Reality Check: If Healthcare Law Is A Tax Is It Now Invalid?

[sailingaway]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iyLU9-VqVxY&feature=youtu.be

I've been saying this all day. So have others on twitter. wonder why Roberts didn't see it.

[sailingaway]

This is another interesting point:

David Brewer ‏@Revolution4Paul
#SCOTUS unconstitutionally amends #Constitution by changing the definition of #DirectTax #Article1Section2Clause3. This is not income.

[Danke]

Wrong.

[sailingaway]

Wrong.

Is it?

[Danke]

Is it?

Yes, it is a indirect tax, base on a taxable activity.

Nothing has changed.

[Professor8000]

There needs to come a time when we just need to quit pussyfooting around and just start enforcing our Rights with gunpowder and lead, just like those bad asses did 230 years ago.

[Chester Copperpot]

Yes, it is a indirect tax, base on a taxable activity.

Nothing has changed.

I cannot evade the excise tax by not buying the product.. I cannot escape it.. It is a direct tax.

[MJU1983]

I like where this is going. :)

[ClydeCoulter]

I like where this is going. :)

Me too :)

[Danke]

I cannot evade the excise tax by not buying the product.. I cannot escape it.. It is a direct tax.

Wrong.

[anaconda]

So, what you cats are saying is that, constitutionally, the mandate is allowable per Robtard's reasoning but the piece of legislation should have been invalidated?

[dillo]

So, what you cats are saying is that, constitutionally, the mandate is allowable per Robtard's reasoning but the piece of legislation should have been invalidated?

Roberts basically said it wasnt a mandate, that it was a "suggestion" the government makes that you purchase health insurance and buy doing so you are essentially granted a tax credit. The commerce clause wasn't argued.

[ClydeCoulter]

Roberts basically said it wasnt a mandate, that it was a "suggestion" the government makes that you purchase health insurance and buy doing so you are essentially granted a tax credit. The commerce clause wasn't argued.

So, that's like saying "I'm going to take your candy and if you suck me I'll give some back else I'll keep it all"?

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

If one has healthcare benefits, why be against national healthcare? Seems people want their cake and eat it too. Government employees have always received their national healthcare. The best way to improve healthcare for everyone would be to do away with healthcare insurance for everyone in both the private and public sector from top to bottom. Are you willing to give up the benefits you are receiving?

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

So, that's like saying "I'm going to take your candy and if you suck me I'll give some back else I'll keep it all"?

Suck what? Your finger? I don't get it.

[RickyJ]

There needs to come a time when we just need to quit pussyfooting around and just start enforcing our Rights with gunpowder and lead, just like those bad asses did 230 years ago.

They didn't have an army 1/10000 of the power and size of the army we would have to face that has virtually unlimited resources to put down a rebellion to deal with either. It is not really a fair comparison.

[liberdom]

If one has healthcare benefits, why be against national healthcare?


Because I don't want other people to have what I have, your question is like asking, if one has a home, why be against affordable housing?



Seems people want their cake and eat it too. Government employees have always received their national healthcare.


National or universal, are by definition, not privileges to a certain class of people.



The best way to improve healthcare for everyone would be to do away with healthcare insurance for everyone in both the private and public sector from top to bottom. Are you willing to give up the benefits you are receiving?
No, just like I'm not willing to give up my privileges as a voter, privileges as a straight married man, ...why would I want people to have what I have, or give up what I have to be on par with other people?

[angelatc]

Dear God - did nobody actually watch the video?

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

Because I don't want other people to have what I have, your question is like asking, if one has a home, why be against affordable housing?



National or universal, are by definition, not privileges to a certain class of people.


No, just like I'm not willing to give up my privileges as a voter, privileges as a straight married man, ...why would I want people to have what I have, or give up what I have to be on par with other people?

