"The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. ... It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion."
-- Adam Smith
Granted that I havent read through the entire strata of responses, has anyone referenced all those waivers? They are waivers against a tax yes? You cant apply a tax selectively or grant waivers selectively. Are those waivers constitutional? If they are not, what then? There are literally millions of people affected by those waivers as well.
Then we move onto the argument of taxing whatever the heck you want, from cell phones (you need them to call for emergency care, as an argument) to green policies (has to have a certain MPG) or lulz here but how about taxing for NOT having a gun for self protection. All of those could be applied from this ruling. This didnt stop the problems, its just the beginning of the mess we are going to have to sort out, this ruling was probably the largest since Wickard---which was somewhat derailed by this ruling in an odd way by sidestepping into the tax area and not ruling on the limitation of the commerce clause.
One who makes himself a worm cannot complain when tread upon.
I refuse to accept the view that mankind is so tragically bound to the starless midnight of racism and war that the bright daybreak of peace and brotherhood can never become a reality. - MLK