Online Now 2342

The Bucknuts Hot Spot

The place to be for topics too hot for any place else

On this Board 118
Record: 9642 (12/28/2012)

Online now 2131
Record: 10904 (2/4/2012)

Boards ▾

The Front Row

The place to discuss inside information, the latest rumors and scoop on the Buckeyes

Around the 'Shoe

Anything and everything football related that has to do with your Buckeyes

The Best Damn Recruiting Board

If it's football recruiting, OSU-style, it's cussed and discussed here

Bucknutin' But Net

Talk a little Buckeye basketball with your fellow Ohio State hoopsters

The Bucknuts Hot Spot

The place to be for topics too hot for any place else

The Buckeye Babe Thread

Share your favorite pix, a special lady in your life or someone else's life

Reply

If the individual mandate is not a tax...

  • Then why did Harry Reid dodge the question?
    SOURCE: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T093mTKw3t0

    Then why did a Supreme Court brief signed by Obama administration Solicitor General Donald Verrilli, insist that “the minimum coverage provision” — a.k.a. the mandate — “is valid not only as a tax in its own right, but also as an adjunct to the income tax,”?
    SOURCE: http://reason.com/blog/2012/07/05/is-obamacares-mandate-a-tax-or-a-penalty

    Then why did Justice Roberts HIMSELF write these words:
    “The Federal Government does have the power to impose a tax on those without health insurance. Section 5000A is therefore constitutional, because it can reasonably be read as a tax."
    SOURCE: http://cnsnews.com/news/article/justice-roberts-individual-mandate-tax-not-our-role-forbid-it-or-pass-upon-its-wisdom

    And why did Justice Roberts write these words?:

    “The Affordable Care Act’s requirement that certain individuals pay a financial penalty for not obtaining health insurance may reasonably be characterized as a tax,”
    SOURCE: http://www.forbes.com/sites/jonathanhorn/2012/06/29/roberts-calls-mandate-what-obama-swore-it-was-not-a-tax/

    Also, why did Justice Roberts address the question about his historic swing vote in this manner?:

    “Congress’s authority under the taxing power is limited to requiring an individual to pay money into the Federal Treasury, no more. If a tax is properly paid, the Government has no power to compel or punish individuals subject to it. We do not make light of the severe burden that taxation—especially taxation motivated by a regulatory purpose—can impose. But imposition of a tax nonetheless leaves an individual with a lawful choice to do or not do a certain act, so long as he is willing to pay a tax levied on that choice.”
    SOURCE: http://cnsnews.com/news/article/justice-roberts-individual-mandate-tax-not-our-role-forbid-it-or-pass-upon-its-wisdom

    Hey Timmy... is that you scratching your head over there? Duuuuuuuuuuhhhhhh.

    Schaefnuts70426

  • I can see all the future non-participants looking at their future pay check garnishments and their future slashed tax refund check muttering to themselves, "tax, penalty, tax, penalty, tax....."

    If a revenue generating government mandate falls in the forest and no one is around to be taxed or penalized, does it still make a hole in someones household budget?

    cincyx ●

  • Schaef-nuts said...

    Then why did Harry Reid dodge the question? SOURCE: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T093mTKw3t0

    Then why did a Supreme Court brief signed by Obama administration Solicitor General Donald Verrilli, insist that “the minimum coverage provision” — a.k.a. the mandate — “is valid not only as a tax in its own right, but also as an adjunct to the income tax,”? SOURCE: http://reason.com/blog/2012/07/05/is-obamacares-mandate-a-tax-or-a-penalty

    Then why did Justice Roberts HIMSELF write these words: “The Federal Government does have the power to impose a tax on those without health insurance. Section 5000A is therefore constitutional, because it can reasonably be read as a tax." SOURCE: http://cnsnews.com/news/article/justice-roberts-individual-mandate-tax-not-our-role-forbid-it-or-pass-upon-its-wisdom

    And why did Justice Roberts write these words?:

    “The Affordable Care Act’s requirement that certain individuals pay a financial penalty for not obtaining health insurance may reasonably be characterized as a tax,” SOURCE: http://www.forbes.com/sites/jonathanhorn/2012/06/29/roberts-calls-mandate-what-obama-swore-it-was-not-a-tax/

    Also, why did Justice Roberts address the question about his historic swing vote in this manner?:

    “Congress’s authority under the taxing power is limited to requiring an individual to pay money into the Federal Treasury, no more. If a tax is properly paid, the Government has no power to compel or punish individuals subject to it. We do not make light of the severe burden that taxation—especially taxation motivated by a regulatory purpose—can impose. But imposition of a tax nonetheless leaves an individual with a lawful choice to do or not do a certain act, so long as he is willing to pay a tax levied on that choice.” SOURCE: http://cnsnews.com/news/article/justice-roberts-individual-mandate-tax-not-our-role-forbid-it-or-pass-upon-its-wisdom

    Hey Timmy... is that you scratching your head over there? Duuuuuuuuuuhhhhhh.

    You must understand something. Even though the Obama Administration is now calling it a tax, the Supreme Court ruled it a tax, Romney agrees it is a tax, calling it a tax is detrimental to Obama's reelection so they want to pretend that no one is calling it a tax. All the major players are calling it a tax so people like Tim want to hang on to the word of an "advisor" instead of what Romney actually said himself.

    signature image

    www.miamiproject.miami.edu/

    Buckeye Warrior ●

  • Buckeye Warrior said...

    You must understand something. Even though the Obama Administration is now calling it a tax, the Supreme Court ruled it a tax, Romney agrees it is a tax, calling it a tax is detrimental to Obama's reelection so they want to pretend that no one is calling it a tax. All the major players are calling it a tax so people like Tim want to hang on to the word of an "advisor" instead of what Romney actually said himself.

    Exactly. Tim is a diehard dem and Obama lover to the end. He will never admit what is right in front of his face even if you had a gun to his head. This forum is full of people like him. That's why I don't come in here as frequently as I used to.

    Schaefnuts70426

  • Schaef-nuts said...

    Exactly. Tim is a diehard dem and Obama lover to the end. He will never admit what is right in front of his face even if you had a gun to his head. This forum is full of people like him. That's why I don't come in here as frequently as I used to.

    We are farked as a nation if this BS flies.

    signature image signature image signature image

    Tyriffic1

  • cincyx said...

    I can see all the future non-participants looking at their future pay check garnishments and their future slashed tax refund check muttering to themselves, "tax, penalty, tax, penalty, tax....."

    If a revenue generating government mandate falls in the forest and no one is around to be taxed or penalized, does it still make a hole in someones household budget?

    ONLY IF THE IRS COLLECTS IT FROM YOU

    minsterbuckeye ●

  • Buckeye Warrior said...

    You must understand something. Even though the Obama Administration is now calling it a tax, the Supreme Court ruled it a tax, Romney agrees it is a tax, calling it a tax is detrimental to Obama's reelection so they want to pretend that no one is calling it a tax. All the major players are calling it a tax so people like Tim want to hang on to the word of an "advisor" instead of what Romney actually said himself.

    THE DOUBLE DIPPER DOESN'T WANT ANYBODY TO BRING UP ANYTHING NEGATIVE ABOUT HIS obumma

    minsterbuckeye ●

  • minsterbuckeye said...

    THE DOUBLE DIPPER DOESN'T WANT ANYBODY TO BRING UP ANYTHING NEGATIVE ABOUT HIS obumma

    You got that right. If the government takes it from someone that works TIMMY it's a tax ... Everyone is talking about it now and Timmy can't hide it ..

    NUTTYBAR ●

  • Schaef-nuts said...

    Exactly. Tim is a diehard dem and Obama lover to the end. He will never admit what is right in front of his face even if you had a gun to his head. This forum is full of people like him. That's why I don't come in here as frequently as I used to.

    And we really miss you too!

    dave1954

  • Schaef-nuts said...

    Then why did Harry Reid dodge the question? SOURCE: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T093mTKw3t0

    Then why did a Supreme Court brief signed by Obama administration Solicitor General Donald Verrilli, insist that “the minimum coverage provision” — a.k.a. the mandate — “is valid not only as a tax in its own right, but also as an adjunct to the income tax,”? SOURCE: http://reason.com/blog/2012/07/05/is-obamacares-mandate-a-tax-or-a-penalty

    Then why did Justice Roberts HIMSELF write these words: “The Federal Government does have the power to impose a tax on those without health insurance. Section 5000A is therefore constitutional, because it can reasonably be read as a tax." SOURCE: http://cnsnews.com/news/article/justice-roberts-individual-mandate-tax-not-our-role-forbid-it-or-pass-upon-its-wisdom

