Thread: White House Starts Its Push to Claim "it's NOT a Tax!"

Originally Posted by markjw

My questions is... is it really just a mandate as claimed by Obama, but Robert called it a Tax so he could rule in favor of the bill? Or is it really a tax, and we've been lied to this entire time by Obama?

I don't understand how Roberts can call it something else than what it is delivered as, and makes me feel like he did that on purpose. Not so much because Obama lied to us but because he knew it wouldn't be passed any other way. That just seems weird to me.

Look at it this way, the constitutional scholar Obama argued it was not a tax but a mandate to purchase insurance. Roberts ruled that a mandate would be unconstitutional but a tax not, so you can decide not to buy insurance and pay a higher tax. The result is the same but the ramifications to future law is huge now setting a limiting precedence on the commerce clause which has been sorely abused the last 100 years by Congress. A decision like this on the commerce clause is brilliant and a long time coming.

You'd think Obama's minions would get tired lying for him, but they never seem to. Now they have to go back to calling it a "penalty", even though they've been defending the "tax" argument since yesterday.

Originally Posted by Brewskier

You'd think Obama's minions would get tired lying for him, but they never seem to. Now they have to go back to calling it a "penalty", even though they've been defending the "tax" argument since yesterday.

The word "TAX" resonates far more than some vague and confusing "fee" or "penalty"...
Heads will roll this November.... unfortunately, what replaces them will likely be more of the same.

Originally Posted by JP5

Only thing slightly positive is that we can now call it what it is: a HUGE tax increase on the middle class.

I'm trying to think of an instance where we tax people for specifically not taking some action, and can't come up with an example. I'd be interested to see if someone else can come up with an instance where we do.

So I think Scalia was right - it's not a tax, but a penalty for not engaging in commerce, and THAT strikes me as being unconstitutional. Allowing Congress to force us to buy something - even something that "everyone uses" - is a terrible, terrible precedent to set. The individual mandate needed to go. Boo to Roberts for pulling this fake rabbit out of the hat.

I do feel some schadenfreude though watching the Obama admin trying to walk this tightrope in the midst of a tempest. If they'd said it was a tax, it would never have passed. So their solution is to call it a penalty - one that would be unconstitutional as the court clearly said in upholding it as a tax? Incredible.

Originally Posted by Hoosier8

A decision like this on the commerce clause is brilliant and a long time coming.

Seems like a bit of a wash since the only slightly less terrible precedent is that they can tax us for doing nothing now.

Originally Posted by Yosh Shmenge

Calling Obama Care a "tax" when not a single word of the bill speaks of taxation and taxes and Obama refused the idea of taxation over and over again, is the most absurd thing I can think of.

I concur. This is what real judicial activism looks like.

Originally Posted by JP5

It was. It was an act of judicial overreach to find otherwise.

You are using the court's decision to claim Obama lied.

You are now claiming the court's opinion is unreliable.

Can't have it both ways.

Even the normal swing vote, Kennedy, told him so. I realize we have to live with the decision now....but we must now call it what is is: A TAX; the largest in American history.

The mandate penalty is very small, expected to affect about 1% of Americans, and one Romney pushed for at state and national levels.

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/292520/romney-urged-obama-adopt-individual-health-care-mandate-andrew-c-mccarthy

It's expected to bring in billions of dollars. I believe it's 547 billion over 10 years.

You're confusing the mandate fee (very tiny part of the revenue stream, and the one relevant to the SCOTUS decision) with the rest. And yes, the legislation is funded (in contrast to every Bush initiative), partly by tax increase (mostly on the wealthy), and partly by rolling back Medicare Advantage, which was an unfunded program that diverted money to costly private insurers.

ODD, that they don't list ALL those tax cuts in the legislation, isn't it? If there are tax cuts in the legislation....then please list them.

It's certainly odd that Republicans don't list them.

Premium Assistance Credit

The act provides for refundable tax credits that eligible taxpayers can use to help cover the cost of health insurance premiums for individuals and families who purchase health insurance through a state health benefit exchange (which each state is required to establish under section 1311 of the act). Under new IRS § 36B, an eligible individual will enroll in a plan offered through an exchange and report his or her income to the exchange. Based on the information provided to the exchange and his or her income, the individual will receive a premium assistance credit. Treasury will pay the premium assistance credit amount directly to the insurance plan in which the individual is enrolled. The individual will then pay to the plan in which he or she is enrolled the dollar difference between the premium tax credit amount and the total premium charged for the plan.

Eligibility for the premium assistance credit is based on the individual’s income for the tax year ending two years prior to the enrollment period. The premium assistance credit is available for individuals (single or joint filers) with household incomes between 100% and 400% of the federal poverty level (for the family size involved) who do not received health insurance through an employer or a spouse’s employer. The credit amount is determined by the Secretary of Health and Human Services, based on the percentage of income the cost of premiums represents, rising from 2% of income for those at 100% of federal poverty level for the family size involved to 9.5% of income for those at 400% of federal poverty level for the family size involved.

The premium assistance credit will be available for years ending after Dec. 31, 2013.

Small Business Tax Credit

The act provides tax credits for small businesses and individuals designed to increase levels of health insurance coverage, as part of the IRC § 38 general business credit. Small businesses—defined as businesses with 25 or fewer employees and average annual wages of less than $40,000—would be eligible for a credit of up to 50% of nonelective contributions the business makes on behalf of their employees for insurance premiums (new IRC § 45R). Tax-exempt organizations would get a 35% credit against payroll taxes.

Employers with 10 or fewer employees and average wages of less than $20,000 would get 100% of the credit; it would be phased out, up to the 25-employee limit. The $20,000 average annual wages figure will be indexed for inflation after 2013. Five-percent owners under the section 416 top-heavy plan rules and 2% S corporation shareholders are not included in the definition of employee, but leased employees are counted.

This credit is available for tax years beginning after Dec. 31, 2009.

Tax-Exempt Health Insurers
The act provides for a program administered by the Department of Health and Human Services that will foster the creation of qualified nonprofit health insurance issuers to offer health insurance. Insurers receiving federal grants or loans under the program would be exempt from federal tax (under IRC § 501(a)) for periods when the insurer complies with the terms of the program.

Expansion of Adoption Credit, Adoption Assistance Programs

For 2010, the maximum adoption credit is increased to $13,170 per eligible child (a $1,000 increase). This increase applies to both non-special needs adoptions and special needs adoptions. Also, the adoption credit is made refundable. The new dollar limit and phase-out of the adoption credit are adjusted for inflation in tax years beginning after Dec. 31, 2010. Also, the scheduled sunset of EGTRRA provisions relating to the adoption credit is delayed for one year (i.e., the sunset becomes effective for tax years beginning after Dec. 31, 2011).

http://www.journalofaccountancy.com/Web/20102724.htm

Republicans will counter that there are more tax increases (as in different number of varieties) than cuts, but this is poor reasoning. The Premium assistance tax credit is higher in magnitude than any of the tax increases, and the vast majority of the increases in revenues raised are on the very wealthy and industry that stands to benefit from the expansion.

Full List of Obamacare Tax Hikes

Republicans may be fighting to repeal until the bitter end, but if and when it doesn't happen, for your own benefits, at least then take some time to get a full understanding of what's in the law. It's nothing like what Republicans and the corporate media have been claiming.

Originally Posted by JP5

It would have never passed had they presented it as what it really is: the biggest tax increase in American history. So, we now have 4 months to drive this FACT home, providing examples in ads and in all media outlets.

Really? It is the biggest tax increase in American history?

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...ase-us-histor/

It would appear that claim is nothing more than really bad right wing radio myth.

Originally Posted by Perriquine

I'm trying to think of an instance where we tax people for specifically not taking some action, and can't come up with an example. I'd be interested to see if someone else can come up with an instance where we do.

So I think Scalia was right - it's not a tax, but a penalty for not engaging in commerce, and THAT strikes me as being unconstitutional. Allowing Congress to force us to buy something - even something that "everyone uses" - is a terrible, terrible precedent to set. The individual mandate needed to go. Boo to Roberts for pulling this fake rabbit out of the hat.

I do feel some schadenfreude though watching the Obama admin trying to walk this tightrope in the midst of a tempest. If they'd said it was a tax, it would never have passed. So their solution is to call it a penalty - one that would be unconstitutional as the court clearly said in upholding it as a tax? Incredible.

There are a lot of nice names for how they take your money, like a tax credit. You are taxed more for not having children. Now you get a tax credit if you buy health insurance. See how that can work?

Originally Posted by Hoosier8

There are a lot of nice names for how they take your money, like a tax credit. You are taxed more for not having children. Now you get a tax credit if you buy health insurance. See how that can work?

Not so much. I don't really see how you can honestly characterize tax exemptions for dependents as somehow being a tax on people who don't have children.