OBAMA/TRUMPCARE MEGATHREAD

[Balta1701]

No. Not even close.

You're right, I should have added the clause "Federal income taxes".

[Y2HH]

Then in that case, does the government have the right to raise income taxes?

 

Because either the government has no right to raise everyone's income tax, or the government has no right to give a tax credit.

 

If 2 things are constitutional, then doing them together in the same bill cannot make them suddenly unconstitutional.

 

That's not what they're arguing is unconstitutional.

 

What's unconstitutional is the government telling you that you HAVE to buy something for said credit...or else! If you want to impose a new tax...impose it. Not the same as doing what they're doing here even if it's meant to achieve the same outcome.

Edited March 30, 2012 by Y2HH

[Balta1701]

That's not what they're arguing is unconstitutional.

 

What's unconstitutional is the government telling you that you HAVE to buy something for said credit...or else! If you want to impose a new tax...impose it. Not the same as doing what they're doing here.

Yes, it fundamentally is the exact same thing.

 

The only difference is the language. That is literally the only difference, it is not spelled out as a "Tax". The government has every right to do every single step of this bill, and thus the government has every right to do so together.

 

If the government were to pass an $800 tax increase on everyone in the country, and then offer an $800 tax credit for purchasing a mortgage, that would be the exact same structure as this bill in a legal sense, and that is effectively exactly what the current system has: I pay a higher federal income tax rate because I cannot claim a certain deduction.

 

If the government then changed that terminology from "tax credit" to "Mandate" it could do so without altering the law at all. The law right now could be changed to call the mortgage interest tax deduction a "Homebuying mandate" and the law would be exactly the same as what is on the books right now.

[Y2HH]

Yes, it fundamentally is the exact same thing.

 

The only difference is the language. That is literally the only difference, it is not spelled out as a "Tax". The government has every right to do every single step of this bill, and thus the government has every right to do so together.

 

If the government were to pass an $800 tax increase on everyone in the country, and then offer an $800 tax credit for purchasing a mortgage, that would be the exact same structure as this bill in a legal sense, and that is effectively exactly what the current system has: I pay a higher federal income tax rate because I cannot claim a certain deduction.

 

If the government then changed that terminology from "tax credit" to "Mandate" it could do so without altering the law at all. The law right now could be changed to call the mortgage interest tax deduction a "Homebuying mandate" and the law would be exactly the same as what is on the books right now.

 

I edited my post.

 

It's not the same, even if it's meant to achieve the same goal.

 

Bold: This is a vast oversimplification of the tax code and why they set it up that way. It's meant to ease the burden because of the extra amount of income that person will be spending on other various taxes, etc. You're *federal* income tax rate is slightly lower to offset the MASSIVE tax you have coming from local/state.

 

Second Bold: Again, you don't HAVE to buy a home.

Edited March 30, 2012 by Y2HH

[Balta1701]

I edited my post.

 

It's not the same, even if it's mean to achieve the same goal.

You're right, it isn't the same in 2 ways, which I already pointed out.

 

1. THe language does not use the term "tax", it just structures it as a tax increase.

2. They were done in the same bill, as opposed to passing a different bill for the tax increase and for the tax credit.

 

I'm waiting for you to tell me the other difference. Every one you've said so far is just a slogan. The government is not "Forcing" or "Requiring" or "Threatening" you or whatever if you don't purchase insurance, and it is legally mandating the purchase using the exact same mechanism by which it offers every other tax credit on the books.

 

If the government passed 2 bills, one of which included an $800 tax increase on every American, and then immediately passed a second bill offering an $800 tax credit for purchase of qualifying private insurance, that would be the individual mandate in the affordable care act.

[Balta1701]

I edited my post.

 

It's not the same, even if it's meant to achieve the same goal.

 

Bold: This is a vast oversimplification of the tax code and why they set it up that way. It's meant to ease the burden because of the extra amount of income that person will be spending on other various taxes, etc. You're *federal* income tax rate is slightly lower to offset the MASSIVE tax you have coming from local/state.

 

Second Bold: Again, you don't HAVE to buy a home.

