Obama Care Ruling expanding TAX powers

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Obama Care Ruling expanding TAX powers

Posted: 7/2/2012 1:33:07 PM EDT

How much you want to bet now that the .gov can tax the ever livin shit out of us they will now attach a 87,000% tax on firearms? Sounds like something Obama will try

The more I think about I wonder if Obama didnt pull some shit with Roberts. Or that Roberts just told the US....."if you're gonna be stupid when it comes to voting........" Play stupid games and all that.

Posted: 7/2/2012 1:36:52 PM EDT

[#1]

Under what scenario? I don't think the obamacare case is pertinent to this.

Posted: 7/2/2012 1:37:59 PM EDT

[#2]

Posted: 7/2/2012 1:39:39 PM EDT

[#3]

They raised rolling tobacco tax something like 2200% way before this ruling.

EDIT

on a pound of rolling tobacco will jump from $1.09 to $24.78, an increase of about 2200%

Posted: 7/2/2012 1:44:00 PM EDT

[#4]

Wow. Its monday isnt it?

Posted: 7/2/2012 1:44:53 PM EDT

[#5]

True they have done it with tobacco so my point may be invalid but it sure seems like a good way to start regulating guns.

Posted: 7/2/2012 1:51:20 PM EDT

[#6]

Somehow I think Patrick Henry would approve

Posted: 7/2/2012 1:51:42 PM EDT

[#7]

Quoted:
True they have done it with tobacco so my point may be invalid but it sure seems like a good way to start regulating guns.

Yes, but congress has always had the power tax but not the president. The Obama care case was unique in that it forced you to buy something or pay a tax. So congress can and always has had the power to tax firearms as they see fit. Same with tobacco. At least that's how I understand it.

Posted: 7/2/2012 1:53:33 PM EDT

[#8]

He is only a president, not a king. Laws are generated by the Legislative branch of government, of which, the House has a Republican majority. Then Senate is narrowly held by the Dems, and such legislation may not pass there either.

Posted: 7/2/2012 1:57:36 PM EDT

[#9]

who knows, roberts opinion doesn't even mean shit for the commerce clause due to 'dicta'

so we didn't even get that "win" as people are claiming

Posted: 7/2/2012 1:58:41 PM EDT

[#10]

Quoted:
True they have done it with tobacco so my point may be invalid but it sure seems like a good way to start regulating guns.

LOL they won't tax firearms any higher. They don't wanna force you to quit, they just wanna charge you to feed your habit. Now a huge ammo tax...oh..now we're talking.

Posted: 7/2/2012 1:59:29 PM EDT

[#11]

The government (fed, state, and local) taxes us in all kinds of ways now. The Roberts ruling just confirms what is in place.

If you own your home free and clear and never leave it for anything. You are taxed.

I have always heard that the American dream is home ownership. They don't give you a deduction for ownership. They give you a debt deduction for loan interest. Pay off the loan, and that deduction goes away. Miss a property tax payment, and you get a lien.

The only thing this ruling changed was the illusion of Freedom. We haven't been free for a long time.

Posted: 7/2/2012 1:59:37 PM EDT

[#12]

Quoted:

who knows, roberts opinion doesn't even mean shit for the commerce clause due to 'dicta'

so we didn't even get that "win" as people are claiming

It really sucks a man was more worried about the reputation of the Supreme Court and his legacy as chief justice than making a correct ruling on the constitutionality of this law.

Posted: 7/2/2012 2:02:59 PM EDT

[#13]

OP this is what the Tax ruling is more like

Posted: 7/2/2012 2:12:48 PM EDT

[#14]

Listen to me...Roberts is a fuck tard and needs to be REMOVED from the bench with the other 4 liberals....NO FUCKING WHERE IN THE BILL DID IT SAY TAX. Military court martial for all of them for treason.

Posted: 7/2/2012 2:22:56 PM EDT

[#15]

Quoted:
How much you want to bet now that the .gov can tax the ever livin shit out of us they will now attach a 87,000% tax on firearms? Sounds like something Obama will try

The more I think about I wonder if Obama didnt pull some shit with Roberts. Or that Roberts just told the US....."if you're gonna be stupid when it comes to voting........" Play stupid games and all that.

There are ways around it, certain laws are meant to be broken. Take Mr. President and his honorable for examples.

