IRS and Colonoscopy

• Belly35

  

  IRS andColonoscopy
  
  For you Obama butt buddies please tell the OC (make it simple) is the enforcing of Obamacare penalty fines a tax or not?
  http://video.foxnews.com/v/1554221660001/500m-set-aside-to-enforce-obamacare/
  
  Do we as citizen really want the IRS in our lives for healthcare and taxes yearly?
• Belly35

  

  Where O Where are the Obama Supporter
  
  I see several have posted on other threads and come to this thread but can't spin this simple question so they run and hide in someother thread ...
  
  You would think that a simple question about Obamacare would be eazy for a Liberal Socialist Democrate ..... Tax or Not and why the IRS ?
• BoatShoes

  Belly35;1140755 wrote:IRS andColonoscopy
  
  For you Obama butt buddies please tell the OC (make it simple) is the enforcing of Obamacare penalty fines a tax or not?
  http://video.foxnews.com/v/1554221660001/500m-set-aside-to-enforce-obamacare/
  
  Do we as citizen really want the IRS in our lives for healthcare and taxes yearly?

  Well Belly you're a small business owner and yet I imagine you have decided to insure your health rather than be a freeloader do you not? The plaintiff in the case before the Supreme Court was a freeloader and didn't want to take responsibility for insuring her own health and went bankrupt and passed her costs onto the rest of us.
  
  I have no problem with the IRS penalizing freeloaders. Everyone on here talks about how cheap catastrophic health coverage is. Penalize them please, for failing to take responsibility for themselves. It's about time the IRS encourages self-reliance rather than "groveling dependency on the government" Mirite?
• Con_Alma

  You cannot force someone to purchase a product. It's very simple. You cannot penalize someone in an attempt to get them to do something you do not have the authority to make them do.
• queencitybuckeye

  Con_Alma;1140791 wrote:You cannot force someone to purchase a product. It's very simple. You cannot penalize someone in an attempt to get them to do something you do not have the authority to make them do.

  To me, what's even more ridiculous is the absurd notion that one can legislate people into being responsible. The idiots in D.C. can pass any law they want, constitutional or not, and the productive will still pay the way of the non-productive.
• Con_Alma

  queencitybuckeye;1140802 wrote:To me, what's even more ridiculous is the absurd notion that one can legislate people into being responsible. ...

  ...almost as if those knuckleheads feel as if they themselves have been acting responsible in the capacity we have put them in.
• Belly35

  

  BoatShoes;1140789 wrote:Well Belly you're a small business owner and yet I imagine you have decided to insure your health rather than be a freeloader do you not? The plaintiff in the case before the Supreme Court was a freeloader and didn't want to take responsibility for insuring her own health and went bankrupt and passed her costs onto the rest of us.
  
  I have no problem with the IRS penalizing freeloaders. Everyone on here talks about how cheap catastrophic health coverage is. Penalize them please, for failing to take responsibility for themselves. It's about time the IRS encourages self-reliance rather than "groveling dependency on the government" Mirite?

  Is the enfoced fine a TAX or NOT? please answer?
  
  Penalize them please, for failing to take responsibility for themselves. It's about time the IRS encourages self-reliance rather than "groveling dependency on the government"
  
  So BoatShoes should the Goverment also put an end to Welfare and Social Sevices entitlements?
• queencitybuckeye

  Con_Alma;1140807 wrote:...almost as if those knuckleheads feel as if they themselves have been acting responsible in the capacity we have put them in.

  Surely they can't be that delusional?
• Con_Alma

  Belly35;1140809 wrote:Is the enfoced fine a TAX or NOT? please answer?
  
  Penalize them please, for failing to take responsibility for themselves. It's about time the IRS encourages self-reliance rather than "groveling dependency on the government"
  
  So BoatShoes should the Goverment also put an end to Welfare and Social Sevices entitlements?

  Very interesting question.
  
  If we can penalize for not being responsible with medical expenses what else can the government penalize people for if they are not being responsible?
• QuakerOats

  The outright theft from the taxpayers by this regime is unfathomable.
  
  
  Change we can believe in .......
  
  
  November '12 cannot arrive soon enough.
• Manhattan Buckeye

  Con_Alma;1140791 wrote:You cannot force someone to purchase a product. It's very simple. You cannot penalize someone in an attempt to get them to do something you do not have the authority to make them do.

  This is why it is likely that the purchase mandate in Obamacare will likely be struck down, if not the entire bill. In no other situation in American history has a citizen been forced to purchase a product from either the public or private sector via the Commerce Clause.
• Devils Advocate

  

  Belly35;1140809 wrote:Is the enfoced fine a TAX or NOT? please answer?
  
  Penalize them please, for failing to take responsibility for themselves. It's about time the IRS encourages self-reliance rather than "groveling dependency on the government"
  

  If the FBI enforced this, would you still consider it a tax?
• BoatShoes

  Belly35;1140809 wrote:Is the enfoced fine a TAX or NOT? please answer?
  
  
  Penalize them please, for failing to take responsibility for themselves. It's about time the IRS encourages self-reliance rather than "groveling dependency on the government"
  
  
  So BoatShoes should the Goverment also put an end to Welfare and Social Sevices entitlements?

