Return to the Hot Topics Forum | Post a Follow-Up

 o
Did Justice Roberts 'Do good?'

Posted by nikoleta (My Page) on
Fri, Jun 29, 12 at 11:16

He "did good" according to a conservative analysis of the ruling. The emerging train of thought celebrates Roberts's majority putting limits on how our electeds may use the "Commerce Clause" to compel certain behavior.

Democrats still own Obamacare, it's still unpopular with the majority, and now Democrats own the massive tax increase they forced upon the middle class all by themselves. The SCOTUS holding Dems accountable for raising our taxes(when they repeatedly lied and said the Obamacare mandate wasn't a tax) works for me.

FTA: "There is now a formal United States Supreme Court opinion on the books, overdue by nearly a century, holding that the federal government may not wield the Commerce Clause to impose on American citizens the obligation to buy health insurance or anything else we do not want. An American cannot be compelled by federal mandate to eat or even to buy a proverbial stalk of broccoli. As a kosher consumer, the federal government cannot wield that clause to impose on me an obligation to purchase non-kosher food supplements. The rules guiding lower-court wrestling matches over federal power to invade Americans' private lives now have been reset remarkably by Chief Justice Roberts. Few today notice what he has done. Long after many of us are gone, this 5-4 opinion finally setting limits on the reach of the Commerce Clause will continue to affect American lives and protect private citizens from Washington's intrusions."

The writer goes on to say that those of us who aren't law school grads can be excused for not immediately recognizing what Roberts did for us with the majority opinion.

Turns out Democrats DID have the constitutional right to shove Obamacare and their massive tax increase down our throats!

And I can happily live with that.

Because public anger over having Obamacare shoved down their throats was what election 2010 was all about. There's plenty more on tap for Democrats and their little top-down dictatorship where 2010 came from.

Can't wait for Dems to deny Obama ever lied. As if he never promised folks making less than $250,000 he wasn't going to raise their taxes.

I'm off to donate a little cash to Mitt Romney. I forget... how many millions did he rake in after yesterday's ruling? LOL!

Congratulations, Democrats. You won again!!!

See ya'all at the polls.

Here is a link that might be useful: Commerce Clause Restricted


Follow-Up Postings:

 o
RE: Did Justice Roberts 'Do good?'

Yes, he did good.

Romney might win this election and be our President for 4-8 years, but though his time will pass, health care reform is forever!

Yep, he did good.


 o
RE: Did Justice Roberts 'Do good?'

Nice spin and yes loling that your donating to Mitt who agrees with most of "Obamacare", well let us just say he is it's Daddy and made the case himself for the individual mandate. The only thing he now doesn't agree with is how to pay for it...nice responsibility! All the goodies but no work.


 o
RE: Did Justice Roberts 'Do good?'

Yes he did good. Regardless of what happens from this day forward. President Obama's legacy will be he accomplished what other Presidents before him could not accomplish.

Just as other laws have been fined tuned and made great so will this, his name will be on people's lips long after he is gone. They will say Obama Cared.


 o
RE: Did Justice Roberts 'Do good?'

"Truth is the daughter of time" did he do well? By his job description & professions standards he probably did.
Did he do something a portion of the population approves of & another portion disapproves of we still have yahoos screaming about the evils of Social Security so the question is partisan & time bound. Yester-years miracles social safety net miracles are decried as communism & slavery by some people. The howling on the right is pathetic at best & enjoyable as a partisan.
I was gratified to see a good number of part time co workers
happy that they would be able to get some kind of insurance.
Now to find doctors who will accept it. I can imagine a whole new slew of walk in medical mills being created by this.


 o
RE: Did Justice Roberts 'Do good?'

He ruled according to established law and the Constitution. That is what Supreme Court Justices are supposed to do.

I find it odd that this decision is viewed as the SCOTUS doing good and the Arizona issue as the SCOTUS doing bad.

Facts are in both cases the Supreme Court held in favour of the Federal Government and their authorities under the Constitution.


 o
RE: Did Justice Roberts 'Do good?'

