Maybe you all should go back to citing blog quotes after all?

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sgtclub

If raising taxes was an element of HCR

Except that raising taxes was an element of HCR. See, e.g., the excise tax on "cadillac" plans.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch

I've asked about whether, in substance, it behaves differently than a tax -- is it applied to people with no income, is it offset by credits like other taxes are, etc. I don't know the answer -- do you?

I linked to the bill. A very quick glance says that the answer to your first question is, no it does not apply to people with no income. The answer the second is trickier, and requires more familiarity with the code than I have, but clearly there are some credits that are relevant (See Sec. 5000A).

Statutory language matters.

Which is why you are so focused on it rater than speculating what it might be?

ETA: Sorry, I failed to STP. But then so did you.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch

However, I find the notion of a "tax penalty" (being imposed on anything other than a failure to pay taxes timely and fully) offensive. How is that different than just a "penalty"?

Hell if I know, but the only relevance is that people were talking about it as if it's a tax.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Adder

Except that raising taxes was an element of HCR. See, e.g., the excise tax on "cadillac" plans.

wasn't the increased tax only for those of us making over $250K?

[Cletus Miller]

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch

However, I find the notion of a "tax penalty" (being imposed on anything other than a failure to pay taxes timely and fully) offensive. How is that different than just a "penalty"?

How it gets treated in bankruptcy, criminal law, and how it accrues interest, I suspect.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sgtclub

I entirely understand what you are saying, but I do think the difference in form (over substance) is important.

Clearly the government has the power to tax to provide health care or other things for the general welfare. And if this is a tax, then it should have to take the political hit of raising taxes. That political hit is part of the checks and balances of our system.

I don't disagree in principle. But to be fair, (a) the substance of the thing -- whether it's called a penalty or a tax -- has not been obscured. If you don't comply with the indidivual mandate, you must pay. Everyone gets that. And, (b) this is pretty rich, given the substantial efforts Democrats made to get to a bill that *reduces* the deficit over time, and conservatives absolute and complete unwillingness to give any kind of political credit for that. What you want is, heads you win, tails they lose.

The same holds true here. The public support for HCR has hovered around 50% since the debate started. Yes, I know there are polls on both sides that show different numbers, but the reality is that the public is more or less split down the middle on this, with a slight edge to oppose side. If raising taxes was an element of HCR, however, I would bet this would show up in the polls. It certainly had an effect on the mid-terms. Yes most of the mid-term results were attributable to the economy, but a portion of it was an anti-healtcare/big government vote.

It is absolutely clear to anyone who pays attention that HCR involves (a) spending a lot of money, (b) cutting other spending, and (c) raising taxes, and that (b) and (c) are projected to outweigh (a). HCR's opponents are "anti-big government" to use your term, but understand on some level that the American people aren't.

As for the mid-term results, the results were entirely predictable from the combination of the huge Democratic gains in the prior two elections, the fact that it was not a Presidential election, and the shitty economy. If you have seen some analysis that honestly tries to control for those other factors and can show some additional effect from HCR, I'd like to see it.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

was the increased tax only for those of us making over $250K?

Impeach Obama!

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Adder

Impeach Obama!

I thought the point was whether he might be losing a vote or two, in 2012

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

I thought the point was whether he might be losing a vote or two, in 2012

Well, fine then, if you want to wuss out about it. But I'm running with it!

Obama Lied, Union Members Cried!

[LessinSF]

Sidd's point of whether the penalty applies to people with zero income is important.

If it does, then the government can keep sticking people with "penalties" for not doing things, purchasing things, etc., and enforce it under the tax code with prison time.

Thus, I am liking the idea more. We can return to poor houses and imprisoning the destitute, the homeless, and the otherwise unworthy.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch

The statute calls it a penalty, not a tax. I think that's a difference.

I've asked about whether, in substance, it behaves differently than a tax -- is it applied to people with no income, is it offset by credits like other taxes are, etc. I don't know the answer -- do you?

Why do you say "it's a tax like any other tax?" Is that because it's in the IRCode, or how it's collected, or that any money paid to the govt is a tax?

I don't know much more than I've said and I haven't even bothered to find an informed blogger. I read around, and I've never seen a "it's not a tax" argument that turns on anything other that what the White House calls it. In other words, all of the "it's not a tax" arguments I've seen are for political, not legal consumption. If there is a good legal argument based on the statute itself that this is not a tax (in a constitutional sense, because the word "penalty" may well mean something specifically under tax law), I'm open to it.