Has the baby been left out in the car in the heat? The main reason this terrible situation happens more than any other is shared responsitility. Mom thought daddy was taking care of the baby; whereas, daddy thought mommy was taking care of the baby.
Another reason this happens is too much responsibility. Like the dad who forgot that his baby was even in the back of his truck when he rushed in being late for a business meeting. Of course, the baby perished.
You see, mom doesn't want to be a mom any more because her duties as a domestic housewife are spit upon in society. Meanwhile, daddy gets to leave the home everyday to partake in more valuable higher paying work, endeavors which are more mysterious and, yes, interesting to the point of being promiscuous and romantic.
Once again, those functions in society mirroring the duties of the basic domestic housewife are low paying and spit upon.
In the end, as a free person, I now see that I don't matter. Happiness is what is important and that has been left abandoned out in the heat.
I consider myself a domestic brother. Being as worthless as a housewife, I have no place to go unless the least little sister amongst us needs my help.

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

Dear God - did nobody actually watch the video?

If a person doesn't put in any effort into writing an introduction, an opinion, and a conclusion to the video they are presenting, I generally don't watch them.

[MelissaCato]

Sooo, was the ObamaCare that passed in 201o a "tax" ? And was that "tax" introduced as a "tax" or "revenue" in the House of Reps. when passed ?

Benn knows his stuff. I hope he continues going where he's going with this. Because if not, Robert's just paved the way 4 "tax" increases to skip the House of Reps completely to become law. What's next ? 10 trillion dollar dog poop task force ?

[Romulus]

sorry to pop the bubble... but is this correct?


Did a little research on this, and it turns out The Senate’s version was amended to the House’s H.R. 3590 because they knew it would have to stand up under the law if it were to be considered a tax or revenue generating. It was then sent to the house for a vote. S. 3950, of which he is really referring to died in the Senate because it wouldn’t stand up under Article I, Section 7.

[torchbearer]

I cannot evade the excise tax by not buying the product.. I cannot escape it.. It is a direct tax.

this.

[MelissaCato]

sorry to pop the bubble... but is this correct?

hummm :cool: Ya, if that's the Senates version the House of Reps agreed too. I thought both versions had to be identical when passed and originated in the House of Reps.

[MelissaCato]

I still don't see why Robert's said this is a "tax" if Congress passed it as a "tax" or even if the House of Reps introduced it as a "tax". I thought it was a penalty before the Supremes review myself. I still don't see why Robert's would deam it a "tax" knowing it was a "tax" in front of him all along. That's too elementary for a SCOTUS.

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

I still don't see why Robert's said this is a "tax" if Congress passed it as a "tax" or even if the House of Reps introduced it as a "tax". I thought it was a penalty before the Supremes review myself. I still don't see why Robert's would deam it a "tax" knowing it was a "tax" in front of him all along. That's too elementary for a SCOTUS.

The first tax was a penalty for people illegally doing work and surviving on land owned by the emperor or king.

[QueenB4Liberty]

This doesn't look very good.

So it's unconstitutional. Nothing is going to be changed. It is what it is.

[Kylie]

Dear God - did nobody actually watch the video?


I did. And we just may get by on a technicality it seems. :)


Or not. :mad:

[oyarde]

If one has healthcare benefits, why be against national healthcare? Seems people want their cake and eat it too. Government employees have always received their national healthcare. The best way to improve healthcare for everyone would be to do away with healthcare insurance for everyone in both the private and public sector from top to bottom. Are you willing to give up the benefits you are receiving? Because if it is any good , you get to pay a 40 % tax on the entire value your employer pays , 4,5 k sound good to you ? did to them.

[oyarde]

The only real effect I could see , is companies that got waivers / exemptions , they do not get them if it is a "tax" , Constitution provides , everyone is stolen from equally...

[oyarde]

Everybody ante's up , Employers who do not provide ( over 50 employees ) ante up 2k perperson per year , those employees ante up 1% gross , then 2.5 % gross , Those that have ins that any employer pays $850 a month on or more , ante up 40 % tax on that total , Companies that make Medical , ante up the new 3% total tax they get , to be added to the product to be paid for by all purchasers .....

[oyarde]

How does a 1 % , 2.5 %, 10% pay cut sound to everyone ? must sound pretty good ... , Oh yeah, your employer probably took a pay cut too , so forget about a raise , probably ever , then later , unemployment is what you get .

