Individual mandate question regarding SCOTUS decision

[Nihilist]

Well, I'm just as devastated as the rest of you to have realized that the corporatist obamacare was upheld yet I have some questions regarding what was decided in the case.

I've read a few news reports but I haven't received any clarity on a few questions such as:

* Does the ruling allow Washington to mandate that anyone can be forced to purchase anything so long as it's labelled a "tax"?

* Does ruling limit the Commerce Clause in any way? (I read one news report claiming the ruling somewhat limits it)


Thanks for any information provided.

 

[osan]

Well, I'm just as devastated as the rest of you to have realized that the corporatist obamacare was upheld yet I have some questions regarding what was decided in the case.

I've read a few news reports but I haven't received any clarity on a few questions such as:

* Does the ruling allow Washington to mandate that anyone can be forced to purchase anything so long as it's labelled a "tax"?

If the court is interested in retaining minimal credibility, then consistency would demand the answer be "yes". The wheedle room there is that there is no apparent set-in-stone guideline as to when something may or may not be labeled as "tax".

* Does ruling limit the Commerce Clause in any way? (I read one news report claiming the ruling somewhat limits it

It would appear to me that it in fact limits it. The bounds of those limits, however, are not clear and I would suggest that a subsequent ruling could render those limitations as less than nothing depending on how it is worded.

This is a very dirty little game and I for one and tired of it.

 

[jj-]

* Does the ruling allow Washington to mandate that anyone can be forced to purchase anything so long as it's labelled a "tax"?

Yes

* Does ruling limit the Commerce Clause in any way? (I read one news report claiming the ruling somewhat limits it)

Yes, but it doesn't matter because they can regulate you anyway through the taxing power. Do what we say or you'll pay a higher tax!

Also, the limit on the commerce clause was upheld only by a 5-4 majority. As soon as one justice retires and another Justice is appointed the minority could become the majority.

 

[Pericles]

Where this pushes out to new powers of the government is that you are taxed for doing nothing (failure to act in buying insurance), in all other cases, a tax liability is incurred by performing an act - having income, buying property, making an item for ssale, etc.

 

[jj-]

Where this pushes out to new powers of the government is that you are taxed for doing nothing (failure to act in buying insurance), in all other cases, a tax liability is incurred by performing an act - having income, buying property, making an item for ssale, etc.

I disagree that's a new type of tax. There are tax credits for having kids and things like that, which is equivalent to paying a tax penalty for not having kids.

A tax credit for any activity is equivalent to a tax increase to not doing that activity.

The innovation of this decision is only that if Congress calls something a penalty which could've been upheld as a tax, the court will consider it a tax.

 

[Weston White]

Tax credits and the like have nothing to do with the imposition of a tax itself, only in providing a deduction in the amount of taxes to be ultimately incurred.

And not being eligible for child tax credit, or the renter’s credit, or whatever other credit does not realize the individual in increase in their taxes, only that they are ineligible for the allotted deduction.

Indirect taxes, involve the element of voluntary participation, without that the tax can only be proper as a direct tax. SCOTUS just took America back to when Roman law required that all attend weekly church and pay for their cleansing Holy Water upon entry into the church (IIRC).

So far as I am aware, within America, there has never been a national tax issuing a civil penalty for refusing to participate in a program, or benefit, or to make a purchase (and no Militia requirements do not count). I don't even think FICA can be compared to this atrocity.

Effectively, SCOTUS has just devised an entirely new class of taxation; and has subsequently on this date, opened Pandora’s Box.