Posted: 7/2/2012 2:53:54 PM EDT

[#16]

Quoted:

Quoted:
How much you want to bet now that the .gov can tax the ever livin shit out of us they will now attach a 87,000% tax on firearms? Sounds like something Obama will try

The more I think about I wonder if Obama didnt pull some shit with Roberts. Or that Roberts just told the US....."if you're gonna be stupid when it comes to voting........" Play stupid games and all that.

There are ways around it, certain laws are meant to be broken. Take Mr. President and his honorable for examples.

Only Obama and his elites can break laws and get away with it. Ordinary citizens cannot.

Posted: 7/2/2012 5:16:18 PM EDT

[#17]

Quoted:
Under what scenario? I don't think the obamacare case is pertinent to this.

In the way the Obamacare decision was decided, it created a new taxing power that now allows the government to "tax" (penalize) you for failing to buy any item which they believe you should have so long as (1) the IRS collects the "tax", (2) the thing being taxed is not an intent-driven type of action and (3) the amount of the penalty isn't too high... In the case of Obamacare, it found a penalty of 2.5% of annual income to not be too high.

This decision laid forth a framework for a big expansion of federal taxing power for social engineering purposes.

Posted: 7/2/2012 5:17:08 PM EDT

[#18]

Quoted:
How much you want to bet now that the .gov can tax the ever livin shit out of us they will now attach a 87,000% tax on firearms? Sounds like something Obama will try

The more I think about I wonder if Obama didnt pull some shit with Roberts. Or that Roberts just told the US....."if you're gonna be stupid when it comes to voting........" Play stupid games and all that.

Ever heard of the NFA?

Posted: 7/2/2012 5:18:50 PM EDT

[#19]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Under what scenario? I don't think the obamacare case is pertinent to this.

In the way the Obamacare decision was decided, it created a new taxing power that now allows the government to "tax" (penalize) you for failing to buy any item which they believe you should have so long as (1) the IRS collects the "tax", (2) the thing being taxed is not an intent-driven type of action and (3) the amount of the penalty isn't too high... In the case of Obamacare, it found a penalty of 2.5% of annual income to not be too high.

This decision laid forth a framework for a big expansion of federal taxing power for social engineering purposes.

Not really. The government has used tax policy to encourage certain behaviors fro some time. Child tax credits, Mortgage interest deductions, charitable giving deductions...... they all penalize you for NOT doing those things. You pay more taxes if you DON'T do them.

Posted: 7/2/2012 5:19:07 PM EDT

[#20]

Quoted:

Quoted:
True they have done it with tobacco so my point may be invalid but it sure seems like a good way to start regulating guns.

Yes, but congress has always had the power tax but not the president. The Obama care case was unique in that it forced you to buy something or pay a tax. So congress can and always has had the power to tax firearms as they see fit. Same with tobacco. At least that's how I understand it.

Yes. Products in commerce were previously able to be taxed. Then, you (the consumer) indirectly pay the tax when you buy the product. This new power - to tax one directly for not buying a product is a big win for the feds to try to influence behavior.

Posted: 7/2/2012 5:22:27 PM EDT

[#21]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Under what scenario? I don't think the obamacare case is pertinent to this.

In the way the Obamacare decision was decided, it created a new taxing power that now allows the government to "tax" (penalize) you for failing to buy any item which they believe you should have so long as (1) the IRS collects the "tax", (2) the thing being taxed is not an intent-driven type of action and (3) the amount of the penalty isn't too high... In the case of Obamacare, it found a penalty of 2.5% of annual income to not be too high.

This decision laid forth a framework for a big expansion of federal taxing power for social engineering purposes.

Not really. The government has used tax policy to encourage certain behaviors fro some time. Child tax credits, Mortgage interest deductions, charitable giving deductions...... they all penalize you for NOT doing those things. You pay more taxes if you DON'T do them.

The government has always been able to reduce your existing tax bill (offer a carrot) to have you change behavior. Now they can increase your existing tax bill (weild a stick) to convince you to change behavior. It is an important difference.

Posted: 7/2/2012 5:22:47 PM EDT

[#22]

Quoted:
Listen to me...Roberts is a fuck tard and needs to be REMOVED from the bench with the other 4 liberals....NO FUCKING WHERE IN THE BILL DID IT SAY TAX. Military court martial for all of them for treason.

The justices aren't military. Why should they have a court martial?

The penalty is related to income, and it's collected by the IRS. How is it not a tax?

Why should the justices be removed?

Why is Roberts a fuck tard?

Why should anyone listen to you?