[oyarde]

All I can say is read the bill , probably some things I missed after all the new IRS money to ensure they steal all of yours , Were too poor for health care ? That is ok , pay the fine , poor must be punished , keep voting for those marxist retards , pay some more

[Weston White]

Yes, it is a indirect tax, base on a taxable activity.

Nothing has changed.

1. In substance, it effects a direct tax upon various social castes, e.g., the working class, the laboring class, the middle class, the subservient class, et al; thus it finds itself proper as a poll tax, or otherwise we can argue that it is a tax upon occupations or livelihoods and it finds itself proper as a capitation tax, or otherwise we can argue that it is a tax upon personal property (personalty) or individual responsibility and it finds itself proper as a personal tax. Regardless, it is a so-called “tax” upon the uninsured segment of society and thereby is directly imposed upon them and only them.

2. Such a tax can be reasonably assessed though ‘apportionment’, thus it is proper as a direct tax.

3. To impose a tax for refusing or failing to make a mandated purchase or to otherwise participate in the receipt of a benefit of privilege is not a proper method of any class of indirect tax; it is however, correctly a fine or penalty, for being noncompliant to the same.

4. A public law that mandates for everybody who has taken in a set sum of finances during a stated timeframe to arrange for the purchase of privately contracted benefits or items or to otherwise face a “tax” for not doing so is (aside from being blatantly unjust and despotic), is indifferent to physically forcing such a purchase to take place or it is to otherwise tax an individual, merely for being an individual. Hence, to ratify such legislation is to creatively devise a method of direct taxation.

[anaconda]

If it is, in fact, a tax, it's obviously both direct and unapportioned. So it's unconstitutional. Period. Unless it's an income tax exempted by the 16th Amendment. Which it's not.

[anaconda]

it is a indirect tax

Nothing has changed.

It seems contemptible that the courts call certain taxes "indirect" when they are obviously direct. Like the estate tax and the Obama health care penalty.

[anaconda]

2. Such a tax can be reasonably assessed though ‘apportionment’, thus it is proper as a direct tax.


But this one is assessed as a percentage of income. Which would be unapportioned.

[Danke]

1. In substance, it effects a direct tax upon various social castes, e.g., the working class, the laboring class, the middle class, the subservient class, et al; thus it finds itself proper as a poll tax, or otherwise we can argue that it is a tax upon occupations or livelihoods and it finds itself proper as a capitation tax, or otherwise we can argue that it is a tax upon personal property (personalty) or individual responsibility and it finds itself proper as a personal tax. Regardless, it is a so-called “tax” upon the uninsured segment of society and thereby is directly imposed upon them and only them.

2. Such a tax can be reasonably assessed though ‘apportionment’, thus it is proper as a direct tax.

3. To impose a tax for refusing or failing to make a mandated purchase or to otherwise participate in the receipt of a benefit of privilege is not a proper method of any class of indirect tax; it is however, correctly a fine or penalty, for being noncompliant to the same.

4. A public law that mandates for everybody who has taken in a set sum of finances during a stated timeframe to arrange for the purchase of privately contracted benefits or items or to otherwise face a “tax” for not doing so is (aside from being blatantly unjust and despotic), is indifferent to physically forcing such a purchase to take place or it is to otherwise tax an individual, merely for being an individual. Hence, to ratify such legislation is to creatively devise a method of direct taxation.

You seem to be saying even non-taypayers are subject to this new tax (or penalty).

Really?

Chief Justice Roberts majority opinion, wherein he specifically noted that his newly-determined Obamacare "tax" is not a direct tax because it's not apportioned, but an indirect "duty, impost or excise."

[Danke]

It's paid directly to the government. So, it's direct.

That is not how a direct tax is defined. All taxes are paid to the government, direct or indirect taxes.

[Weston White]

You seem to be saying even non-taypayers are subject to this new tax (or penalty).

Really?

Chief Justice Roberts majority opinion, wherein he specifically noted that his newly-determined Obamacare "tax" is not a direct tax because it's not apportioned, but an indirect "duty, impost or excise."

Really is this his simplistic logic, because “Obamacare” is not apportioned, it is not direct? You do see the fallacy in that statement don’t you?

[Danke]

Really is this his simplistic logic, because “Obamacare” is not apportioned, it is not direct? You do see the fallacy in that statement don’t you?

It is part of the Income Tax, which is an indirect tax.

[Weston White]

It is part of the Income Tax, which is an indirect tax.

The PPACA might have been consequently amended into the IRC so as to be administratively tasked by the IRS, but the only way it relates to income taxes is in the determination of the financial threshold of being required to make the purchase or otherwise pay the fine, e.g., obviously if one does not possess enough money they can neither make the purchase or pay the fine.

Obamacare, per se, has nothing to do with federal income taxes. The appropriate context must be maintained.

[anaconda]

Chief Justice Roberts majority opinion, wherein he specifically noted that his newly-determined Obamacare "tax" is not a direct tax because it's not apportioned, but an indirect "duty, impost or excise."

But what allows Roberts to say that "a tax is not direct because it is not apportioned?" Is "apportionment" not the test by which a direct tax is deemed constitutional or not? If a direct tax is not apportioned, that does not turn it into an "indirect tax." It is simply an unapportioned direct tax, which is disallowed under the Constitution, save for the income exemption per the 16th Amendment. Or have the courts simply twisted the founders definitions?

[Danke]

http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/175/315/PicardDoubleFacepalm-1.jpg?1316330080

[anaconda]

That is not how a direct tax is defined. All taxes are paid to the government, direct or indirect taxes.

Sales tax is collected by the shop proprietor based upon certain forms of consumption, and passed on to the government. He is not the government. Thus the layer of indirectness. Isn't this what the Constitution was referring to?

[anaconda]

http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/175/315/PicardDoubleFacepalm-1.jpg?1316330080

OK I see what my answer is. :D I probably need a semester course on the Supreme court decisions.

[anaconda]

Really is this his simplistic logic, because “Obamacare” is not apportioned, it is not direct? You do see the fallacy in that statement don’t you?

This is my whole point. It's like saying a murder suspect is innocent because it's against the law. I think Danke maybe is implying that the courts have run amok with the definitions of "direct" and "indirect" over the years. Or, at least, the wise justices have deemed these terms to mean something other than what we simple peasants understand them to mean.

[Weston White]

Yes, that is a very likely possibility, but the courts, i.e., the Court, are not to legislate from the bench, they do not craft substantive law; that is only for Congress to do, and that is pretty much what Roberts, CJ just did.

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

Because if it is any good , you get to pay a 40 % tax on the entire value your employer pays , 4,5 k sound good to you ? did to them.

Why have lots of agents standing between the doctors and the patients? These agents are working like lawyers. They are punishing both the doctors and their patients to their benefit.

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

It is part of the Income Tax, which is an indirect tax.

This fellow seems to understand how the Constitution can be interpreted in any way possible as long as there exists no over riding dichotomy to control it.

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

That is not how a direct tax is defined. All taxes are paid to the government, direct or indirect taxes.

As the Constitution can be interpreted in any way possible, so a law can be interpreted or defined in such a fashion

[Danke]

This fellow seems to understand how the Constitution can be interpreted in any way possible as long as there exists no over riding dichotomy to control it.

As the Constitution can be interpreted in any way possible, so a law can be interpreted or defined in such a fashion

No, you have little to no understanding how the Income Tax works.

Most people don't.

The "interpretations" that you are so worried about are actually sound if you research SCOTUS rulings WRT to the Income Tax.

It is an indirect tax on a federal privilege. The activity you are involved in creates the tax liability.

[anaconda]

It is an indirect tax on a federal privilege. The activity you are involved in creates the tax liability.

So let me ask you this: What would a hypothetical Amendment to the Constitution need to say in order to prevent Americans from paying tax on any income (wages, rental income, interest income, proprietors income, capital gains, etc.)?

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

I still don't see why Robert's said this is a "tax" if Congress passed it as a "tax" or even if the House of Reps introduced it as a "tax". I thought it was a penalty before the Supremes review myself. I still don't see why Robert's would deam it a "tax" knowing it was a "tax" in front of him all along. That's too elementary for a SCOTUS.

As the male lion eats first, Chief Justice Roberts has always gotten his fat assed medical insurance paid for him as does every Justice, every Congressman, and, shoot, figure the president gets to have his own doctor. Every management team of a major corporation also get their fat assed medical insurance provided. How can these fat asses turn down medical insurance for everyone when they themselves get their fat assed health insurance provided for them?

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

No, you have little to no understanding how the Income Tax works.

Most people don't.

The "interpretations" that you are so worried about are actually sound if you research SCOTUS rulings WRT to the Income Tax.

It is an indirect tax on a federal privilege. The activity you are involved in creates the tax liability.

The first taxes were penalties paid to the emperor by commoners partaking in the business of survival on his property. The emperor / kings utilized lawyers to sue the people who didn't own any of the land during that time as the emperor / king owned all of both the public and private properties.
There is no such thing as contempt commited against a law other than, on the secular level, Jesus Himself blessed the law and, so, we dare not disobey it. Ultimately, when the law itself is not guided by an overriding Civil Purpose, it can be interpreted any infinite numbers of ways which is the case today.

[Sonny Tufts]

It is an indirect tax on a federal privilege. The activity you are involved in creates the tax liability.

Not really. While a federal privilege may supply the basis for an indirect tax (e.g., an import duty), there are many taxes that don't involve any federal privilege at all, such as the gift tax, estate tax, and, yes, the income tax.

[Mini-Me]

Duties, imposts, and excises are far more similar to taxes than the individual mandate is, so if the individual mandate falls under the umbrella of a tax, the Constitution would necessarily also consider duties, imposts, and excises to fall under the same umbrella. However, the Constitution is very specific about differentiating various means of state income though, and Article I, Section 8 lists duties, imposts, and excises separately from taxes. This indicates the wording of the Constitution views them as something fundamentally different. Therefore, the individual mandate - which is far more of a stretch - cannot possibly be considered a tax or anything close to it if you make any honest (and competent) attempt at interpreting the Constitution.

Long story short: Roberts got it wrong. The individual mandate is not a tax at all.

[Danke]

Not really. While a federal privilege may supply the basis for an indirect tax (e.g., an import duty), there are many taxes that don't involve any federal privilege at all, such as the gift tax, estate tax, and, yes, the income tax.

Clueless.

[Sonny Tufts]

Clueless.

Yes, you are.


Furthermore, Olson’s attempt to escape tax by deducting his wages as ‘cost of labor’ and by claiming that he had obtained no privilege from a governmental agency illustrate the frivolous nature of his position. This court has repeatedly rejected the argument that wages are not income as frivolous, [citations omitted] and has also rejected the idea that a person is liable for tax only if he benefits from a governmental privilege. Olson v. United States, 760 F.2d 1003, 1005 (9th Cir. 1985)

All individuals, freeborn and nonfreeborn, natural and unnatural alike, must pay federal income tax on their wages, regardless of whether they have requested obtained or exercised any privilege from the federal government. United States v. Sloan, 939 F.2d 499, 501 (7th Cir. 1991), cert. den. 112 S.Ct. 940 (1992)

Plaintiff appears to argue that according to the Sixteenth Amendment, federal income tax is not a direct tax on wages or salaries of individuals, but that it is an excise tax on the privilege of engaging in some privileged or regulated activity. Therefore, according to plaintiff, this ‘indirect excise tax’ can only be imposed on the income of corporations and the dividend income of stockholders. Despite plaintiff’s many case citations allegedly supporting his argument, the Sixteenth Amendment, valid as described above, clearly authorizes Congress to levy a direct income tax upon individuals who are United States citizens. Betz v. United States, 40 Fed.Cl. 286, 294-296 (1998)

[Yieu]

If Healthcare Law Is A Tax Is It Now Invalid?

It may be technically invalid, but it will most likely be enforced with violence.

[anaconda]

That is not how a direct tax is defined. All taxes are paid to the government, direct or indirect taxes.

Seriously, in your opinion, how would a hypothetical Constitutional Amendment need to be worded to keep the government from taxing any kind of income or wealth accumulation from individuals? Because I wonder if the courts have played semantic games with the wording of the Constitution and ignored its intent? You seem to be highly knowledgeable and I respect your opinion.

[jbauer]

'ol Ben is either gonna get shot or get a talk show either way Cinnci is just the begining.