Obamacare SCOTUS Ruling: Has there ever been a tax on NOT doing something?

Just thinking about this ruling.

Does anybody know of any tax for NOT doing something?

I can't think of any examples of taxes imposed for NOT doing something.

This could open up an entirely new form of social engineering.

How about a tax on NOT going to the gym? That would be appropriate if we're all going to share the cost of each other's health care.

reply to post by UltimateSkeptic1


I know this much.


These bums need to be thrown out,along with Congress,and the President.

PERIOD.

Never ever heard of such a thing. Here are my suggestions based on obvious agendas like raising diesel prices after getting people to buy diesel cars.

tax for not buying atleast 25 gallons per month of gasoline.
Tax for not having cctv cameras at your house (if someone breaks in the feds will have to pay for your healthcare so they need to find who is responsible to bill them)

Tax for not buying a new car every 3 years.
Tax for not owning a car.
Tax for not having a passport

I'm joining the nonviolent revolution in protest to Obamacare. I refuse to pay taxes to support this unconstitutional mandate.

You should join in. With enough of us, we'll financially cripple this administration. Here is an excellent thread by an ATS member most of you know.

Jean Paul Zodeaux, explains in a way that's easy to understand, what the Supreme Court did today. The opening post is a must read...IMO. www.abovetopsecret.com...

Des

reply to post by phroziac


Sorry but none of these things are equivalent to the health care issue. As was explained, when people don't have health care coverage, they go to the emergency room for primary coverage and then we end up paying for it with increased premiums.

Anyone making under 250K a year will be exempt from this tax, and the tax itself is only 95 dollars a year.

These are just the facts. With a divisive issue like this, it is best to differentiate facts from mythology.

Personally I'd rather have universal health care, but the ACA does do away with insurance companies being able to do deny coverage for pre-existing conditions and it covers children under their parents insurance until age 25. I personally think think this is all very good. The only way it could be better is if we had a universal system.

Regardless, it's another "social issue" to keep the population divided and fighting over.

Originally posted by Destinyone
I'm joining the nonviolent revolution in protest to Obamacare. I refuse to pay taxes to support this unconstitutional mandate.

And this is exactly what I'm referring to in my last comment. No matter what the facts are people buy into their partisan ideologies and myths about something.

It's not unconstitutional and it's not a tax increase. It's also not a mandate. I highly doubt you'd even be required to pay the tax. Those who make less than 250K a year, those who can't afford health insurance, are exempt from the tax. Only about roughly 6% of the population will even be affected by this because most either make less than 250K or already have insurance through their employers.

reply to post by UltimateSkeptic1

They keep reinventing the craziest things.

1696. Got ice (glass/money)? Not quite "doing nothing" but another good example of the evils of non-consensual taxation as a way of taking even more money from an already struggling populace.

Originally posted by UltimateSkeptic1
Just thinking about this ruling.

Does anybody know of any tax for NOT doing something?

I can't think of any examples of taxes imposed for NOT doing something.

This could open up an entirely new form of social engineering.

How about a tax on NOT going to the gym? That would be appropriate if we're all going to share the cost of each other's health care.

Its basically just another social program called health care. Seriously, health care doesn't hurt people.

The penalty for not buying in (which you are branding a tax) is there for wealthy right wingers who have enough money to get the best insurance on the market and are too damned selfish to help thirty million of their fellow Americans get their teeth fixed.

reply to post by UltimateSkeptic1


Not that Im aware of. In all my years I would never have thought that my country would levy a tax against me as a punishment for NOT buying something

reply to post by Juggernog


Do you make less than 250K and/or have your own insurance from the company you work for? If yes to either then you won't have to purchase health care or be taxed.

Originally posted by shaluach
reply to post by Juggernog

 

Do you make less than 250K and/or have your own insurance from the company you work for? If yes to either then you won't have to purchase health care or be taxed.

Your replies have nothing to do with the topic of this thread. This is not a debate on the merits, or lack thereof, of Obamacare.

Judge Roberts' ruling was based on the premise that the ACA mandate is actually a tax, and that Congress has powers to tax.

The topic of this thread is simple: do you know of any other taxes levied on people for NOT doing something?

This is not a big deal to undo. Its more simple than people think. The republicans will just out new laws in place over time to give Americans the tax exemption and the republicans will look like heroes over time. Every law can be amended and undone with other laws, making them null. It takes time, but this will be undone.

reply to post by TWISTEDWORDS


Yep and that's American politics for ya. It's not about what's good for people, or even what's bad for people. It's all about partisan politics and loopholes and crap like that.

Originally posted by shaluach
reply to post by phroziac

 

Sorry but none of these things are equivalent to the health care issue. As was explained, when people don't have health care coverage, they go to the emergency room for primary coverage and then we end up paying for it with increased premiums.

Anyone making under 250K a year will be exempt from this tax, and the tax itself is only 95 dollars a year.

These are just the facts. With a divisive issue like this, it is best to differentiate facts from mythology.

Personally I'd rather have universal health care, but the ACA does do away with insurance companies being able to do deny coverage for pre-existing conditions and it covers children under their parents insurance until age 25. I personally think think this is all very good. The only way it could be better is if we had a universal system.

Regardless, it's another "social issue" to keep the population divided and fighting over.

What you have repeated, quite well, are the talking points. First, what hospitals have closed down due to this horrible non insured usage?

Why are companies building more hospitals if the process is so terrible?

Why do doctors, almost to a man, hate our current system?

Why is your health, my problem, and forget about the talking points, simply ask the question, why is your health my problem, or if you like, why is my health your problem?

If I never use a doctor, why is it your problem? If none of the "healthcare" I use is covered, what am I paying for?

Finally, what is insurance? What has been passed is not a health plan - like prepaid visits in case you need it, or group discounts. It is INSURANCE, which, by definition is NOT a health plan, but a profit center based on the idea that companies can WITHHOLD coverage to enough people to make a PROFIT. Insurance companies are in the business of NOT covering people, they are not the sisters of mercy, but the corporation of profit by taking in more then they spend. The government, is a corporation, which works the same way, it is NOT in its best interest to PAY claims, but it is in its best interest to DENY claims as much as possible and for as long as possible.

Now, the real point. After the crises of 2008, the banks were bailed out by printing money which devalued the dollar under the guise that we must. GM and a handful of other companies were bailed out because we must. Government contractors making killing materials to be used against all of human kind were rewarded with huge increases in contracts because we must. But one industry was left out........ Insurance companies.

AIG was bailed out, sort of, because they could not cover their bets and the bets were owed to foreign entities whose collection tactics would be a problem. There was only room for one bailout and money printing was not an option for insurance, and contracts are not awarded for insurance companies. The insurance companies are exposed big time in the derivative world - you can thank America's Sweetheart Warren Buffet for that - yes the Sage isn't really Sage but America's grim reaper.

So, how to we "bail out" the insurance companies if we can't print money, can't award contracts and can't keep covering their bets. Make it mandatory that the tax payer cover their bets. And that is what you are doing with this.

Now, the beauty of all of this is it will all collapse prior to this being enacted, so collection will be not be an issue. The ponzi scheme that is fiat currency will implode well before the health insurance bailout comes to fruition, as the bets put on Greece and Spain cannot be covered if they default and leave the Euro. This will be too little too late.

reply to post by crankyoldman


No, what I repeated are facts

What does the Supreme Court's health-care ruling mean for me?

Originally posted by UltimateSkeptic1

Originally posted by shaluach
reply to post by Juggernog

 

Do you make less than 250K and/or have your own insurance from the company you work for? If yes to either then you won't have to purchase health care or be taxed.

Your replies have nothing to do with the topic of this thread. This is not a debate on the merits, or lack thereof, of Obamacare.

Judge Roberts' ruling was based on the premise that the ACA mandate is actually a tax, and that Congress has powers to tax.

The topic of this thread is simple: do you know of any other taxes levied on people for NOT doing something?

Congress had the power to tax us on all of the welfare subsidies, unemployment, food stamps, aid to children, even abortion is paid by my tax. Not sure what the big fuss is all about.

Originally posted by g2v12

Originally posted by UltimateSkeptic1

Originally posted by shaluach
reply to post by Juggernog

 

Do you make less than 250K and/or have your own insurance from the company you work for? If yes to either then you won't have to purchase health care or be taxed.

Your replies have nothing to do with the topic of this thread. This is not a debate on the merits, or lack thereof, of Obamacare.

Judge Roberts' ruling was based on the premise that the ACA mandate is actually a tax, and that Congress has powers to tax.

The topic of this thread is simple: do you know of any other taxes levied on people for NOT doing something?

Congress had the power to tax us on all of the welfare subsidies, unemployment, food stamps, aid to children, even abortion is paid by my tax. Not sure what the big fuss is all about.

Those are taxes to subsidize other people's lack of action.

My question still stands: has there ever been an individual tax levied on people for NOT taking some sort of action?

Originally posted by UltimateSkeptic1

Originally posted by g2v12

Originally posted by UltimateSkeptic1

Originally posted by shaluach
reply to post by Juggernog

 

Do you make less than 250K and/or have your own insurance from the company you work for? If yes to either then you won't have to purchase health care or be taxed.

Your replies have nothing to do with the topic of this thread. This is not a debate on the merits, or lack thereof, of Obamacare.

Judge Roberts' ruling was based on the premise that the ACA mandate is actually a tax, and that Congress has powers to tax.

The topic of this thread is simple: do you know of any other taxes levied on people for NOT doing something?

Congress had the power to tax us on all of the welfare subsidies, unemployment, food stamps, aid to children, even abortion is paid by my tax. Not sure what the big fuss is all about.

Those are taxes to subsidize other people's lack of action.

My question still stands: has there ever been an individual tax levied on people for NOT taking some sort of action?

If it serves the purpose of social equilibrium, why does it matter?

Without the balance of socialism, capitalism would revert to the days of African slave trading and cotton fields.

reply to post by g2v12


yOU ARE A SLAVE ALREADY, HAVEN'T YOU FIGURED THIS OUT BY NOW?

Originally posted by UltimateSkeptic1
Just thinking about this ruling.

Does anybody know of any tax for NOT doing something?

I can't think of any examples of taxes imposed for NOT doing something.

This could open up an entirely new form of social engineering.

How about a tax on NOT going to the gym? That would be appropriate if we're all going to share the cost of each other's health care.

If what I would be paying if I failed to buy health insurance is simply making up for what I pay now above and beyond the cost in order to cover the uninsured then I am already being taxed for what other people fail to do. It is about time they start paying for it themselves somehow. Personal Responsibility and all that crap you know?