Posted: 7/2/2012 5:26:30 PM EDT

[#23]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Under what scenario? I don't think the obamacare case is pertinent to this.

In the way the Obamacare decision was decided, it created a new taxing power that now allows the government to "tax" (penalize) you for failing to buy any item which they believe you should have so long as (1) the IRS collects the "tax", (2) the thing being taxed is not an intent-driven type of action and (3) the amount of the penalty isn't too high... In the case of Obamacare, it found a penalty of 2.5% of annual income to not be too high.

This decision laid forth a framework for a big expansion of federal taxing power for social engineering purposes.

Not really. The government has used tax policy to encourage certain behaviors fro some time. Child tax credits, Mortgage interest deductions, charitable giving deductions...... they all penalize you for NOT doing those things. You pay more taxes if you DON'T do them.

The government has always been able to reduce your existing tax bill (offer a carrot) to have you change behavior. Now they can increase your existing tax bill (weild a stick) to convince you to change behavior. It is an important difference.

Don't have a have a home loan with interest, pay a penalty. That hardly seems different. Don't have children, pay a penalty. They have projections about how much these deductions are are going to reduce tax revenues. They know what they're doing when they raise taxes but offer deductions.

Posted: 7/2/2012 5:27:50 PM EDT

[#24]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Under what scenario? I don't think the obamacare case is pertinent to this.

In the way the Obamacare decision was decided, it created a new taxing power that now allows the government to "tax" (penalize) you for failing to buy any item which they believe you should have so long as (1) the IRS collects the "tax", (2) the thing being taxed is not an intent-driven type of action and (3) the amount of the penalty isn't too high... In the case of Obamacare, it found a penalty of 2.5% of annual income to not be too high.

This decision laid forth a framework for a big expansion of federal taxing power for social engineering purposes.

Not really. The government has used tax policy to encourage certain behaviors fro some time. Child tax credits, Mortgage interest deductions, charitable giving deductions...... they all penalize you for NOT doing those things. You pay more taxes if you DON'T do them.

The government has always been able to reduce your existing tax bill (offer a carrot) to have you change behavior. Now they can increase your existing tax bill (weild a stick) to convince you to change behavior. It is an important difference.

There is NO DIFFERENCE AT all. Would it be different if they just raised taxes for everyone by the penalty that applied to them and then get a tax credit fro that amount if they buy insurance?

The effect is identical, so it's 6 one way, half a dozen another.

So, tell me how it's an important difference.

Posted: 7/2/2012 5:29:12 PM EDT

[#25]

Quoted:

Listen to me...Roberts is a fuck tard and needs to be REMOVED from the bench with the other 4 liberals....NO FUCKING WHERE IN THE BILL DID IT SAY TAX. Military court martial for all of them for treason.

Not only that but didn't the court have to decide if this was a tax or not because they can't take cases on tax issues until it's in effect?

If that's true this ruling is void, no?

Posted: 7/2/2012 5:30:52 PM EDT

[#26]

Quoted:

Quoted:

Under what scenario? I don't think the obamacare case is pertinent to this.

In the way the Obamacare decision was decided, it created a new taxing power that now allows the government to "tax" (penalize) you for failing to buy any item which they believe you should have so long as (1) the IRS collects the "tax", (2) the thing being taxed is not an intent-driven type of action and (3) the amount of the penalty isn't too high... In the case of Obamacare, it found a penalty of 2.5% of annual income to not be too high.

This decision laid forth a framework for a big expansion of federal taxing power for social engineering purposes.

Not really. The government has used tax policy to encourage certain behaviors fro some time. Child tax credits, Mortgage interest deductions, charitable giving deductions...... they all penalize you for NOT doing those things. You pay more taxes if you DON'T do them.

The government has always been able to reduce your existing tax bill (offer a carrot) to have you change behavior. Now they can increase your existing tax bill (weild a stick) to convince you to change behavior. It is an important difference.

There is NO DIFFERENCE AT all. Would it be different if they just raised taxes for everyone by the penalty that applied to them and then get a tax credit fro that amount if they buy insurance?

The effect is identical, so it's 6 one way, half a dozen another.

So, tell me how it's an important difference.

Because then it would have been called the biggest tax increase in history this way it was called a penalty and they could avoid the tax stigma.

Posted: 7/2/2012 5:38:48 PM EDT

[#27]

Quoted:
Under what scenario? I don't think the obamacare case is pertinent to this.

Huh? There is a 10% tax on tanning because it is unsafe.

Firearms are unsafe so lets do a XXXXX% tax on those now....

And French Fries, and Cheeseburgers, and Pizza!!

Everything deemed unhealthy and unsafe ....they have opened the floodgates with the tanning tax.....

Just watch it's coming. Ammo is next.

Either way Romney or Obama we are fk'd.

Posted: 7/2/2012 5:43:12 PM EDT

[#28]

Quoted:

There is NO DIFFERENCE AT all. Would it be different if they just raised taxes for everyone by the penalty that applied to them and then get a tax credit fro that amount if they buy insurance?

The effect is identical, so it's 6 one way, half a dozen another.

So, tell me how it's an important difference.

Yes, it is different.

Under the 16th Amendment, income can be taxed. So, you make money and they tax your earnings. They can choose to tax you less by giving you a deduction or credit for buying insurance. If you have no income, they have no power to tax you under the income tax.

This tax (Obamacare penalty) is not an income tax (it is not a tax on your income that the .gov is then giving deductions against), but is instead a direct tax on you under Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution. The fact that they calculate the tax based on your income IN THIS INSTANCE may make it seem like an income tax, but it is not. The way the Roberts opinion is written, you could have NO INCOME and the .gov could (if it wanted to) come after you to collect this penalty for failure to buy insurance. You are being taxed for your mere existence.

Direct taxes under Article I, Section 8 are subject to certain limitations in Section 9, which limitations were completely ignored in the Roberts opinion... he also gutted the prior "penalty" (impermissible unless based on a separate constitutional power) v. "tax" (permissible for revenue raising purposes, but not to penalize) distinction and contorted himself in crazy ways to do so - ways that have been rejected by every other lower court that has addressed the question.

Posted: 7/2/2012 5:45:24 PM EDT

[#29]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Listen to me...Roberts is a fuck tard and needs to be REMOVED from the bench with the other 4 liberals....NO FUCKING WHERE IN THE BILL DID IT SAY TAX. Military court martial for all of them for treason.

Not only that but didn't the court have to decide if this was a tax or not because they can't take cases on tax issues until it's in effect?

If that's true this ruling is void, no?

Well, that's an interesting question. It would appear no. The court held that Tax Anti-Injuntion Act does not apply becuase the tax itself was labeled as a penatly. That ruling seems odd, but it's apprently consistent with previous rulings on penalty taxes.

FWIW, they also ruled that it is not a direct tax, so immune from the apportionment requirement, since the penalty depends in some measure on income.

Posted: 7/2/2012 5:55:17 PM EDT

[#30]

Quoted:

Quoted:

There is NO DIFFERENCE AT all. Would it be different if they just raised taxes for everyone by the penalty that applied to them and then get a tax credit fro that amount if they buy insurance?

The effect is identical, so it's 6 one way, half a dozen another.

So, tell me how it's an important difference.

Yes, it is different.

Under the 16th Amendment, income can be taxed. So, you make money and they tax your earnings. They can choose to tax you less by giving you a deduction or credit for buying insurance. If you have no income, they have no power to tax you under the income tax.

This tax (Obamacare penalty) is not an income tax (it is not a tax on your income that the .gov is then giving deductions against), but is instead a direct tax on you under Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution. The fact that they calculate the tax based on your income IN THIS INSTANCE may make it seem like an income tax, but it is not. The way the Roberts opinion is written, you could have NO INCOME and the .gov could (if it wanted to) come after you to collect this penalty for failure to buy insurance. You are being taxed for your mere existence.

Direct taxes under Article I, Section 8 are subject to certain limitations in Section 9, which limitations were completely ignored in the Roberts opinion... he also gutted the prior "penalty" (impermissible unless based on a separate constitutional power) v. "tax" (permissible for revenue raising purposes, but not to penalize) distinction and contorted himself in crazy ways to do so - ways that have been rejected by every other lower court that has addressed the question.

Lawyerman, can I suggest you research teh 16th Amendment. It did not, in fact, authorize an income tax, which was in place fro 50 years before the 16th was enacted.

And Roberts did not ignore Section nine. From the opinion syllabus:

"(c)
Even if the mandate may reasonably be characterized as atax, it must still comply with the Direct Tax Clause, which provides:“No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.” Art. I, §9, cl. 4. A tax on going without health insurance is not like a capitation or other direct tax under this Court’s precedents. It therefore need not be apportioned so that each State pays in proportion to,its population. pp 40-41"

Posted: 7/2/2012 6:12:55 PM EDT

[#31]

Quoted:

And Roberts did not ignore Section nine. From the opinion syllabus:

"(c)
Even if the mandate may reasonably be characterized as atax, it must still comply with the Direct Tax Clause, which provides:“No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.” Art. I, §9, cl. 4. A tax on going without health insurance is not like a capitation or other direct tax under this Court’s precedents. It therefore need not be apportioned so that each State pays in proportion to,its population. pp 40-41"

You are right and I wasn't being careful with my words... I just found his discussion on the matter in the body of the opinion to be so perfunctory and unpersuasive as to be tantamount to ignoring the question.

Posted: 7/2/2012 6:20:03 PM EDT

[#32]

Quoted:

Quoted:

And Roberts did not ignore Section nine. From the opinion syllabus:

"(c)
Even if the mandate may reasonably be characterized as atax, it must still comply with the Direct Tax Clause, which provides:“No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.” Art. I, §9, cl. 4. A tax on going without health insurance is not like a capitation or other direct tax under this Court’s precedents. It therefore need not be apportioned so that each State pays in proportion to,its population. pp 40-41"

You are right and I wasn't being careful with my words... I just found his discussion on the matter in the body of the opinion to be so perfunctory and unpersuasive as to be tantamount to ignoring the question.

He spent a page and a half on it, and cites a bunch of cases. I'm NOT a lawyer. but his position seemed to be well supported on that point at least.

Posted: 7/2/2012 6:32:07 PM EDT

[#33]

The difference between Obamatax and every other tax on the books is that Obama grants waivers arbitrarily and capriciously to this tax.

Posted: 7/2/2012 6:34:15 PM EDT

[#34]

Quoted:
The difference between Obamatax and every other tax on the books is that Obama grants waivers arbitrarily and capriciously to this tax.

Can you point me to the section of the law that authorizes this? I'd like to read it.

Posted: 7/2/2012 6:41:24 PM EDT

[#35]

its all a bit beside the point.

congress has the power to tax (and remove taxes)

the president signs the bill.

a thing to remember and ammo for the november. what would be better termed pelosicare was a very very close thing. it took a lock in the house and senate and the whitehouse with one party and even then it was very very close.

one of the reasons they were adamant about not calling it a tax is they would have lost some key centrist democratic votes.

so now its called what it is. its a tax. and a very big tax. and it falls on the shoulders of the middle class. many underwater on their mortgages and the economy is still fucked.

there aint enough minorities and poor folks (yet) to put obama back in office. the republikans need to hammer the huge tax that obama and the dems crammed down the throats of those who are just trying to get by.

and if they want kongress can take 100 percent of what you earn via taxes. they can take 100 percent of what you would pass on to your descendants via taxes. nothing that obama and the dems did changes that. they simply used their majority to pass a bill that they had been dreaming about for 100 years (and its been a dream of the progressives for at least that long to cover everyone medically).

Posted: 7/2/2012 7:04:55 PM EDT

[#36]

Quoted:

He spent a page and a half on it, and cites a bunch of cases. I'm NOT a lawyer. but is position seemed to be well supported on that point at least.

While constitutional interpretation is just a personal interest (I'm NOT an expert in this area) and not my area of practice, on such an important issue as this the discussion he provides seems very dismissive... the type of support that would be provided for something that has been well-settled law for 100 years. The Court has never addressed a tax quite like this and has no close precedents... yet, Roberts just says it doesn't look like other direct taxes that have been deemed to be required to be apportioned. He primarily points to Hylton. Yes, some of the justices in Hylton were hostile in their opinions to the concept of apportionment, but they don't rule on the extent of apportionment's application to direct taxes and instead specifically say that they don't have to in that case - leaving one to the conclusion that they uphold the tax on carriages on grounds other than it being a direct tax... instead it is an excise. Despite the number of citations, these provide very little real support for his ultimate ruling.

Roberts doesn't end up coming out and specifying under what taxing authority this "tax" is implemented (though strongly suggesting it is an unapportioned direct tax), other than to say that it is a power Congress has had all along. I seem to recall the dissent reciting the old refrain to the effect of - if they had the power all along, they would have used it before.

Posted: 7/2/2012 7:10:11 PM EDT

[#37]

With regards to the liberals on the court, I've become much more interested in where they would draw the limit for government power - if at all.

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Obama Care Ruling expanding TAX powers

General » General Discussion

Warning

Confirm Action

About AR15.COM

Stay Connected

Newsletter

Contact Us