|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on Mar 29, 2010 2:14:54 GMT -6
There is, in fact, a 2.5% fine imposed if Americans choose not to buy health insurance. Of course, in typical dishonest Government fashion, they've labelled it a "tax" on those who don't knuckle under. (I guess it's a "tax" when you park in a no-parking zone and get a ticket, and it's a "tax" when you get ticketed doing 85mph in a 65mph zone.) The word game here has to do with whether people are being coerced into giving their money to a health insurance oligarch. If they are being coerced into doing because there's a fine, it may be un-Constitutional. If it's a tax, in contrast, it is not un-Constitutional. Starting on page 296 of HR 3962, it says the following: [/b]"[/ul]
|
|
|
Post by agito on Mar 31, 2010 23:31:56 GMT -6
yep. that was the conclusion I came too. Of course, 2.5% of nothing is something I can afford to pay!
|
|
|
Post by proletariat on Apr 1, 2010 7:25:58 GMT -6
Well I think the word tax is accurate. The "fine" is for future services. To use the ticket example, the fine would be for x amount of tickets in the future. The 2.5% tax is to cover the average yearly premium if one is not covered.
In many ways I'd think it outrageous the other way around. Calling something clearly a tax a fine.
The question, constitutional or otherwise, is if the government's taxing authority can be extended to corporate services rendered. In many ways this is an extension of the imminent domain issue.
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on Apr 1, 2010 14:36:55 GMT -6
A "tax" is something people must pay for doing something legal. Taxes are not assessed for wrongdoing, nor for violation of any law, government policy, or edict.
In contrast, a "fine" is something paid for something illegal--for some wrongdoing or violation of a rule or law. More simply, it's a fine if assessed for breaking some rule. It's a fine if it's for doing something against the rules or law.
(And just because something is collected by the IRS does not make it a "tax." The IRS also levies fines (or penalties) for assorted violations--late payment, non-payment, etc.)
It's also a "fine" (or penalty) if you have to pay extra for violating a law or rule.
In addition, historically, it's only been a tax when you had to pay for voluntarily doing something (purchasing goods, earning income, etc.). And again, it's not based on wrongdoing.
Taxes are assessed on voluntary legal actions taken by persons. They're based on actions people chose to take, but could have chosen not to take as well.
Fines are assessed on non-legal actions.
Let's compare auto insurance and health insurance--which many are doing. Driving without auto insurance in Calif. subjects you to a "fine," not a tax. But now if you live in the United States, and "illegally" decide not to buy health insurance, you'll be "taxed" (not fined) for doing so.
If it's called a "fine" for not buying insurance on your auto, why should it be called a "tax" for not buying insurance on your health?
|
|
|
Post by agito on Apr 10, 2010 4:45:34 GMT -6
I'm more in agreement with proletariat than UnLC on this one. For one thing, if you don't have auto insurance, it's not the IRS agent that comes calling.
It makes more sense like this though. Everyone is at risk of needing healthcare, so if you aren't prepared to cover the expenses, the IRS will collect money for the sake of covering the expenses of treating the uninsured. It would make even more sense if you were taxed only if you used medical services for that particular year. What I don't like is that the tax is for a service not rendered, otherwise we would have a backdoor public option (which might be agreeable, health insurance for only 2.5% of my income?)
|
|
|
Post by agito on Apr 10, 2010 4:48:48 GMT -6
BY the way UnLC, you have the wrong bill cited in your link. The reconciliation passed the senate version which has the added benefit of minimum "tax" payments spelled out by year ($75 in 2014 and $960 in 2016 if i remember right). You linked to an outdated house version.
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on Apr 10, 2010 16:03:37 GMT -6
BY the way UnLC, you have the wrong bill cited in your link. The reconciliation passed the senate version which has the added benefit of minimum "tax" payments spelled out by year ($75 in 2014 and $960 in 2016 if i remember right). You linked to an outdated house version. Agito, You know that I've read over a 1,000 pages of the various versions, and I've spent hours trying to find all the versions of them. If you can find an official updated version, please post it here. If the Government truly was being transparent, I wouldn't have to spend dozens of hours trying to find their latest version. But, despite what you're saying, the latest version (according to media sources), ultimately WILL have a 2.5% fine, after it's been in effect for several years. I completely disagree with your calling this a "tax." As far as I'm concerned, it's a perversion of the English language to call a penalty paid for violation of a law a tax. That simply is not the definition of a tax. There's never been any legislation where violation of the legislation was called a "tax." Fines are penalities. Taxes are not. If I break the law and don't buy health insurance, I'll be "penalized" for not doing so. That's a fine, not a tax. Nothing has EVER been considered a "tax" when it was levied solely for Wrongdoing. It has always been considered a "fine" if it was assessed solely for violating a rule--such as driving a car without auto insurance in California. How is it I'll get fined for breaking the law for driving without auto insurance, but I'll only get "taxed" for not having health insurance. Both are legal requirements. Not abiding by them is a violation and subject to a monetary penalty. A monetary penalty for wrongdoing is, and always has been, a fine. If a person BREAKS THE LAW by not buying health insurance (as he would be doing if he drove in California without auto insurance), he would, in reality be getting FINED, not taxed. Only legal activities are subject to taxes. Only il-legal activities are subject to fines.
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on Apr 10, 2010 17:32:50 GMT -6
Yes, I was right about the 2.5% amount As of year 2016, the fine will be 2.5% of income over the threshold amount, which is a multiple of the Federal Poverty level. Here is the un-interpretable language from Reconciliation Bill regarding the amounts: [/b]’’; and 13 (2) in paragraph (3)— 14 (A) in subparagraph (A), by striking 15 ‘‘$750’’ and inserting ‘‘$695’’; 16 (B) in subparagraph (B), by striking 17 ‘‘$495’’ and inserting ‘‘$325’’; and 18 (C) in subparagraph (D)— 19 (i) in the matter preceding clause (i), 20 by striking ‘‘$750’’ and inserting ‘‘$695’’; 21 and 22 (ii) in clause (i), by striking ‘‘$750’’ 23 and inserting ‘‘$695’’. 24 (b) THRESHOLD.—Section 5000A of such Code, as"[/ul] Next are 2 separate legal interpretations of the Reconciliation Bill. [/b] of 2% of household income over the filing threshold or $325; and for 2016 it will be the full 2.5% or $695.[/i]"[/ul] ------------- Here's the next one: [/b] of their adjusted gross income after subtracting out the applicable exempted amount in Section 6012(a)(1) of the tax code.[/i]"[/ul]
|
|
|
Post by graybeard on Apr 10, 2010 20:52:11 GMT -6
With common traffic fines approaching $1K, they are really taxes. I don't get angry when I see somebody screwing up in traffic. They'll get caught eventually, and will help pay my taxes.
GB
|
|
|
Post by cheshireprofessor on Apr 13, 2010 14:56:28 GMT -6
If your employer provides an "alternative Social Security" pension program you are not assessed Social Security 'taxes' - or is that a 'fine' for not having such an employer sponsored retirement plan?
Traffic ticket 'fines' (or 'road use taxes'?) offset some in the way of 'taxes' for others but more increasingly and more significantly offset insurance 'costs' (or are insurance costs really 'taxes', 'fines', or 'fees') for others.
In the end is it not still money not in one's pocket?
'_'
|
|