  • Posted by vgkg 7-Va Tidewater (My Page) on
    Fri, Jun 29, 12 at 12:57

A few years ago republicans liked the notion of the down trodden taking on the responsibility of paying their own way concerning personal health matters (and everything else). But since they labeled this issue as "Obamacare" it's no longer a good idea. Robert's seems to like it more than he likes what he sees going on with the neorepubs.


 o
RE: Did Justice Roberts 'Do good?'

It is spelled "y'all".

See you at the polls? Yeah, bring it.


 o
RE: Did Justice Roberts 'Do good?'

Of course he did good, because he did his job.


 o
RE: Did Justice Roberts 'Do good?'

Because public anger over having Obamacare shoved down their throats was what election 2010 was all about. There's plenty more on tap for Democrats and their little top-down dictatorship where 2010 came from.

Well, according to latest Gallup poll, Americans are evenly divided on the ruling. I wouldn't call evenly divided "public anger".

From TPM:
A snap poll from Gallup shows Americans are evenly split on the Supreme Court's ruling on President Obama's signature legislative accomplishment, the 2010 Affordable Care Act. Forty-six percent said the Court made the right decision, while 46 percent said the disagreed with it. Indpendent voters were mostly likely to agree with the result by a small margin, 45 percent to 42 perecent.

I have no idea what will happen in November. I certainly am not going to make any definitive statements about the outcome. Oh, you know, like many Republicans did on this very board about how SCOTUS will overturn the healthcare act. Well, you got that completely wrong.

Here is a link that might be useful: Source


 o
RE: Did Justice Roberts 'Do good?'

>> I was gratified to see a good number of part time co workers
happy that they would be able to get some kind of insurance.
Now to find doctors who will accept it. I can imagine a whole new slew of walk in medical mills being created by this.<<

Labrea,
why are you worried that finding a Dr. that will take this needs to be a reality?

It won't be. For the majority of folks, working stiffs, part timers, etc. There will be copayments, tiered drug choices..

This will be exactly like health insurance offered through employers, if those plans, like most nowadays, require copays. And your Dr's office will accept it. Your coworkers healthplan card will most likely have a familiar name on it... Blue Cross, etc... whatever you see in your state offered through employers will be offered to your coworkers.


Your coworkers will choose a plan through a health exchange set up to walk people through this.. there will be a list of health plans just like you see when employees go through an end of year open enrollment period.
Many choices, many different pay plans.

I know I'm simplifying this... but really, it isn't complicated at all.

Want to see your PCP pay a copay at the desk at sign in. Need to see a specialist? Just get a referral from your Doc and make the appointment, or your Doc will do it.

Some will pay nothing... if they are 100% subsidized.. but most will pay a monthly premium on top of the copays for whatever plan they choose. The drugs have a cap for out of pocket expenses..

Really, this is a very good thing. Better than most think but not Universal single payer.. we'll get there, I believe.

And these whiners can scream all they want... lots of good, hardworking people, people who have worked all of their lives will get a chance for help. Because, let's face it... there are very few who can pay 10,000 deductibles.

You are right, I fear, about the quick Dr. mills sprouting.. but that will largely be based on the particular State's tolerance for taking advantage of its citizens... in lots of States nothing will have changed. In Florida these mills will be done with the Guv's blessing.. don't forget he has profited, to the extreme, from this very type of thing. It makes me sick.

Not to mention that the level of care received at these joints is appalling .. you will feel like Yogi Berra with a very bad case of Deja Vu all Over Again everywhere you go through out the clinic. Yup, the receptionist is the lab tech, she's also the medical assistant, the X-ray tech, too.
She's the Nurse, too.. can give injections... no need to be an RN, not even an LPN.

She does all this for about 8 bucks an hour... maybe 10.

That is the REPUGS idea of healthcare!!

Sea


 o
RE: Did Justice Roberts 'Do good?'

I say it because 2 of my doctors have dropped some carriers they used to accept.


 o
RE: Did Justice Roberts 'Do good?'

According to some twirps Roberts did it because he has epilepsy can you believe this crap?

Here is a link that might be useful: Cognition


 o
RE: Did Justice Roberts 'Do good?'

Roberts did his job, which is also the SC's job, and that is to give the benefit of the doubt to Congress and to provide stability in Constitutional interpretations.

Also, he let it be known that this is essentially a tax because Congress does not have the power to regulate people into activity, which most of us knew before, but at least it has been categorized appropriately.

What else would you call it when you have to pay hundreds per month out of your pocket that you didn't have to pay before all because of a new law? The IRS will be charged with verifying your insurance status, assessing and collecting penalties, garnisheeing your paycheck or unemployment check for penalties if necessary, etc.


 o
RE: Did Justice Roberts 'Do good?'

That's the biggest crock I've ever read but coming from Michael Savage, a real life sociopath, it's not surprising. I think the Chief Justice saw how right wing his court was leaning and decided the Tea party crowd with it's limited intelligence was going to bring his GOP down.


 o
RE: Did Justice Roberts 'Do good?'

The jobs of Supreme Court judges are to apply the Constitution and review laws for their constitutionality.

I know it's hard to believe, but I doubt the judges are as political/emotional as most of us, primarily because they have to justify their opinions and they spend years training in their discipline. They arrive at their opinions independently, then go back and forth with each other over weeks or months. It's hardly a sudden emotional reaction.

They are far more deliberative than most of us. I don't think any of the judges were out to satisfy a political balancing act. That's just wishful thinking.


 o
RE: Did Justice Roberts 'Do good?'

Justice Roberts is the only one of the nine justices that called the penalty a tax even though the language of the act makes it pretty clear that the penalty isn't a tax.

If I remember correctly, don't all tax bills have to originate in the House of Representatives? Didn't Obamacare originate in the Senate? If I am correct, where does this leave Obamacare?


 o
RE: Did Justice Roberts 'Do good?'

There is more to this decision that bothers me.

The government can't charge you a penalty if you don't buy something from a private company but they can assess a tax if you don't buy something from a private company. Bottom line is you still have to buy something from a private company to avoid paying extra money to the government.


 o
RE: Did Justice Roberts 'Do good?'

Posted by jlhug (My Page) on Sat, Jun 30, 12 at 9:37

"There is more to this decision that bothers me.
The government can't charge you a penalty if you don't buy something from a private company but they can assess a tax if you don't buy something from a private company. Bottom line is you still have to buy something from a private company to avoid paying extra money to the government."

Good point. Always follow the money.


 o
RE: Did Justice Roberts 'Do good?'

Universal payer system is closer in our future.


 o
RE: Did Justice Roberts 'Do good?'

Exactly, Marshall.

Rejoice!

We all will be so much better for universal health care coverage too, after it is in effect for five or six years and those conservatives who walked the razor's edge when it comes to affording health care coverage but still opposed it for who knows what rational reason - all this rancor over the very idea will be but a dim memory.

Long after Obama, the entire list of candidates for the GOP this year, whoever wins the election in Nov ....... President Obama will be remembered and admired in history for toughing out the extreme opposition with the design and creation of the initial step of real health care reform - an incredibly historically important and monumental moment in his Presidency.

Conservative Presidents of the past could have basked in this historical moment in our history, but they didn't address the issue so they won't reap the glory. It's that simple.

Perhaps the next conservative president will show real courage and address the education problem we have in this nation. Imagine, if he designed a viable education reform which benefitted all our children, as will this first step in health care reform. History books would indeed be very good to him should he show that courage.

As they will be for the current President for the courage he displayed in this health care reform - from it's inception to it's declared legality.

If the gods smile upon this nation once again, and after the January swearing in, we address President Obama rather than President Romney, then hopefully Obama will be able to pass the second step of health care reform before leaving office.

No, it wasn't the dream we all wanted right from the starting gate because the conservative opposition would not allow for that plan - yes, it was a plan designed which would be able to be passed the Congress by majority vote - and thus, the first step in universal health care which will benefit everyone in the nation.

Rejoice!


 o
RE: Did Justice Roberts 'Do good?'

Still wondering two things

From this thread - why does changing the name of the fee charged for not buying health insurance from a private company from penalty to tax make forcing people to buy insurance from a private company not a violation of the commerce clause? Bottom line - people will still be forced to buy something from a private company or pat a tax/penalty/fine.

I asked on another thread if anyone could name a tax that they or anyone else is subject to because they didn't do something or buy something. No one answered. I assume no one can think of one.

I'm not opposed to single payer health care. I do think Justice Roberts's decision is based on some pretty weird logic.


 o
RE: Did Justice Roberts 'Do good?'

jhug, I thought, but could very well be wrong, that there were some federal penalties involved if you don't buy flood insurance in certain regions. As I said I may be wrong but my neighbour recently bought property in the States and she told me they were required to buy flood insurance. I guess I'm just assuming if you are required there must be some sort of penalty if you don't.


 o
RE: Did Justice Roberts 'Do good?'

Posted by chase z6 (My Page) on Sat, Jun 30, 12 at 15:00

"jhug, I thought, but could very well be wrong, that there were some federal penalties involved if you don't buy flood insurance in certain regions. As I said I may be wrong but my neighbour recently bought property in the States and she told me they were required to buy flood insurance. I guess I'm just assuming if you are required there must be some sort of penalty if you don't."
________________________

About Federal Flood Insurance
Over $11.6 billion in flood damage covered since 1978
By Robert Longley, About.com Guide

Is Flood Insurance Required by Law?

"In order to get secured financing to buy, build, or improve structures located in Special Flood Hazard Areas (SFHA's) you will be required to purchase flood insurance. Federally regulated lenders are required by law to determine if the structure is located in a SFHA and must provide the buyer with written notice that flood insurance will be required. In other words, for properties located in Special Flood Hazard Areas, no flood insurance, no loan."


 o
RE: Did Justice Roberts 'Do good?'

Chase, elvis' information is correct. If you own your home without a mortgage and don't have flood insurance, then you are on your own if your house is damaged by a flood. Homeowner's insurance policies exclude floods, earthquakes, etc. from covered events.

You have a choice of whether or not you want to buy in a designated flood hazard area. If you don't want to buy flood insurance and want to own that house, you pay cash for the house. There is no penalty or fine for not buying flood insurance.

I'm not in an area that requires flood insurance but I throw a baseball (well someone with a good arm could) into the river. We have flood insurance even though it's not required.


 o
RE: Did Justice Roberts 'Do good?'

"If I remember correctly, don't all tax bills have to originate in the House of Representatives? Didn't Obamacare originate in the Senate? If I am correct, where does this leave Obamacare?"

The more time folks have think about the ruling, the more questions like yours seem to be coming up. Your challenge to "name a tax that they or anyone else is subject to because they didn't do something or buy something" has me stumped.

Roberts recast an argument the Dems didn't make into an argument he would have supported if it they had made it.

Then he went on to "uphold" the fantasized argument (playing nowhere but in his own head) as if Democrats had actually argued such a thing. The fact that Dems argued the OPPOSITE (the mandate is NOT a tax) of what Roberts "upheld" (the mandate IS a tax and therefore constitutional) sounds like something straight out of The Twilight Zone.



 o
RE: Did Justice Roberts 'Do good?'

Your challenge to "name a tax that they or anyone else is subject to because they didn't do something or buy something" has me stumped.

Didn't someone bring up school taxes as an example elsewhere? People that don't have kids still pay a designated tax for schools in many areas.


 o
RE: Did Justice Roberts 'Do good?'

Posted by jlhug (My Page) on Sat, Jun 30, 12 at 15:21

"Chase, elvis' information is correct. If you own your home without a mortgage and don't have flood insurance, then you are on your own if your house is damaged by a flood. Homeowner's insurance policies exclude floods, earthquakes, etc. from covered events.
You have a choice of whether or not you want to buy in a designated flood hazard area. If you don't want to buy flood insurance and want to own that house, you pay cash for the house. There is no penalty or fine for not buying flood insurance."

Thanks for settin' me straight, JL. :-D



 o
RE: Did Justice Roberts 'Do good?'

"You have a choice of whether or not you want to buy in a designated flood hazard area. If you don't want to buy flood insurance and want to own that house, you pay cash for the house. There is no penalty or fine for not buying flood insurance."

There are some places that even the feds won't cover with flood insurance, which was a surprise to me. We were looking at places in Florida and there was an interesting home - I forget where exactly, but in the panhandle near the gulf -- where the sellers came out and said the house did not qualify for federal flood insurance.


 o
RE: Did Justice Roberts 'Do good?'

Banks often will not make ag loans without the farmer purchasing Federal crop insurance. Sounds like a tax to me as a form of protection against loss for the banks.


 o
RE: Did Justice Roberts 'Do good?'

You pay a tax for choosing to own property--the fact that school costs are partially paid for with property taxes doesn't have anything to do with your choice to own property. Do any of you purchase property for no reason other than to pay school taxes?

Even if you did, and that seems highly unlikely, it would still be your CHOICE to purchase property.

You should not have to be forced to buy a product or service you do not want or need, and if you do not, be TAXED just because you exist.

In that case you have not subjected yourself to own or control something that can be subject to tax. You have made no choice to do anything. You just exist and now the federal government intends to tax you for that if you do not purchase a service they say you need, but you may in fact not need, and even if you did, it's your business to make the purchase or not.

That is the difference and very, very important DISTINCTION.


 o
RE: Did Justice Roberts 'Do good?'

Lionheart, communities have to participate in the National Flood Insurance Program before a house can be covered. I wonder if house in Florida was in a community that didn't participate.


 o
RE: Did Justice Roberts 'Do good?'

You pay a tax for choosing to own property--the fact that school costs are partially paid for with property taxes doesn't have anything to do with your choice to own property. Do any of you purchase property for no reason other than to pay school taxes?

School tax is clearly spelled out separately with its own millage rate. It is not tucked into your bigger tax and separated out later. In fact, seniors (over 65, I think) are exempted from the school tax in my county and others in Georgia.

So yes, while you do have to pay county/city tax if you own property, not everyone has to pay school tax. But if you are under 65 and don't have children, you are one of the folks that DO have to pay school tax.

Spin it all you want demi, school tax in Georgia is a perfect example of paying taxes for something you don't necessarily want to have or even need.


 o
RE: Did Justice Roberts 'Do good?'

School tax is not a separate line item on any of my real estate tax bills.

The school tax isn't a tax one pays because one doesn't do something. You pay a school tax because you own property.

I'm still searching for a tax that one must pay as a result of not doing something. I can think of a gazillion penalties but no taxes.


 o
RE: Did Justice Roberts 'Do good?'

As I said earlier, it doesn't matter to me WHAT you call it. It is the Supreme Court that decided it could be "called" a tax. I agree, it is much more of a penalty.


 o
RE: Did Justice Roberts 'Do good?'

And if it is penalty, then the mandate fails the commerce clause.

And, one more time for the record, I am not against a single payer health care insurance plan.


 o
RE: Did Justice Roberts 'Do good?'

The estimate is that less than 1% will end up paying the penalty/tax/fine for not getting insurance. Hardly a "massive tax increase they forced upon the middle class," as the OP claimed in the first post. And I'd bet most of the 1 percenters will not be even middle class.

So penalties are handled under tax law. So what?

Kate


 o
RE: Did Justice Roberts 'Do good?'

"You pay a school tax because you own property."

Not everybody was able to sort that out.

Folks who can easily be convinced they are being taxed for not having chIlldren, and completely miss that no, they are being taxed because they own property, are surely at the top of every Obamacare propagandist's list.

Thank you for your clear thinking and professional perspective, jlhug. It is very helpful to have someone here who has the background and education to help the rest of us understand where we are and how we got here. And why Obamacare might not be the best solution for the uninsured, the taxpayers, or the majority of Americans who have no need for government to enmesh itself in their lives.


 o
RE: Did Justice Roberts 'Do good?'

Too late, Nika.


 o
RE: Did Justice Roberts 'Do good?'

Here in New York, where much of the property tax levy is eaten up by a single unfunded state mandate - Medicaid, I have to wonder what's going to happen in many of our poor and low income cities as more people qualify for Medicaid.

Our tax rates in the poor cities are already among some of the highest in the nation due to unfunded state mandates and growing poor and low income populations.

It will be interesting to watch the unintended consequences as they unfold.


 o
RE: Did Justice Roberts 'Do good?'

a single-payer system


 o
RE: Did Justice Roberts 'Do good?'

The Republicans should have actively participated in the creation of the law - perhaps then everyone could be a little happier with it. But they were determined to not participate and this is what happens. Say what you will, but if you are not happy with this, a healthy part of your blame should be directed to your own representatives for not representing you.


 o
RE: Did Justice Roberts 'Do good?'

I'm still searching for a tax that one must pay as a result of not doing something. I can think of a gazillion penalties but no taxes.

The entire Tax system is penalty based on what you do and not do.

Taxed higher for being single = penalty for not being married
Taxed higher for not having children = penalty for not having children

We could go on and on. If we had a flat tax and now we have to pay more because we do not buy insurance then it could be said there is a penalty. But since our entire tax system is what you do and don't do dictates your tax liability ..."well the rest is history"

The new tax liability is if you do not have health insurance you have to pay higher taxes.

If it makes you feel better say just as I do not want to have children to pay a lower tax then it is the same as you do not want health insurance so you pay higher taxes.

Nobody said you have to have children but you have to pay higher taxes because you do not choose to have children.

The Supreme Court is aware of the Tax system as a penalty base system.


 o
RE: Did Justice Roberts 'Do good?'

I agree with Marquest. Tax deductions for some are actually tax penalties for others it is by default a tax penalty system.


 o
RE: Did Justice Roberts 'Do good?'

Posted by esh_ga z7 GA (My Page) on
Sun, Jul 1, 12 at 16:43

Spin it all you want demi, school tax in Georgia is a perfect example of paying taxes for something you don't necessarily want to have or even need.


Posted by nikoleta (My Page) on
Mon, Jul 2, 12 at 10:08

"You pay a school tax because you own property."

Not everybody was able to sort that out.

*

Apparently, Nicoleta, Esh hasn't figured this out yet, considering the comment accusing me of spin.

It's a basic legal point--as I clearly, and simply explained. It's not about what you don't want or don't need, the point is that this tax from the health care bill is for only existing.

School taxes, whether you "need" them for your children or grandchildren or not, exist in the form of property tax BECAUSE YOU CHOSE TO BUY PROPERTY.

Sorry you don't get it, Esh.


 o
RE: Did Justice Roberts 'Do good?'

Ha! Sorry you think so.


 o
RE: Did Justice Roberts 'Do good?'

Congratulations, Democrats. You won again!!!

See. This is the problem. For some, it's become a game that you either win or lose.

-Ron-


 o
!RE: Did Justice Roberts 'Do good?'

Oops, hit the button too soon.

Did you read what I wrote about the fact that Seniors over 65 are exempted from the school tax? So we have people that own property that are NOT paying the school tax.

How can that be?


 o
RE: Did Justice Roberts 'Do good?'

I understand your point, Marquest. Everything you mention affects your taxable income upon which your income tax is based. There are other taxes such as self employment tax and Schedule H (nanny tax) that are calculated on the 1040 that are additional taxes over and beyond the tax based on taxable income. It is my understanding that this will be a separate tax in addition to one's regular income tax.

One of the problems with being a tax nerd is thinking that everyone understands the tax "jargon" the same way I do. My question was poorly worded as a result. I was and still am trying to come up with a tax that is over and above the tax based on income that we pay because we fail to do something - a tax that is a single line item tax in the "other taxes" section of a 1040.
Anyway, I'm tired of beating a dead horse. And just to re-affirm, I do believe we need a single payer system.


 o
RE: Did Justice Roberts 'Do good?'

"Did you read what I wrote about the fact that Seniors over 65 are exempted from the school tax? So we have people that own property that are NOT paying the school tax."

I read it, but I have no idea what it has to do with this discussion. Jlhug asked for an example of being taxed for an action not taken.


 o
RE: Did Justice Roberts 'Do good?'

Even Mitt Romney's spokesperson Eric Fehrnstrom (the Etch a Sketch dude) insists that it's a penalty not a tax. I guess they have a load of fancy dancing to do.

Here is a link that might be useful: penalty


 o
RE: Did Justice Roberts 'Do good?'

Posted by nikoleta (My Page) on
Mon, Jul 2, 12 at 10:08

"You pay a school tax because you own property."

Not necessarily. Certain people are exempt.


 o
RE: Did Justice Roberts 'Do good?'

You can test your knowledge of the ACA by taking this ten-question test devised by the Kaiser Foundation. I got all ten right - as opposed to 99.6% of the test takers who didn't.

Here is a link that might be useful: Do you know what the bill actually says?


 o
RE: Did Justice Roberts 'Do good?'

He!! I'm not even American, don't live in the States and I got all ten right...I cannot believe that the majority of Americans would not know those very basic and simple provisions. It's not even the complicated part!


 o
RE: Did Justice Roberts 'Do good?'

Well, I guess I'm going to come out and comment after all:

Regarding Justice Roberts' opinion:

What he wrote is his opinion on how he came to agree with the majority, but he did not write the majority opinion; therefore, his written opinion regarding the Commerce Clause is considered "dicta" - authoritative, but non-binding. Furthermore, if you remove his opinion on the Commerce Clause, his finding still stands; therefore, it was not needed for him to come to the conclusion that he did.


 o
RE: Did Justice Roberts 'Do good?'

Posted by esh_ga z7 GA (My Page) on Mon, Jul 2, 12 at 16:42

Posted by nikoleta (My Page) on
Mon, Jul 2, 12 at 10:08
"You pay a school tax because you own property."

Not necessarily. Certain people are exempt.

___________________

Incorrect, esh.

Varies state by state, by income level, by property value, & other factors.


 o
RE: Did Justice Roberts 'Do good?'

Posted by esh_ga z7 GA (My Page) on Mon, Jul 2, 12 at 16:42
"Not necessarily. Certain people are exempt."

So what? In your mind, is a senior being exempt from a tax an example of being taxed for NOT doing something? Help me out here.


 o
RE: Did Justice Roberts 'Do good?'

I'm saying that is still a valid point that there are some taxes that people pay and others in the same circumstance are exempt from.


 o
RE: Did Justice Roberts 'Do good?'

Posted by dockside (My Page) on Mon, Jul 2, 12 at 17:34

"You can test your knowledge of the ACA by taking this ten-question test devised by the Kaiser Foundation. I got all ten right - as opposed to 99.6% of the test takers who didn't."

9 out of 10 here. But! I haven't finished reading the whole thing yet. I keep thinking that as soon as I finish, it will change and that will be a waste of my time.

________________________


 o
RE: Did Justice Roberts 'Do good?'

I did get a 10/10. I did not expect to, but some of the questions seemed to be a bit leading .


 o
RE: Did Justice Roberts 'Do good?'

My results.

You answered 10 out of 10 questions correctly, better than 99.6% of Americans.


 o
RE: Did Justice Roberts 'Do good?'

Yes--a pretty tough test (laughing but not out loud) ;)


 o
RE: Did Justice Roberts 'Do good?'

One of the problems with being a tax nerd is thinking that everyone understands the tax "jargon" the same way I do. My question was poorly worded as a result. I was and still am trying to come up with a tax that is over and above the tax based on income that we pay because we fail to do something - a tax that is a single line item tax in the "other taxes" section of a 1040.

Anyway, I'm tired of beating a dead horse. And just to re-affirm, I do believe we need a single payer system.

jlhug , I understood what you are saying. Taxes have put the food on my table and roof over my head for 40+ years. The tax code and it workings are not as simple as a line item.

I had 3 volumes of Tax code books and got updates to the codes every month to add to those volumes. Each volume had over 1000 tissue thin pages. With the smallest print imaginable. Taxes are broad and extremely intricate.

I agree Single payer would have been the ticket but that was tried and it did not fly. I am happy the first step has happened. It can now be improved.

We will get that single payer eventually. It will be a lot of kicking and screaming because the insurance co are paying the politicians to tell people they do not want it but there are enough people in the US that can read and I believe it will happen. Just have to work to get Obama re-elected


 o
RE: Did Justice Roberts 'Do good?'

The ruling didn't technical say it was a tax. It said it fell under the taxing authority granted by congress by the constitution. The penalty falls to the IRS for collection. At the end of the day, does it matter? The fact is the GOP is telling a complete lie saying this is the biggest tax increase of the middle class in the history of the world.

I got 9 out of 10.


 o
RE: Did Justice Roberts 'Do good?'

"In your mind, is a senior being exempt from a tax an example of being taxed for NOT doing something?"

"I'm saying that is still a valid point that there are some taxes that people pay and others in the same circumstance are exempt from."

For example...?


 o
RE: Did Justice Roberts 'Do good?'

Maggie, the tricky one was the Business. If I was not recently retired I probably would have missed that one.


 o
RE: Did Justice Roberts 'Do good?'

  • Posted by ohiomom 3rdrockfromthesun (My Page) on
    Tue, Jul 3, 12 at 8:40

10 out of 10 ... :)


 o
RE: Did Justice Roberts 'Do good?'

For example...?

W T F? That is the example!

And this is my last comment on this.


 o
RE: Did Justice Roberts 'Do good?'

When is a tax not a tax? When Obama says it isn't in speeches. But not when it's argued in front of the Supreme Court by his own solicitor general as a tax. And the audio of that argument to the supreme court is available on the web.

Here is a link that might be useful: link


 o
RE: Did Justice Roberts 'Do good?'

mrs, your candidate says he sees it as a penalty not a tax......so now what?

Here is a link that might be useful: Romney sees it as a penalty NOT a tax


 o
RE: Did Justice Roberts 'Do good?'

"W T F? That is the example!"

That's what I was afraid of.

"And this is my last comment on this."

Good decision. You still haven't figured out why your example doesn't illustrate what you say it does.


 o
RE: Did Justice Roberts 'Do good?'

I just have to come back in to answer your question again, as I rejoice that YES! Justice Roberts did "do good!"

Still rejoicing! It will be an especially great celebratory day tomorrow - because it's a great week to be an American!


 o
RE: Did Justice Roberts 'Do good?'

Nik, why not just explain what you are getting at? It's all a game of " gotcha" to you but very tiresome to the rest of us.....over to you for the last word.


 o
RE: Did Justice Roberts 'Do good?'

"Nik, why not just explain what you are getting at? It's all a game of " gotcha" to you but very tiresome to the rest of us.....over to you for the last word."

Shame on me for trying to understand what esh was saying!

Tiresome? I should have just read her mind and posted what she was thinking. The way you just did to me.

Since you brought it up, what do you think I was "getting at" chase?

Do you think the example esh gave illustrates what she says it does?

I may disagree with esh, but I don't think for a minute she needs me to "explain" anything to her. She has made a simple error, she'll figure it out, and she won't make it again. It's all good.


 o
RE: Did Justice Roberts 'Do good?'

There is no condencending in Nika's family; she has retained the attitude all for herself.

A poor substitute for thoughtful responses.


 o
RE: Did Justice Roberts 'Do good?'

"There is no condencending in Nika's family; she has retained the attitude all for herself.

Wow, Marshall! Personal attacks are the ultimate condescension, and to use your own words, "A poor substitute for thoughtful responses."

What's up?


 o
RE: Did Justice Roberts 'Do good?'

I am overworked and tired, grouchy, and intolerant of gamesmanship. Sorry. Carry on...


 o Post a Follow-Up

Please Note: Only registered members are able to post messages to this forum.

    If you are a member, please log in.

    If you aren't yet a member, join now!


Return to the Hot Topics Forum

Information about Posting

  • You must be logged in to post a message. Once you are logged in, a posting window will appear at the bottom of the messages. If you are not a member, please register for an account.
  • Please review our Rules of Play before posting.
  • Posting is a two-step process. Once you have composed your message, you will be taken to the preview page. You will then have a chance to review your post, make changes and upload photos.
  • After posting your message, you may need to refresh the forum page in order to see it.
  • Before posting copyrighted material, please read about Copyright and Fair Use.
  • We have a strict no-advertising policy!
  • If you would like to practice posting or uploading photos, please visit our Test forum.
  • If you need assistance, please Contact Us and we will be happy to help.


Learn more about in-text links on this page here