Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 55

Thread: Ga. governor to name special AG for health lawsuit

  1. #21
    Pragmatist
    SouthernDemocrat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    KC
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:16 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    17,420

    Re: "I absolutely reject that notion!" -- Barry

    Quote Originally Posted by Taylor View Post
    What???

    All incentives. The government does not force us to buy homes or hybrids.

    Nobody would be angry if the government were giving us a credit for buying insurance. That was the centerpiece of McCain's healthcare plan for pete's sake!
    You are arguing semantics. You have an incentive to purchase health insurance if you don't already have it. The incentive is that starting in 2016, your income taxes will be lower if you have health insurance than they would be if you don't have insurance. There will be no fines, no jail time, the government can't even put a lien on you for not paying that tax penalty. For all intents and purposes, its just another incentive in the tax code. Now, you might think that is pretty crappy, but the question of the thread is whether or not it is constitutional, and the fact is it is perfectly constitutional for the federal government to enforce it through the income tax code.

    Sorry, but thats just how the world works.

    By the way, the federal government will subsidize your insurance if you don't have it and your household earn's less than 66k a year. They will also provide 500 billion in tax credits to small businesses to help them provide their employees insurance.
    Last edited by SouthernDemocrat; 03-25-10 at 11:50 PM.
    "You're the only person that decides how far you'll go and what you're capable of." - Ben Saunders (Explorer and Endurance Athlete)

  2. #22
    Sage
    Taylor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    US
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:43 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    6,170

    Re: "I absolutely reject that notion!" -- Barry

    Quote Originally Posted by SouthernDemocrat View Post
    You are arguing semantics.
    I'm a bit stunned you don't see the distinction.

    Let me put it this way. If it's "semantics" do you think it perfectly fair for the government to say, "for every year you don't buy a hybrid car, you owe us $1000"

    Under Bush's tax law, there was a tax incentive that allowed you to write off the entire purchase of a Hummer. Would it have been the same thing for him to have said... buy a Hummer this year, or you owe us $50,000.

  3. #23
    Pragmatist
    SouthernDemocrat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    KC
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:16 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    17,420

    Re: "I absolutely reject that notion!" -- Barry

    Quote Originally Posted by Taylor View Post
    I'm a bit stunned you don't see the distinction.

    Let me put it this way. If it's "semantics" do you think it perfectly fair for the government to say, "for every year you don't buy a hybrid car, you owe us $1000"

    Under Bush's tax law, there was a tax incentive that allowed you to write off the entire purchase of a Hummer. Would it have been the same thing for him to have said... buy a Hummer this year, or you owe us $50,000.
    If the tax incentive to purchase a Hummer was worth 50k, then for all intents and purposes not buying a Hummer would result in your paying the federal government 50k more that year in taxes than you otherwise would have.

    Is it fair? Well that is certainly arguable. Is it just? That is arguable as well. Is it constitutional? Yes it is.

    If the government would have imposed a fine for not purchasing health insurance, then that would probably be constitutionally challenged. Since the government is enforcing the mandate through the tax code, it is constitutional.
    "You're the only person that decides how far you'll go and what you're capable of." - Ben Saunders (Explorer and Endurance Athlete)

  4. #24
    Sage
    Taylor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    US
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:43 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    6,170

    Re: "I absolutely reject that notion!" -- Barry

    Quote Originally Posted by SouthernDemocrat View Post
    If the tax incentive to purchase a Hummer was worth 50k, then for all intents and purposes not buying a Hummer would result in your paying the federal government 50k more that year in taxes than you otherwise would have.

    Is it fair? Well that is certainly arguable. Is it just? That is arguable as well. Is it constitutional? Yes it is.
    What????? You're of the mind that it's consititutional for the government to charge citizens $50k a year for not buying a Hummer??

    Holy jeebees - no wonder crappy legislation like this gets passed.

    Question:
    When you get your Sunday paper, do you view the coupon section as a series of product purchase mandates that are costing you money if you don't use them?

  5. #25
    Pragmatist
    SouthernDemocrat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    KC
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:16 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    17,420

    Re: "I absolutely reject that notion!" -- Barry

    Quote Originally Posted by Taylor View Post
    What????? You're of the mind that it's consititutional for the government to charge citizens $50k a year for not buying a Hummer??

    Holy jeebees - no wonder crappy legislation like this gets passed.
    If you owed 60k in federal income taxes, and you bought a hummer, and that hummer resulted in a 50k tax incentive, then your taxes would then be 10k.

    If you chose not to buy a hummer, then your taxes would be 60k. Thus not buying a hummer cost you 50k.

    Now, whether that is right or wrong is irrelevant. The question is whether it is constitutional or not.

    Question:
    When you get your Sunday paper, do you view the coupon section as a series of product purchase mandates that are costing you money if you don't use them?
    Apples and oranges. The grocery store does not automatically take a portion of my income. If it did, and those coupons resulted in a reduction in what they took from me, then for all intents and purposes, there would be a mandate that I purchase the products those coupons were for, and a financial penalty if I chose not to.

    Now we can go round and round with you coming up with more scenarios, but it doesn't change anything. Once again, it is perfectly constitutional for the federal government to provide virtually any incentive / penalty it chooses to through the federal income tax code. Those that wrote the healthcare bill are not stupid, they are lawyers, they knew that it was perfectly legal to enforce a mandate through the tax code and that is why they are enforcing it with the tax code.
    "You're the only person that decides how far you'll go and what you're capable of." - Ben Saunders (Explorer and Endurance Athlete)

  6. #26
    Sage
    Taylor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    US
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:43 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    6,170

    Re: "I absolutely reject that notion!" -- Barry

    Quote Originally Posted by SouthernDemocrat View Post
    If you owed 60k in federal income taxes, and you bought a hummer, and that hummer resulted in a 50k tax incentive, then your taxes would then be 10k.

    If you chose not to buy a hummer, then your taxes would be 60k. Thus not buying a hummer cost you 50k.

    Now, whether that is right or wrong is irrelevant. The question is whether it is constitutional or not.
    That's not how a tax deduction works, but that aside... the incentive part is constitutional. The mandate part is not. Congress cannot say "buy a Hummer or pay us $50k a year"

  7. #27
    Sage
    Taylor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    US
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:43 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    6,170

    Re: Ga. governor to name special AG for health lawsuit

    SD...

    In simplest terms,

    Incentives are optional

    Mandates are not.

  8. #28
    Pragmatist
    SouthernDemocrat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    KC
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:16 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    17,420

    Re: "I absolutely reject that notion!" -- Barry

    Quote Originally Posted by Taylor View Post
    That's not how a tax deduction works, but that aside... the incentive part is constitutional. The mandate part is not. Congress cannot say "buy a Hummer or pay us $50k a year"
    Do you not get it? When this is argued in the federal courts what do you think the government lawyers are going to argue. They are going to argue that there is a tax incentive for purchasing health insurance if you don't have it. They will point out that the tax code is full of those kinds of incentives. They may even point to various retirement investments where there is an incentive to keep your money in them until you reach 62, and a penalty if you don't and choose to spend your money in that investment plan prior to retirement age.

    Think about it, if you have a 401k, it is your money in it. Yet the government mandates that you keep your money in that 401k until you retire. They even mandate that your employer increase your contribution out of your income by 1% a year automatically. If you want your money out before you reach retirement age, the federal government mandates that get a loan from the financial institution that manages that plan, and pay interest on that loan. Otherwise, you pay a 20% tax penalty for early withdrawal. It is your money, but there are all those legal mandates that apply to it. All of it is perfectly constitutional because it is enforced through the federal tax code.
    "You're the only person that decides how far you'll go and what you're capable of." - Ben Saunders (Explorer and Endurance Athlete)

  9. #29
    Pragmatist
    SouthernDemocrat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    KC
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:16 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    17,420

    Re: Ga. governor to name special AG for health lawsuit

    Quote Originally Posted by Taylor View Post
    SD...

    In simplest terms,

    Incentives are optional

    Mandates are not.
    The mandate is completely optional. If you choose to get insurance, your taxes will be lower than they otherwise would be. If you choose not to, your taxes will be higher than they otherwise would be. It is that simple.

    There are no other penalties associated with not having insurance other than what you pay in taxes.
    "You're the only person that decides how far you'll go and what you're capable of." - Ben Saunders (Explorer and Endurance Athlete)

  10. #30
    Sage
    Taylor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    US
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:43 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    6,170

    Re: "I absolutely reject that notion!" -- Barry

    Quote Originally Posted by SouthernDemocrat View Post
    Do you not get it?.
    Oh, I definitely get it. I just keep waiting for some kind person on the left to gently tap you on the shoulder so that you stop embarrassing yourself.

    Quote Originally Posted by SouthernDemocrat View Post
    When this is argued in the federal courts what do you think the government lawyers are going to argue. They are going to argue that there is a tax incentive for purchasing health insurance if you don't have it.
    If they called it a "tax incentive" they would be laughed out of the room. No, they are going to call it a mandate because that's what it is. They are going to take a position opposite that of Obama's -- claiming that it is indeed a tax -- and a constitutional expenditure under the general welfare clause.

Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •