just the conclusion that follows when someone repeatedly dismisses an argument with little or no reasoning. You know, the "that tupid" or "LOL" response? So if you want to be treated like you understand ... act like you understand. :shrug:

Laughing at a stupid concept does not mean you do not understand it. Quite the contrary.

Now get back to repeating that incentives and penalties are the same thing. Maybe you'll fool someone into believing you.
 
Re: Obama’s ‘Unprecedented’ Remarks: Is the President Running Against the Supreme Cou

The entire kit should have gone to a public referendum, but we know BHO would never have allowed this.
 
Re: Obama’s ‘Unprecedented’ Remarks: Is the President Running Against the Supreme Cou

what???? Maybe the government should then levy a fine for not buying smokre dectectors, or not going to college, etc... this argument you all are on is insane. :lol:

Don't give them any more idea's on how to tax us...LOL
 
Re: Obama’s ‘Unprecedented’ Remarks: Is the President Running Against the Supreme Cou

And go to an emergency room without insurance and you still get treated. You have bought nothing and owe nothing and still get the benefit. That's the way it should be?

Can I do that with solar panels or cars?
 
Re: Obama’s ‘Unprecedented’ Remarks: Is the President Running Against the Supreme Cou

Laughing at a stupid concept does not mean you do not understand it. Quite the contrary.

Now get back to repeating that incentives and penalties are the same thing. Maybe you'll fool someone into believing you.

Plainly it isn't a stupid argument as it's one that's been made by some of the smartest lawyers and economists in the world. I would be inclined to think that it's stupid to write off the argument with no analysis whatsoever.

Certainly tax experts understand the argument:

For lawyers and political junkies, it is the Super Bowl: three days of Supreme Court arguments over one of the biggest domestic policy changes in decades.

But we economists can only scratch our heads. Why are we in court? What's the big deal? It's called an "individual mandate." Sounds ominous. But to economists it looks like nothing more than your everyday ordinary tax incentive. For as long as there has been a tax code -- and particularly in recent decades -- there has been a bipartisan consensus that tax incentives are an excellent way for Congress to get individuals and businesses to do what lawmakers want them to do.

The only difference between the mandate and your common tax incentive is that Congress framed the incentive as a tax penalty instead of a tax break. I recognize there might be a legal difference between the two approaches that is beyond my comprehension. But the Court, Congress, and the public should understand that economically the two approaches are exactly the same. Any tax penalty can easily be redesigned as a tax incentive. So, for example, a $1,000 tax penalty for not doing X could be replaced by a tax policy whereby all individuals' taxes are raised by $1,000 and then they are given a tax credit of $1,000 for doing X. (See the table below.)

A tax penalty and a tax incentive have the same economic impact on affected and unaffected individuals. They have the same effect on the goals the government is trying to achieve. They have the same effect on government revenues. It is possible, then, that they have the same effect on freedom and constitutional principles.

mandate_vs_taxincentive.JPG



tax.com: If Mandate Is Struck Down, Are Tax Incentives Next?
 
Last edited:
Re: Obama’s ‘Unprecedented’ Remarks: Is the President Running Against the Supreme Cou

Appeal to authority?

You do recall that the claimed 'smart man' that this thread is about said it would be unprecedented for the supreme court to overturn legislation created by a majority in the legislature. Right?

So much for the 'smart man' theory.

If the government penalized you for not buying a hybrid, or not buying solar panels, you would have a point. But that is not the case, so you do not. I understand you want to play with language, that seems to be a typical sort of thing for some. The reality is you get a benefit in the terms of a tax incentive for doing things the government wants you to do. With the mandate, you are penalized for not doing what they force you to do. Different.
 
Back
Top Bottom