PDA

View Full Version : Not a tax! Because...



Soflasnapper
06-28-2012, 09:35 PM
- If it were a tax, it would not have been ripe for a decision, under the Anti-Injunction Act. Nobody would have had standing to object to the personal mandate until it took effect, had it been a tax. That part of the lawsuit would have been mooted, and held off from a decision until the mandate took effect, 2 years from now.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">And indeed, the Court relied on this more subjective understanding of the mandate’s intent in deciding to rule on the merits of the case at all. A 19th century law called the Anti-Injunction Act protects the government from challenges to taxes that have yet to be assessed. But even though the mandate doesn’t take effect until 2014 — and even though the majority declared it a valid use of the taxing power — they held that the Anti-Injunction Act did not apply.

“The Anti-Injunction Act applies to suits “for the purpose of restraining the assessment or collection of any tax,” the Court determined. “Congress, however, chose to describe the ‘[s]hared responsibility payment’ imposed on those who forgo health insurance not as a ‘tax,’ but as a ‘penalty.’ … There is no immediate reason to think that a statute applying to ‘any tax’ would apply to a ‘penalty.’ Congress’s decision to label this exaction a ‘penalty’ rather than a ‘tax’ is significant because the Affordable Care Act describes many other exactions it creates as taxes.”

Intent matters. And the Court essentially held that the law’s authors created something that functions like a tax, but serves the purposes of a penalty. </div></div>

- 8 justices held it wasn't a tax. Including the four justices on the dissenting side. Including four on the majority side.

- And actually, the 9th justice, Chief Justice Roberts said it was 'like a tax.' Not 'a tax,' but 'like a tax.' Enough like one to justify it under the taxation power.

Roberts argument was roundabout, but he was mindful of the legal doctrine that anything passed by Congress and signed by the president into law bears a presumption of Constitutionality that sets a high bar to find otherwise.

He also said if there are several ways to construe a law, some making it unConstitutional, but other ways, Constitutional, the high court must construe it in the latter way. From his decision:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> It is well established that if a statute has two possible meanings, one of which violates the Constitution, courts should adopt the meaning that does not do so.....If the mandate is in effect just a tax hike on certain taxpayers who do not have health insurance, it may be within Congress’s constitutional power to tax.

The question is not whether that is the most natural interpretation of the mandate, but only whether it is a “fairly possible” one. As we have explained, “every reasonable construction must be resorted to, in order to save a statute from unconstitutionality.”

....It is of course true that the Act describes the payment as a “penalty,” not a “tax.”....That choice does not, however, control whether an exaction is within Congress’s constitutional power to tax. [A bit of analysis follows about past precedent that controls whether something is really a tax or not.]

....The same analysis here suggests that the shared responsibility payment may for constitutional purposes be considered a tax, not a penalty: First, for most Americans the amount due will be far less than the price of insurance, and, by statute, it can never be more....None of this is to say that the payment is not intended to affect individual conduct. Although the payment will raise considerable revenue, it is plainly designed to expand health insurance coverage. But taxes that seek to influence conduct are nothing new.
</div></div>

Ruling (http://www.scribd.com/doc/98543022/SCOTUS-ACA-Ruling)

LWW
06-29-2012, 04:32 AM
You are closer to getting it than any of the cabal.

Stretch
06-29-2012, 07:49 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You are closer to getting it than any of the cabal. </div></div>

You are closer to saying nothing than usual. St.

Gayle in MD
06-29-2012, 12:41 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">


Op-Ed Columnist
The Real Winners
By PAUL KRUGMAN
Published: June 28, 2012

So the Supreme Court — defying many expectations — upheld the Affordable Care Act, a k a Obamacare. There will, no doubt, be many headlines declaring this a big victory for President Obama, which it is. But the real winners are ordinary Americans — people like you.



How many people are we talking about? You might say 30 million, the number of additional people the Congressional Budget Office says will have health insurance thanks to Obamacare. But that vastly understates the true number of winners because millions of other Americans — including many who oppose the act — would have been at risk of being one of those 30 million.

So add in every American who currently works for a company that offers good health insurance but is at risk of losing that job (and who isn’t in this world of outsourcing and private equity buyouts?); every American who would have found health insurance unaffordable but will now receive crucial financial help; every American with a pre-existing condition who would have been flatly denied coverage in many states.

In short, unless you belong to that tiny class of wealthy Americans who are insulated and isolated from the realities of most people’s lives, the winners from that Supreme Court decision are your friends, your relatives, the people you work with — and, very likely, you. For almost all of us stand to benefit from making America a kinder and more decent society.

But what about the cost? Put it this way: the budget office’s estimate of the cost over the next decade of Obamacare’s “coverage provisions” — basically, the subsidies needed to make insurance affordable for all — is about only a third of the cost of the tax cuts, overwhelmingly favoring the wealthy, that Mitt Romney is proposing over the same period. True, Mr. Romney says that he would offset that cost, but he has failed to provide any plausible explanation of how he’d do that. The Affordable Care Act, by contrast, is fully paid for, with an explicit combination of tax increases and spending cuts elsewhere.

So the law that the Supreme Court upheld is an act of human decency that is also fiscally responsible. It’s not perfect, by a long shot — it is, after all, originally a Republican plan, devised long ago as a way to forestall the obvious alternative of extending Medicare to cover everyone. As a result, it’s an awkward hybrid of public and private insurance that isn’t the way anyone would have designed a system from scratch. And there will be a long struggle to make it better, just as there was for Social Security. (Bring back the public option!) But it’s still a big step toward a better — and by that I mean morally better — society.

Which brings us to the nature of the people who tried to kill health reform — and who will, of course, continue their efforts despite this unexpected defeat.

At one level, the most striking thing about the campaign against reform was its dishonesty. Remember “death panels”? Remember how reform’s opponents would, in the same breath, accuse Mr. Obama of promoting big government and denounce him for cutting Medicare? Politics ain’t beanbag, but, even in these partisan times, the unscrupulous nature of the campaign against reform was exceptional. And, rest assured, all the old lies and probably a bunch of new ones will be rolled out again in the wake of the Supreme Court’s decision. Let’s hope the Democrats are ready.

But what was and is really striking about the anti-reformers is their cruelty. It would be one thing if, at any point, they had offered any hint of an alternative proposal to help Americans with pre-existing conditions, Americans who simply can’t afford expensive individual insurance, Americans who lose coverage along with their jobs. But it has long been obvious that the opposition’s goal is simply to kill reform, never mind the human consequences. We should all be thankful that, for the moment at least, that effort has failed.

Let me add a final word on the Supreme Court.

Before the arguments began, the overwhelming consensus among legal experts who aren’t hard-core conservatives — and even among some who are — was that Obamacare was clearly constitutional. And, in the end, thanks to Chief Justice John Roberts Jr., the court upheld that view. But four justices dissented, and did so in extreme terms, proclaiming not just the much-disputed individual mandate but the whole act unconstitutional. Given prevailing legal opinion, it’s hard to see that position as anything but naked partisanship.

The point is that this isn’t over — not on health care, not on the broader shape of American society. The cruelty and ruthlessness that made this court decision such a nail-biter aren’t going away.

But, for now, let’s celebrate. This was a big day, a victory for due process, decency and the American people.
</div></div>

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/29/opinion/the-real-winners.html?_r=1

Qtec
07-02-2012, 01:33 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Stretch</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You are closer to getting it than any of the cabal. </div></div>

You are closer to saying nothing than usual. St. </div></div>



LOl


LWW has found the formula, answer any post with "You think so?".


Always a quip, never a detail, that's LWW.


Q

Gayle in MD
07-02-2012, 06:35 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Always a quip, never a detail </div></div>

That description covers the entire Republican party!

Mcconnell was on national television claiming we have the best medical care in the world!

Republicans mantra is repeal and replace.

Not one of them can give a detail about how they are going to do that, but given their history, their plan will be to continue with a system where ONLY those who are extremely wealthy, will be safe.

We waited sixty years to make a start on what has always been an inhumane, unfair health care system in our country, even more inhumane now that Repiglicans have fomented more opportunities for sheer greed and corruption, by their biggest support group, greedy fascist corporate pigs, allowing them to chip away at American rights to unionize.

Even Rupert Murdoch is screaming for Romney to specify what the hell hs is going to do, as is the rest of the country!

At the very least, they should drop their socialism BS, but McConnell was still yapping socialism, in fact, if not by actually using the word specifically, but using European Western styled form of health care.... /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif no real progress there I suppose, and he is still lying about the history of past viability, effectiveness, and the overall pathetic conditions in the pre AHCA, decades old, unsustainability, los ratings and failures of the American health care system and the corrupted insurance industry. He actually said ours is the best in the world, over this weekend, if you can believe that!

Additionally, the right refuses to acknowledge that there are many in polling data, who say they don't support it, but who feel that way because they believe we should have single payer health care, and feel that AHCA should have gone further with single payer, which hints at Romney's rather lackluster campaign, all proclamations and no information, IOW RHETORIC.

So much spin, so little reality. Romney can't refuse to answer questions specifically, forever, and he will look pretty stupid demonizing the structure of his own plan.

This country has a history of federally adopting and mandating state initiatives which are seen as having been effective.

Get ready for more Romney VS Romney.

/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif

Soflasnapper
07-02-2012, 09:27 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Stretch</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You are closer to getting it than any of the cabal. </div></div>

You are closer to saying nothing than usual. St. </div></div>



LOl


LWW has found the formula, answer any post with "You think so?".


Always a quip, never a detail, that's LWW.


Q </div></div>

I think you both take him the wrong way here. This was the closest to begrudging agreement he can come.

That's how I read it, anyway. That he says I'm more or less right on this. Highest praise yet! (One time he said I did have a slight point. Baby steps!)

LWW
07-03-2012, 05:07 AM
You are aware te regime argued before te SCOTUS that this is, in fact, a tax.

Sev
07-03-2012, 05:45 AM
The ruling is a debacle for the American tax payer no matter how you look at it.

Call it a penalty if you want.
However there are 21 new taxes that are embedded in the bill that are now going to go into effect.

Bottom line.

Taxes are going up. And not just for those that make 240k and above.

The underground economy is going to swell.

LWW
07-03-2012, 06:07 AM
Entrepreneurs in the underground economy are big demokrook donors.

Coincidence?

Gayle in MD
07-03-2012, 06:09 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sev</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The ruling is a debacle for the American tax payer no matter how you look at it.

Call it a penalty if you want.
However there are 21 new taxes that are embedded in the bill that are now going to go into effect.

Bottom line.

Taxes are going up. And not just for those that make 240k and above.

The underground economy is going to swell. </div></div>


Romney raised taxes on everyone in his state, by five hundred million dollars, although he lies about it, but 98 % or higher, are now covered.

We already know that the right would sooner have people dying in the streets, as long as the corporate pigs are still gouging the hell out of the American Public.

Hospitals are all for expanding Medicare. The hospitals, will be the group that push this thing through, they, and those who understand the statistics, and the vast benefits to all Americans, in the long run...

Not one of us is exempt from coming down with a horrible disease, or accident, and ending up losing everything, all because our health insurance company, dropped us at our time of need.

When polled, three quarters of Americans approve of the improvements this law brings to our country.

Of the roughly half who say they don't approve, more than half of them actually either do approve, annd just don't know whatt is in the AHCA, or understand that there will be for all but one percent, NO ADDITIONAL TAXES, OR, they say they don't approve, because they wanted more, they wanted single payer, which is exactly what we're going to end up with, in the long run.

Then we have those who suffer from Weedmyopia.

/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif

G.

LWW
07-03-2012, 06:14 AM
Remember ... Weed myopia.

Gayle in MD
07-03-2012, 06:32 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Remember ... Weed myopia. </div></div>



<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <span style="color: #990000"> <span style='font-size: 14pt'>
Gayle and LWW, we all now completely understand that you two don't like each other. No real need to keep belaboring the point.

My suggestion now is to ignore each other.

Any posts from either of you pointing at the other one will result in an immediate (and very long) ban.

Admin

</span> </span> </div></div>

Sev
07-03-2012, 07:09 AM
Romney care is fine as a state experiment.
Obamacare forced on a national level is a different matter.

I am interested to see what will happen if the world market continues to soften and the US enters a position where it is unable to service its debt.

The cure of course will be to print more money. However when interests climb again we still may enter a position where we can not service the debt.

See Greece.
Looks like France has entered the danger zone of spiraling debt.

The American tax payer nor business has an endless supply of money that the government can steal.

Gayle in MD
07-03-2012, 07:33 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sev</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Romney care is fine as a state experiment.
Obamacare forced on a national level is a different matter.

I am interested to see what will happen if the world market continues to soften and the US enters a position where it is unable to service its debt.

The cure of course will be to print more money. However when interests climb again we still may enter a position where we can not service the debt.

See Greece.
Looks like France has entered the danger zone of spiraling debt.

The American tax payer nor business has an endless supply of money that the government can steal.

</div></div>

It is the very countries which practiced severe austerity, which are falling back, losing ground.

This is probably our major disagreement.

I believe that the fastest way up and out of this recession/depression, (whatever one wishes to call it, I call it a recovery, since things have consistantly improved, and that fits the current situation and definition....)is through investing in Jobs, keeping people working, spending on improving education, investing in renewable fuels, IOW, spending.

The theory is that by keeping consumers active, we are all far better off than when policy makers are throwing more of them out of work, which is what Repubs have done every way they can, knowing that will hurt the economy, and make the president look bad.

To me, what happened in Europe, is proof, that severe austerity made everything worse.

Under the conditions prevailing, the worst thing to do at times such as this, is fail to invest in a resurgence of consumer spending, which can only happen by keeping people in their jobs, maintaining consumer confidence, and investing in creating more jobs.

