SCOTUS, Obamacare Tax and loss of liberty

[smithtg]

All the neocons are bitching about Obamacare and its cost blah blah, but I think the real issue yesterday was this "tax" assumption made by the majority.

I wanted to start a list of analogies (mainly legit ones, not sarcastic ones) that losers in DC (lib and neocon) could extend this "tax" idea too.

So not buying insurance results in a penalty err I mean "tax"

What else could they "tax" you on?

NOT using public transit? - extra tax
NOT buying goods from "national" vendors? - think food, gas, etc, - penalty err I mean "tax"
NOT following the sheep at the TSA line - penalty err I mean tax....

Help me with the list, get creative but try to be realistic. Maybe Ill start another thread for the far fetched (at least for now) but logical extensions that would basically mean you would be (penalized) "taxed" so much you would be a slave to the state.

Think of stuff easy for the LE grunts to enforce, even give tickets on and/or the IRS theives could easily coerce the sheep into paying

 

[CaptUSA]

Failure to put your children into higher education - Tax
Failure to enlist in the military - Tax (hey, we're not mandating military service...)
Failure to turn off your appliances during peak hours - Tax

 

[CaptUSA]

and of course the...

Failure to Update Congress about your Kinky Undergarments Tax. Otherwise known as the FUCKU Tax.

 

[pmbug]

...
In other words, if the law said that you must take an insurance policy or else you’re guilty of a crime, it would have been unconstitutional per se. But the law offers a choice, however bad, that allows you to evade the requirement of the law: you can just pay a rather stiff fine. According to the Supreme Court, that makes it a tax and since it doesn’t force anyone to enter the stream of commerce – it merely persuades them financially that they ought to – it doesn’t run afoul of the Constitution. Bad law, perhaps, but not unconstitutional.

It’s an interesting and depressing ruling. Since there is no limit on the amount of money the government is permitted to levy in taxes, there would be no difference in principle if the Congress had made the “opt-out tax”, say, $100 million, completely bankrupting anyone who refused to comply. It strikes me as a plausible ruling (not that I am a Constitutional lawyer), though I’m not pleased with the result, and anyway it’s the law of the land. But the implication is that your ‘inalienable rights’ are not life, liberty, and property (aka ‘pursuit of happiness’), but life and one of liberty or property. You can give up your property to keep your liberty, or give up your liberty and keep your property. Thanks, Congress.
...

http://seekingalpha.com/article/691871-where-can-i-buy-global-economic-health-insurance

 

[pmbug]

 

[playboymommy]

Failure to send your children to public school.
Failure to get your children vaccinated.
Failure to recycle your garbage.

I don't know whether to cry or break something. The failure of the court by upholding this rape of a law has me depressed and pissed. What can we do without resorting to violence? I don't want it to come to that.

 

[smithtg]

thanks bern for this quote above and the author of the article

But the implication is that your ‘inalienable rights’ are not life, liberty, and property (aka ‘pursuit of happiness’), but life and one of liberty or property. You can give up your property to keep your liberty, or give up your liberty and keep your property. Thanks, Congress.

 

[smithtg]

In some ways the current budget apppropriation process resembles this idea but more indirectly. When the taxman steals you income, its used for all kinds of things you don't need or "do" - ie think Amtrak. Think, most people dont use it, but we provide "revenue" to the thieves basically to keep it afloat and we are NOT using it.

This is probably the case for most gov't programs where the public doesnt interact. You choose not to support something the government does, they take your money in another way and support it anyway.

for revenue hungry localities and states this idea of a penalty (tax) structure may take on a new life esp. with the greenie weanies and your local socialist and morality do gooders that think everyone needs their help and anyone not "helping" is not playing fair and deserves to be fined