    And why did Justice Roberts write these words?:

    “The Affordable Care Act’s requirement that certain individuals pay a financial penalty for not obtaining health insurance may reasonably be characterized as a tax,” SOURCE: http://www.forbes.com/sites/jonathanhorn/2012/06/29/roberts-calls-mandate-what-obama-swore-it-was-not-a-tax/

    Also, why did Justice Roberts address the question about his historic swing vote in this manner?:

    “Congress’s authority under the taxing power is limited to requiring an individual to pay money into the Federal Treasury, no more. If a tax is properly paid, the Government has no power to compel or punish individuals subject to it. We do not make light of the severe burden that taxation—especially taxation motivated by a regulatory purpose—can impose. But imposition of a tax nonetheless leaves an individual with a lawful choice to do or not do a certain act, so long as he is willing to pay a tax levied on that choice.” SOURCE: http://cnsnews.com/news/article/justice-roberts-individual-mandate-tax-not-our-role-forbid-it-or-pass-upon-its-wisdom

    Hey Timmy... is that you scratching your head over there? Duuuuuuuuuuhhhhhh.

    So why did Robert write:
    "It is of course true that the Act describes the payment as a ‘penalty,’ not a ‘tax.’ But while that label is fatal to the application of the Anti-Injunction Act … it does not determine whether the payment may be viewed as an exercise of Congress's taxing power. It is up to Congress whether to apply the Anti-Injunction Act to any particular statute, so it makes sense to be guided by Congress's choice of label on that question. That choice does not, however, control whether an exaction is within Congress's constitutional power to tax."
    http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/11-393c3a2.pdf

    Note "viewed as an exercise of Congress's taxing power" and "control whether an exaction is within Congress's constitutional power to tax." He clearly is saying that regardless of the label (penalty, fee, tax ...), the "exaction" may or may not be "within Congress's constitutional power to tax."

    The Federal Government assesses/levies fees, surcharges, fines, assessments, penalties, and so forth. All are collected under Article I Section 8:

    Article I, Section. 8.
    The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States; ...

    So for purposes of the Constitution all revenues legally collected by the Federal government may be considered as taxes, though they are often designated by different labels by Congress. In the case of the individual mandate, Congress called it a penalty. Had Congress called it a tax the SC could not rule on it until someone had been assessed it and the tax was collected according to the Tax Anti-Injunction Act.

    So if it is a tax now, it had to be not a tax first or the SC could not have ruled on it. Sounds like "I voted for it before I voted against it."

    I really don't care whether people call it a tax or a penalty, and neither do 98% of the American public. My point has always been that the penalty was not a tax when Congress passed it because had it been, the SC would not have been able to rule on it until after it was implemented in 2014.

    Though often asked, God does not take sides in politics or college football.

    TimMcM ●

  • cincyx said...

    I can see all the future non-participants looking at their future pay check garnishments and their future slashed tax refund check muttering to themselves, "tax, penalty, tax, penalty, tax....."

    If a revenue generating government mandate falls in the forest and no one is around to be taxed or penalized, does it still make a hole in someones household budget?

    According to the bill, their wages cannot be garnished. I don't remember if it addressed withholding tax refunds or not.

    Though often asked, God does not take sides in politics or college football.

    TimMcM ●

  • Buckeye Warrior said...

    You must understand something. Even though the Obama Administration is now calling it a tax, the Supreme Court ruled it a tax, Romney agrees it is a tax, calling it a tax is detrimental to Obama's reelection so they want to pretend that no one is calling it a tax. All the major players are calling it a tax so people like Tim want to hang on to the word of an "advisor" instead of what Romney actually said himself.

    Romney had two of his top aides speak for him saying it was not a tax. He flip-flopped on it because of the pressure from Rush, Fox, and 99% of the GOP.

    Though often asked, God does not take sides in politics or college football.

    TimMcM ●

  • Schaef-nuts said...

    Exactly. Tim is a diehard dem and Obama lover to the end. He will never admit what is right in front of his face even if you had a gun to his head. This forum is full of people like him. That's why I don't come in here as frequently as I used to.

    Actually you are the one full of something. I do not love Obama nor am I a diehard dem. This forum does have many who are blinded by their partisanship but I am not one of them. The opinions I take are based on the facts that I am aware of and my beliefs of what is good for the country. I am a liberal because of what I think, not that difficult to understand.

    You are an admitted contrarian who just comes on to moan and groan about how bad this country have become and how no one but you knows the truth.

    Funny but when you had gone a long time without posting, not a single person, not even one of the cons said they missed you.

    Though often asked, God does not take sides in politics or college football.

    TimMcM ●

  • NUTTYBAR said...

    You got that right. If the government takes it from someone that works TIMMY it's a tax ... Everyone is talking about it now and Timmy can't hide it ..

    I can't hide what Nutty?

    If it was a tax as written then the SC could not rule on it until 2014 when it is collected. What Roberts actually wrote was that it was not a tax for one purpose but fell under under Congress's power to tax.

    Though often asked, God does not take sides in politics or college football.

    TimMcM ●

  • TimMcM said...

    So why did Robert write: "It is of course true that the Act describes the payment as a ‘penalty,’ not a ‘tax.’ But while that label is fatal to the application of the Anti-Injunction Act … it does not determine whether the payment may be viewed as an exercise of Congress's taxing power. It is up to Congress whether to apply the Anti-Injunction Act to any particular statute, so it makes sense to be guided by Congress's choice of label on that question. That choice does not, however, control whether an exaction is within Congress's constitutional power to tax." http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/11-393c3a2.pdf

    Note "viewed as an exercise of Congress's taxing power" and "control whether an exaction is within Congress's constitutional power to tax." He clearly is saying that regardless of the label (penalty, fee, tax ...), the "exaction" may or may not be "within Congress's constitutional power to tax."

    The Federal Government assesses/levies fees, surcharges, fines, assessments, penalties, and so forth. All are collected under Article I Section 8:

    Article I, Section. 8. The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States; ...

    So for purposes of the Constitution all revenues legally collected by the Federal government may be considered as taxes, though they are often designated by different labels by Congress. In the case of the individual mandate, Congress called it a penalty. Had Congress called it a tax the SC could not rule on it until someone had been assessed it and the tax was collected according to the Tax Anti-Injunction Act.

    So if it is a tax now, it had to be not a tax first or the SC could not have ruled on it. Sounds like "I voted for it before I voted against it."

    I really don't care whether people call it a tax or a penalty, and neither do 98% of the American public. My point has always been that the penalty was not a tax when Congress passed it because had it been, the SC would not have been able to rule on it until after it was implemented in 2014.

    If it's a tax, Obama is a liar. That's why he's so scared of that word. I don't even know why he's so worried about it to be honest with you. Everyone knows he's a liar anyway.

    The bigger problem with this socialized medicine program is... well, the fact that it's a socialized medicine program.

    This post was edited by Schaefnuts70426 on 7/7/2012 at 5:16 AM

    Schaefnuts70426

  • TimMcM said...

    Actually you are the one full of something. I do not love Obama nor am I a diehard dem. This forum does have many who are blinded by their partisanship but I am not one of them. The opinions I take are based on the facts that I am aware of and my beliefs of what is good for the country. I am a liberal because of what I think, not that difficult to understand.

    You are an admitted contrarian who just comes on to moan and groan about how bad this country have become and how no one but you knows the truth.

    Funny but when you had gone a long time without posting, not a single person, not even one of the cons said they missed you.

    No one missed me? Wow, Timmy. You really know how to go for the jugular. I can't tell you how much that hurt to read.

    Now that I'm done sobbing, I would like to thank you for delivering that news to me. It was very sobering and really put me in my place. Kudos to you, Tim. As iron sharpens iron, so one man sharpens another. Yes, Tim. I am speaking about you and your harsh criticisms of me to keep me in check and bring me back to earth. I feel so humbled, yet so free. I feel like a babe in your arms right now. Actually, I feel a bit attracted to you. The same way a whore feels about her pimp who just got done slapping her silly.

    On a serious note, you already admitted that you won't criticize dems in here because you feel the balance of libs to cons is at an unfair level and you feel the need to "represent" or something. So now everyone knows that all the posts you make in here are clearly biased. That was all the information I needed... but I knew it was true before you even wrote it.

    Schaefnuts70426

Ohio State
247Sports
Features
Resources
Connect

247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports