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

Originally posted by SeekerofTruth101

Originally posted by UltimateSkeptic1
This thread is about the novelty of creating tax law that taxes people on actions they do NOT take.

I'm wondering if this sets a precedent that will wake people up to voting in the fall. In 2008 it was roughly only 35% of the eligible voters who put Obama and the Dems in control. I'm curious if people will realize that their government has now crossed into new territory by passing a tax law that taxes absence of an activity.

Will you dare testify before all americans that you will NEVER visit a doctor in your lifetime, born at home, or speak on behalf of EVERY american that they will NEVER visit a doctor in their lifetime?

Will you dare claim to human genetic pefect health, for yourself and EVERY american?

You may be able to pay for any medical expenses, even old age diseases that runs into thousands, but dare you claim every american can afford it as you could, regardless if you are living in a car home or 100 room mansion?

If so, than that law would be illegal and an imposition to every american. Things is, DARE you conscionably answer those questions, or will you choose to hem, haw, and distract from it?

I am going to eat everyday but I am not demanding that other people be taxed for NOT buying enough food to keep my food costs low.

Why are your questions relevant?

Reply to post by UltimateSkeptic1

For not doing something?

Sure, don't file your taxes and you will get your answer.


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

Originally posted by TWISTEDWORDS
reply to post by g2v12

 

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

I wouldn't compare the squalid slavery of fifteenth century Anglo-fascists to the economic servitude of the west. Huge difference. But thanks for the word twist. Nice bit.

Originally posted by UltimateSkeptic1

Originally posted by SeekerofTruth101

Originally posted by UltimateSkeptic1
This thread is about the novelty of creating tax law that taxes people on actions they do NOT take.

I'm wondering if this sets a precedent that will wake people up to voting in the fall. In 2008 it was roughly only 35% of the eligible voters who put Obama and the Dems in control. I'm curious if people will realize that their government has now crossed into new territory by passing a tax law that taxes absence of an activity.

Will you dare testify before all americans that you will NEVER visit a doctor in your lifetime, born at home, or speak on behalf of EVERY american that they will NEVER visit a doctor in their lifetime?

Will you dare claim to human genetic pefect health, for yourself and EVERY american?

You may be able to pay for any medical expenses, even old age diseases that runs into thousands, but dare you claim every american can afford it as you could, regardless if you are living in a car home or 100 room mansion?

If so, than that law would be illegal and an imposition to every american. Things is, DARE you conscionably answer those questions, or will you choose to hem, haw, and distract from it?

I am going to eat everyday but I am not demanding that other people be taxed for NOT buying enough food to keep my food costs low.

Why are your questions relevant?

If you couldn't afford to eat and society wasn't obligated in some way to feed you, would you prostitute yourself for the dollar menu? How do you feel about human dignity in the most powerful nation on this planet or are you just another blond with sunglasses?

Originally posted by g2v12


If you couldn't afford to eat and society wasn't obligated in some way to feed you, would you prostitute yourself for the dollar menu? How do you feel about human dignity in the most powerful nation on this planet or are you just another blond with sunglasses?

Why is it important for you to bring up sexuality and condescending sexist comments into this discussion?

The topic of this thread is an inquiry into whether or not there has ever been a tax levied for NOT taking some sort of action.

Do you have any intelligent comments to add or to further the discussion of this topic?

reply to post by g2v12


egads..really? ..and im just a guy standing around with a shield with arrows in it

back on topic...instead of making some type of knee JERK comment..i thought about it for a while....i cant think of anything that i get taxed on that i dont engage in or buy....theres taxes on internet, phone, cell phone, tv, electric, gas auto, auto insurance..nothing comes to mind.....this 'act' sets a bad prcident..taxing people because they do not engage in a certain type of purchasing and forcing business to engage in practices they do not want to do...so, what next.........you know, we are all gunna die eventualy..why not levy a tax on that..because we one day will engage in that market

Originally posted by clearmind
so, what next.........you know, we are all gunna die eventualy..why not levy a tax on that..because we one day will engage in that market

There's already a death tax. They just call it an inheritance tax. So yes, NOT living gets taxed too.

Thought this video was appropriate....



"Let me tell you how it will be
There's one for you, nineteen for me
'Cause I'm the taxman, yeah, I'm the taxman

Should five per cent appear too small
Be thankful I don't take it all
'Cause I'm the taxman, yeah I'm the taxman

If you drive a car, I'll tax the street,
If you try to sit, I'll tax your seat.
If you get too cold I'll tax the heat,
If you take a walk, I'll tax your feet.

Don't ask me what I want it for
If you don't want to pay some more
'Cause I'm the taxman, yeah, I'm the taxman

Now my advice for those who die
Declare the pennies on your eyes
'Cause I'm the taxman, yeah, I'm the taxman
And you're working for no one but me."

Originally posted by UltimateSkeptic1

Originally posted by g2v12


If you couldn't afford to eat and society wasn't obligated in some way to feed you, would you prostitute yourself for the dollar menu? How do you feel about human dignity in the most powerful nation on this planet or are you just another blond with sunglasses?

Why is it important for you to bring up sexuality and condescending sexist comments into this discussion?

The topic of this thread is an inquiry into whether or not there has ever been a tax levied for NOT taking some sort of action.

Do you have any intelligent comments to add or to further the discussion of this topic?

I understand what your line of questioning is asking, but what is the "context" of that incredibly oblique sentence? The obvious answer is that no one has ever seen a penalty for NOT doing something. Its common sense and doesn't require an answer. Because your question has nothing to do with anything of social importance.

The real question to be asked is where do we go from here?

Why is it that you offer absolutely no context or pretext to anything that is remotely familiar to an intelligent conversation on the social issues facing Americans?

Do you think these posters are idiots?

Also, why would you assume that I am making sexist remarks when you don't even know my gender?

If you actually have something intelligent to say about Pres. Obama's bill, state your cause and let's get on with it!

You obviously aren't willing to pay a few cents in tax to help the poor receive their birth right in the greatest nation on the planet. Are you the daughter of some wealthy Republican neocon or corporate beneficiary who thinks that the poor are a bunch of lazy, ignorant rejects who should pull themselves up by the boot straps and get a life?

We have pages of posts and you haven't even started to define the point of your purpose, except to expect everyone to know what the hell you are thinking.

When posters attempt to ascertain just what it is you are trying to say here, you came back with "that's not the topic".

There IS NO TOPIC. Making an inquiry into whether anyone has seen a tax for not doing something isn't even a topic.

If you don't give a dam about the poor, fine, your not an American or even human being. Just be honest about it instead of playing word games.

reply to post by g2v12


Healthcare is not a birth right....The right to purchase insurance for your healthcare is a birth right, in a Free Country.

Des

Originally posted by Destinyone
reply to post by g2v12

 

Healthcare is not a birth right....The right to purchase insurance for your healthcare is a birth right, in a Free Country.

Des

Nicely put. The greatest nation on earth has a moral obligation to provide assistance to those few who cannot do it all, for whatever reason. That's my definition of the birth right. However one wants to word it, there is an assumed principle of obligation in the definition of greatness and power.

Originally posted by UltimateSkeptic1

Originally posted by clearmind
so, what next.........you know, we are all gunna die eventualy..why not levy a tax on that..because we one day will engage in that market

There's already a death tax. They just call it an inheritance tax. So yes, NOT living gets taxed too.

The interference tax is a tax on the transfer of wealth from the dead person to another living person. Taxes, such as they are, are the governments way of saying "every transaction happens because we let it happen on our turf, so you must pay us a cut of your action." Death is a transaction, so a taste is given to the governmental mafia.

The health care "law" is different as there is no transfer of wealth. You are NOT paying for a service directly, you are paying for protection in case you need the service, and, more importantly, the company that provides said "in case" service decides to cover you: which they are well within their right not to cover due to profit and loss scenarios.

Your question is pointed. What people just can't get through there ignorant head is Insurance is NOT a health plan. Sadly I am not shocked at how stupid the entire populace is on this fact, they think blue cross is a health plan and not a for profit system who makes more money when it denies claims, so it is in its best interest to do so as often as possible. The are so dumb as to accept the talking points as some sort of fact: you not having health insurance is making my premiums go up! Sadly they fail to see the truth: Goldman Sachs betting both sides of the mortgage meltdown created huge losses for various insurance companies who decided to gamble insuring losses for those betting.

My take: This is a moot point, as the inevitable collapse of the Euro Currency - which was designed to fail, will leave such wreckage in its wake that no one will care about this folly.

Originally posted by g2v12

Originally posted by TWISTEDWORDS
reply to post by g2v12

 

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

I wouldn't compare the squalid slavery of fifteenth century Anglo-fascists to the economic servitude of the west. Huge difference. But thanks for the word twist. Nice bit.

Who mentioned anglos or the 15th century?
Do you think that is the only place and time slaves existed?
What is your response really about?
Being called a slave is being called a slave, not an American black slave.

Originally posted by crankyoldman
The health care "law" is different as there is no transfer of wealth. You are NOT paying for a service directly,

Yes you are. Insurance is protection.

you are paying for protection in case you need the service, and, more importantly, the company that provides said "in case" service decides to cover you: which they are well within their right not to cover due to profit and loss scenarios.

Call ADT and see if they will wire your house to the hills for you and then refuse to bill you unless you actually have someone try to break in on you.
Let me how that goes.

Originally posted by UltimateSkeptic1

Originally posted by g2v12


If you couldn't afford to eat and society wasn't obligated in some way to feed you, would you prostitute yourself for the dollar menu? How do you feel about human dignity in the most powerful nation on this planet or are you just another blond with sunglasses?

Why is it important for you to bring up sexuality and condescending sexist comments into this discussion?

The topic of this thread is an inquiry into whether or not there has ever been a tax levied for NOT taking some sort of action.

Do you have any intelligent comments to add or to further the discussion of this topic?

I am a female and I cannot figure out what is sexist about that post.
Help me out because I was hoping you might give it an actual response.

Originally posted by habitforming

Originally posted by crankyoldman
The health care "law" is different as there is no transfer of wealth. You are NOT paying for a service directly,

Yes you are. Insurance is protection.

you are paying for protection in case you need the service, and, more importantly, the company that provides said "in case" service decides to cover you: which they are well within their right not to cover due to profit and loss scenarios.

Call ADT and see if they will wire your house to the hills for you and then refuse to bill you unless you actually have someone try to break in on you.
Let me how that goes.

edit on 30-6-2012 by habitforming because: (no reason given)

Your ADT quote makes zero sense at all. Insurance is not the same thing by any stretch, and I don't even see your point. Insurance is not a health plan, Kaiser is a health plan, but what the government wants you to buy is health insurance, which not the same thing. The government is finding away to collect money to make ends meet in hopes that what it pays out will be less then what it needs to make interest payments on other bills. The government has decided that the compound interest it pays on the fiat currency it borrows is too much, it is upside down, so the way to make it rightside up is to simply demand more money from people, money it hopes it will never spend by denying the claims due from that money. Taxing more is out of the question, the limit is reached, AND tax money most be allocated, but this does not need to be.

Then again, you seem to only want to make a 'hit and run' point because you know everything about everything. So we'll just agree to disagree. Good day sir.

Originally posted by crankyoldman
Your ADT quote makes zero sense at all. Insurance is not the same thing by any stretch, and I don't even see your point.

Of course you do not see my point. It is much easier to argue with me this way.

Insurance is not a health plan, Kaiser is a health plan, but what the government wants you to buy is health insurance, which not the same thing.

Which was kind of a big part of my point so I am not sure why you are arguing it with me.

The government is finding away to collect money to make ends meet in hopes that what it pays out will be less then what it needs to make interest payments on other bills.

How is the government making money off of this?

The government has decided that the compound interest it pays on the fiat currency it borrows is too much, it is upside down, so the way to make it rightside up is to simply demand more money from people, money it hopes it will never spend by denying the claims due from that money. Taxing more is out of the question, the limit is reached, AND tax money most be allocated, but this does not need to be.

Tell me exactly which dead people my tax dollars paid to have killed I am supposed to support and which ones I should feel otherwise about. Hey, I bet you have a nice bridge somewhere that you use that I could live just fine without.

Then again, you seem to only want to make a 'hit and run' point because you know everything about everything. So we'll just agree to disagree. Good day sir.

Nothing like an empty personal invective and a hasty retreat to backup whatever nonsense one rambles about.

There is a tax on not being married and not having children.

It's just how it's put on the form. There could have been a tax increase and everyone who buys insurance would get a tax credit. This would have been the same net result.

If you don't have health insurance, you are actually paying for the ability to receive emergency treatment if you want it.

We all pay for roads and schools even if our family doesn't use these things.

Originally posted by habitforming

Originally posted by g2v12

Originally posted by TWISTEDWORDS
reply to post by g2v12

 

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

I wouldn't compare the squalid slavery of fifteenth century Anglo-fascists to the economic servitude of the west. Huge difference. But thanks for the word twist. Nice bit.

Who mentioned anglos or the 15th century?
Do you think that is the only place and time slaves existed?
What is your response really about?
Being called a slave is being called a slave, not an American black slave.

This is about individual word meanings. You can lump all forms into one synonymous statement if you want. There are distinctions. Perhaps you should explain how I am 'already a slave'. What is it that you assume I am doing against my will or haven't figured out?

Originally posted by g2v12
This is about individual word meanings.

I know and the word "slave" does not mean 15th century american black slave.

You can lump all forms into one synonymous statement if you want. There are distinctions.

Those two sentences contradict each other.

Perhaps you should explain how I am 'already a slave'. What is it that you assume I am doing against my will or haven't figured out?

edit on 30-6-2012 by g2v12 because: arrangement

I never said you were a slave.