I do think the whole tax thing is beside the point, because I think this is clearly permitted under the Commerce Clause. The Supreme Court may well decide that it's not, as Hank tell us, but if so it will be because it's the result they want to reach.

For the most part, I agree. I have not once said that how the Executive Branch describes the law is relevant.

However, I also think that how the law is framed by the statute matters. One can say "this law phrased this way doesn't behave any differently than a law that might have been phrased a different way," but one would have a hell of a time guaranteeing that this would, in fact, be true in all situations forevermore. Statutory language matters.

2

I think the "personal liberty" huff is greatly overstated, but I do see the point and don't dismiss it as easily as you do.

Honestly, I don't take particular offense at the notion of someone saying "I dislike this law on policy grounds, therefore I'm going to find a way to call it unconstitutional." Shit, I do that all the time, I just use statutes or caselaw or the contract or what have you to find a basis to attack whatever thing my client doesn't like -- and I don't put the Constitution on some pedestal that doesn't allow me to do that. And many people on the left have long done the same, and God bless them for it.

I don't take offense at it (umbrage, maybe, but not offense), but what's the point in talking to such people. The conversation here is interesting when people say what they really think, and because people have different views, not when people just say whatever shit serves their clients' interests. If you take a completely instrumental approach to constitutional interpretation (not saying you do), you may be smart and nice, but what's the point in having a conversation with you about the topic?

On the personal liberty point, I read that a Democrat from Oregon (I think) just proposed to change HCR so that you can opt out of the individual mandate if you irrevocably renounce your right to use the public insurance exchanges, enroll in Medicaid or Medicare, or discharge medical debt through bankruptcy. I could be OK with that, much as I shudder at the prospect of having to step past elderly conservatives panhandling to cover their medical bills.

Recall, after all, that the individual mandate was a Republican idea, intended to make private insurance markets work, to forestall single-payer. If President Romney had passed HCR with a GOP Congress with an individual mandate, no one would be arguing that it was unconstitutional and a gross usurption of individual liberties. Conservatives would be saying it was great, and we all need to exercise personal responsibility. The whole thing is just part of the larger conservative hysteria about Obama's march to socialism.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by LessinSF

Sidd's point of whether the penalty applies to people with zero income is important.

It doesn't.

If it does, then the government can keep sticking people with "penalties" for not doing things, purchasing things, etc., and enforce it under the tax code with prison time.

Oh! Another fun slope to slide on!

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

On the personal liberty point, I read that a Democrat from Oregon (I think) just proposed to change HCR so that you can opt out of the individual mandate if you irrevocably renounce your right to use the public insurance exchanges, enroll in Medicaid or Medicare, or discharge medical debt through bankruptcy. I could be OK with that, much as I shudder at the prospect of having to step past elderly conservatives panhandling to cover their medical bills.

I'd consider it, but as I said the other day, I don't know what it will do to the numbers.

Also, I'd shudder more at the prospect of stepping past those who are short sighted and stupid, but not necessarily conservative.

And as I think about it, more, I guess I'm not okay with that. I think LOTS of people would take that deal without understanding what it really means.

If President Romney had passed HCR with a GOP Congress with an individual mandate, no one would be arguing that it was unconstitutional and a gross usurption of individual liberties.

Not literally true, but I don't think elected republics would be falling over themselves to raise the arguments in court.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

On the personal liberty point, I read that a Democrat from Oregon (I think) just proposed to change HCR so that you can opt out of the individual mandate if you irrevocably renounce your right to use the public insurance exchanges, enroll in Medicaid or Medicare, or discharge medical debt through bankruptcy. I could be OK with that, much as I shudder at the prospect of having to step past elderly conservatives panhandling to cover their medical bills.

This works for me.

I would actually impose some of the same restrictions on anyone joining the Tea Party, but realize there could be constitutional issue with that.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally Posted by Adder

I'd consider it, but as I said the other day, I don't know what it will do to the numbers.

Also, I'd shudder more at the prospect of stepping past those who are short sighted and stupid, but not necessarily conservative.

And as I think about it, more, I guess I'm not okay with that. I think LOTS of people would take that deal without understanding what it really means.

More stupid people would die. At last, government promotes natural selection.