That's why I am against tax cuts, subsidies and loopholes, that only benefit the wealthy top one percent, because most of them are not really job creators. They are people like Romney, whose goal was not job creation, but personal profits only, for himself and his shareholders, not for job creation.

Policies which hurt the Middle Class, and the poorest among us, really do not serve our economic interests. Neither does failing to address the situation with Global Warming, which is costing us a fortune right now, given the incredible rise in emergency spending, which will only get worse...and the wealthy do not have to run out and spend their money, they mostly do not put it back out there into the market place, but just invest more of it, in various tax avoiding investments, which do nothing for the economy.

The companies in the field of renewable fuels, which have gone out of business, went broke because China had already cornered the market in solar panels. China makes investing in education, a national priority. China is positioning itself to be the leader in renewable fuels, just as we should have done!

My philsophy hasn't changed, at all, and frankly, I have seen much which supports it, in Europes problems, in the huge deficits created by warring, cutting taxes, and spending and borrowing for eight years, failing to pay for any of it.

Now IS the time to spend, because the more people who are working, the more who will not be on welfare, or unemployment, and instead, continue to be consumers.

For everything, there is a season....

IMO, Repubs have always had it backwards....

Investing in the American Worker, has never been a failed policy. Americans want to work. I still believe in American workers, and I am disgusted with all of the corruption in the market....it is a huge Ponzi scheme,, called a "Free Market" in spite of all of the corruption, and lack of regulations, and it is really a corrupt shadow market, of greed an\nd corruption.

As I was writing for years before the crash, Corporations cannot be trusted to regulate themselves. Most of what I read disproves the theory that regulation, hurts the economy. It doesn't. Regulations provide people with enough trust, to invest more.

If we actually did have a Free Market, it would benefit all of us, instead of just the wealthy thieves who are stealing from all of us...

Same thing in the health insurance and health care industries.

They have gouged the hell out of Americans, same thing with the energy industry. All of them reporting unprecedented profits, while the crooks in Washington D.C. take away our rights, remove their regulations and oversight, and cut out our benefits, that WE PAID FOR, in order to give the crooks even more tax cuts.

This makes no sense whatsoever! Even Greenspan said it would be totally irresponsible, NOT to raise taxes on the wealthy, remove the Bush Tax cuts, and he said it just months after the crash!

Unchecked greed and corruption at the top is the source of all of our problems.

G.

Soflasnapper
07-03-2012, 08:56 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You are aware te regime argued before te SCOTUS that this is, in fact, a tax. </div></div>

Sure, as a secondary, late, and perfunctory backup argument. So much so that even some seasoned court watchers claimed afterwards that they had never raised the issue.

It wasn't their argument in chief. Lawyers do something called arguing in the alternative. Often, they take contradictory and mutually exclusive positions when they do so.

The RULING relies on similar legalisms, which offend common sense (not to mention, infuriated the 4 dissenting justices, who are scathingly dismissive of Roberts' 'reasoning'). It's NOT a tax, Roberts says right at the top, so they can rule on it, and not run afoul of the Anti-Injunction Act. It IS (enough like) a tax, Roberts says at the end, so it passes muster.

Similarly, the administration through the SG's written and oral briefs, said it wasn't a tax, and argued it was an acceptable mechanism based on the CC, etc. However, should the court not agree, THEN the court should find a taxation power theory sufficient. A bit like a late buy back in available in a supposed double elimination tournament at Derby City.

Soflasnapper
07-03-2012, 09:05 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sev</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The ruling is a debacle for the American tax payer no matter how you look at it.

Call it a penalty if you want.
However there are 21 new taxes that are embedded in the bill that are now going to go into effect.

Bottom line.

Taxes are going up. And not just for those that make 240k and above.

The underground economy is going to swell. </div></div>

Which sounds terrible, absent the context.

The context is that we have a metastacising cancer in a double-the-world-cost health care system that continues to grow like topsy at double the rate of core inflation.

Already, the rising cost of health care insurance to employers has kept median wages from rising for some decades. It is the driver that makes pensions increasingly unaffordable (the medical care part, not the money part). It puts all US businesses that offer health care insurance benefits at an economic disadvantage to world businesses. At its current cost trend, health care costs will rise to consume all of the federal budget in a relatively short time.

The current system is wholly unsustainable, and must be made more rational and have the growth rate of costs trimmed, lest that cancer kill off the host. Nibbling around the edges will not do the job. And most of the nibbling around the edges plans people suggest are contained in this law.

It's hard to understand how much reform is necessary unless you get how inefficient and costly and unafforedable the status quo ante trend is. And it is.