Replying to edits:

 

Again, you do not have to buy health insurance. Please re-read that before you say again that you do. The original projections said 15 million or so people would not do so.

 

Second, your federal income tax rate is slightly lower to offset the massive fee you have coming from an insurance company, just as it is slightly lower to partially offset the massive fee you have coming from a private bank which is charging you interest.

[Y2HH]

You're right, it isn't the same in 2 ways, which I already pointed out.

 

1. THe language does not use the term "tax", it just structures it as a tax increase.

2. They were done in the same bill, as opposed to passing a different bill for the tax increase and for the tax credit.

 

I'm waiting for you to tell me the other difference. Every one you've said so far is just a slogan. The government is not "Forcing" or "Requiring" or "Threatening" you or whatever if you don't purchase insurance, and it is legally mandating the purchase using the exact same mechanism by which it offers every other tax credit on the books.

 

If the government passed 2 bills, one of which included an $800 tax increase on every American, and then immediately passed a second bill offering an $800 tax credit for purchase of qualifying private insurance, that would be the individual mandate in the affordable care act.

 

You're oversimplifying it, on purpose to make your point, I might add.

 

The government configured the tax code to ease the burden on home buyers, etc...an incentive to help offset the other costs incurred for "taking part".

 

Bold: Again, vast over simplification.

[Balta1701]

The government configured the tax code to ease the burden on people buying health insurance, etc...an incentive to help offset the other costs incurred for "taking part".

Correct.

[Y2HH]

Correct.

 

Incorrect. But you can keep going.

[Balta1701]

Incorrect. But you can keep going.

You're right, you haven't responded to my point other than to call it a simplification, but you haven't given a single statement about why the comparison is incorrect or why the government can't do this other than to repeat that somehow the government is forcing you to buy insurance when the government itself projects that 15 million people will not buy insurance.

[southsider2k5]

You're oversimplifying it, on purpose to make your point, I might add.

 

The government configured the tax code to ease the burden on home buyers, etc...an incentive to help offset the other costs incurred for "taking part".

 

Bold: Again, vast over simplification.

 

To the point where it is very similar to the death panels argument, just in reverse.

[Balta1701]

To the point where it is very similar to the death panels argument, just in reverse.

Someone please tell me how it is different other than just saying "I said so!"

[Balta1701]

Is it also worth pointing out that there is no enforcement mechanism in the PPACA? If you don't pay the tax penalty, the IRS can't dock your pay, it can't put you in jail, it has no means of collecting that payment either.

[Y2HH]

You're right, you haven't responded to my point other than to call it a simplification, but you haven't given a single statement about why the comparison is incorrect or why the government can't do this other than to repeat that somehow the government is forcing you to buy insurance when the government itself projects that 15 million people will not buy insurance.

 

You haven't made a valid point to respond too.

 

The (simplified) point you are attempting to make is that if you purchase a home, you pay less in federal tax as an incentive to ease the burden on the home owner...so by that same token, if they increased taxes on everyone, and then provided tax *credits* for purchasing private health care, that it's the same.

 

First and foremost, that's not what they did.

 

Second, the mortgage example is an incentive that slightly lowers taxes in one area because it will now be imposed in other area(s) you weren't previously paying into at all. The other is a blanket tax offset...where if you get taxed 700$ a year, earmarked for Heath Care expenses, and IF you buy private insurance, you get it all back in the form of tax credits...which is a refund, not a write off.

[southsider2k5]

Someone please tell me how it is different other than just saying "I said so!"

 

government groups deciding on how to decide life or death matters turns into death panels. In this case, taxes turns into we can take whatever we want and force you to take whatever we want.

[southsider2k5]

Is it also worth pointing out that there is no enforcement mechanism in the PPACA? If you don't pay the tax penalty, the IRS can't dock your pay, it can't put you in jail, it has no means of collecting that payment either.

 

http://washingtonexaminer.com/politics/was...bamacare/416051

[Balta1701]

You haven't made a valid point to respond too.

 

The (simplified) point you are attempting to make is that if you purchase a home, you pay less in federal tax as an incentive to ease the burden on the home owner...so by that same token, if they increased taxes on everyone, and then provided tax *credits* for purchasing private health care, that it's the same.

 

First and foremost, that's not what they did.

 

Second, the mortgage example is an incentive that slightly lowers taxes in one area because it will now be imposed in other area(s) you weren't previously paying into at all. The other is a blanket tax offset...where if you get taxed 700$ a year, earmarked for Heath Care expenses, and IF you buy private insurance, you get it all back in the form of tax credits...which is a refund, not a write off.

And so basically, they did something that is structurally exactly identical. They raise the income tax by $695, and then offset it with a $695 credit that you receive if you purchase the private insurance.

 

They changed the terms. A refund versus a write-off. Fundamentally it is the exact same thing. The only difference is that they spelled out the mechanism in one bill rather than doing so independently.

 

There's no plausible standard by which doing one of these can be constitutional and doing the other is an unconstitutional impingment on freedom. Either the government has the right to incentivize certain purchases or it doesn't.

[Balta1701]

http://washingtonexaminer.com/politics/was...bamacare/416051

Yeah, because that has anything to do with actually having an enforcement mechanism.

[southsider2k5]

Yeah, because that has anything to do with actually having an enforcement mechanism.

 

So what exactly would IRS agents be doing with Obamacare then?

[Balta1701]

government groups deciding on how to decide life or death matters turns into death panels. In this case, taxes turns into we can take whatever we want and force you to take whatever we want.

Yes or no. If the PPACA is found constitutional...can people choose to not purchase insurance?

 

Because if you answer "Yes", then people are not being "Forced" to do anything.

[Balta1701]

So what exactly would IRS agents be doing with Obamacare then?

Link. IRS Press release summing up the wide variety of tax law changes included in the bill.

[southsider2k5]

Link. IRS Press release summing up the wide variety of tax law changes included in the bill.

 

But I thought they weren't doing enforcement?

[southsider2k5]

Yes or no. If the PPACA is found constitutional...can people choose to not purchase insurance?

 

Because if you answer "Yes", then people are not being "Forced" to do anything.

 

And there you go. Thanks to the continued liberal erasing of economic rights, now we are to this point. We had the right took away to make economic decisions, this is just the government taking away another one. Some days I think Ron Paul is the only sane one out there.

[Y2HH]

And so basically, they did something that is structurally exactly identical. They raise the income tax by $695, and then offset it with a $695 credit that you receive if you purchase the private insurance.

 

They changed the terms. A refund versus a write-off. Fundamentally it is the exact same thing. The only difference is that they spelled out the mechanism in one bill rather than doing so independently.

 

There's no plausible standard by which doing one of these can be constitutional and doing the other is an unconstitutional impingment on freedom. Either the government has the right to incentivize certain purchases or it doesn't.

 

The problem is, as I see it, one method is legal, and one is not.

 

And for the purpose of disclaimer, I'm not an tax code expert, nor a constitutional expert. Our tax code is so complex that issues like this arise BECAUSE it's so complex. What I am is a home owner that can tell you the differences in added taxes I now have versus when I didn't own a home...and the write off doesn't come CLOSE to off setting the added amount of my money that's being sucked up by various government entities.

 

And a write-off is nothing close to a refund, by the way.

 

As an easy example, you can write off 3000$ a year in stock market losses. Now, that sounds great, but if I lost 3000$ in the market, and I get a 'write off' of 3000$...here is how it works out for me:

 

For the sake of this example, let's say I make 50,000$ a year and my tax rate is 15%.

50000*0.15=7500$

 

With that "write off", my taxable income drops to 47000.

47000*0.15=7050$

 

7500-7050 = 450$.

 

Now, if I got a 3000$ tax CREDIT for that loss...I'd get 3000$ back. NOT even close to the same.

[Balta1701]

But I thought they weren't doing enforcement?

Of that clause. Here's their full legal interpretation on it. There is a lot of stuff for the IRS to do here, maintaining databases, maintaining status of plans which are eligible, but that's actually one of the dirty little secrets of the law, if you refuse to pay that, there is currently no enforcement mechanism. Some might argue that totally undermines the law (it does), but it also keeps anyone from saying that the IRS threw them in jail because they refused to pay the mandate.