  
  Yes, I would argue that it is indeed a tax in substance even if it has a different form than most of our taxes. It has the same economic effect as much of the internal revenue code.
  
  
  I think the Obama administration attempting not to call it a tax is political. They say it's not a tax because "It's possible nobody would pay it." It's also possible nobody could pay the alternative minimum tax so does that mean it's a Penalty and not a tax? I don't buy it.
  
  
  And yes, if I were king, I would replace the majority of our hodge podge of safety net programs with an expanded EITC or negative income tax (like Milton Friedman advocated for) and a Hubert Humphrey-style full employment program funded by the feds and run by the states that would provide a minimum wage job to the unemployed.
  
  
  With a wage floor there would be full employment and price stability and there'd be no freeloaders because there'd be an employer of last resort and I personally believe the majority of people will work if given the chance as opposed to a government that is satisfied with high unemployment so long as the rich avoid a little inflation.
  
  
  If you don't want to work for one of your state Job corps you receive no aid. An EITC or Negative Income Tax Provided to people not employed with the state job corps would encourage private sector employment.
  
  But, it doesn't matter what I think. It is the party of "personal responsibility" that is fighting the law they created that would actually penalize people for failing to be personally responsible.
• BoatShoes

  Con_Alma;1140791 wrote:You cannot force someone to purchase a product. It's very simple. You cannot penalize someone in an attempt to get them to do something you do not have the authority to make them do.

  Oh really. Well, Congress takes our money and forces us to use a product they provide for us called Medicare and requiring us to purchase health insurance is hardly different than taking our money and purchasing it for us. It is a difference in form and not substance.
  
  Please let me know when you're going to show some intellectual coherency and start advocating the repeal of medicare because I have yet to see that from conservatives out there opposed to the mandate their party came up with.
• BoatShoes

  Manhattan Buckeye;1140862 wrote:This is why it is likely that the purchase mandate in Obamacare will likely be struck down, if not the entire bill. In no other situation in American history has a citizen been forced to purchase a product from either the public or private sector via the Commerce Clause.

  But Congress has the power under the commerce clause to take your money and require you to use a product it provides for you. It is a distinction with out any fundamental difference.
  
  And, I know you are against Social Security (and presumably Medicare) so just go ahead and make the argument that those programs are both unconstitutional under the commerce clause as well. It's about time that these arguments get on the table anyway.
• BoatShoes

  queencitybuckeye;1140802 wrote:To me, what's even more ridiculous is the absurd notion that one can legislate people into being responsible. The idiots in D.C. can pass any law they want, constitutional or not, and the productive will still pay the way of the non-productive.

  And now we have a libertarian essentially saying that people don't respond to incentives. Thread R00lz
• queencitybuckeye

  BoatShoes;1141079 wrote:And now we have a libertarian essentially saying that people don't respond to incentives. Thread R00lz

  I said nothing of the sort. As inferences go, this one is particularly stupid, even by your standards.
  
  Did you actually study Economics somewhere (if so you should sue) or are you another self-taught idiot like Footwedge who opens his copy of Adam Smith and faps?
• Belly35

  

  BoatShoes;1141072 wrote:Yes, I would argue that it is indeed a tax in substance even if it has a different form than most of our taxes. It has the same economic effect as much of the internal revenue code.
  
  
  I think the Obama administration attempting not to call it a tax is political. They say it's not a tax because "It's possible nobody would pay it." It's also possible nobody could pay the alternative minimum tax so does that mean it's a Penalty and not a tax? I don't buy it.
  
  
  And yes, if I were king, I would replace the majority of our hodge podge of safety net programs with an expanded EITC or negative income tax (like Milton Friedman advocated for) and a Hubert Humphrey-style full employment program funded by the feds and run by the states that would provide a minimum wage job to the unemployed.
  
  
  With a wage floor there would be full employment and price stability and there'd be no freeloaders because there'd be an employer of last resort and I personally believe the majority of people will work if given the chance as opposed to a government that is satisfied with high unemployment so long as the rich avoid a little inflation.
  
  
  If you don't want to work for one of your state Job corps you receive no aid. An EITC or Negative Income Tax Provided to people not employed with the state job corps would encourage private sector employment.
  
  But, it doesn't matter what I think. It is the party of "personal responsibility" that is fighting the law they created that would actually penalize people for failing to be personally responsible.

  Boatshoes I’m confused. You seem to be an admire of Milton Friedman economic but a supporter of the Obama Keynesian agenda. Supporter of Democrat Obama mentality for entitlement (Welfare Public Servant) but knowledgeable of its economic harm with the suggest for the State run program and not Federal run big government cluster fuck involvement .. Am I seeing a hint of Obama Disenchantment on your part or has reality set in ?
  
• Manhattan Buckeye

  BoatShoes;1141078 wrote:But Congress has the power under the commerce clause to take your money and require you to use a product it provides for you. It is a distinction with out any fundamental difference.
  
  And, I know you are against Social Security (and presumably Medicare) so just go ahead and make the argument that those programs are both unconstitutional under the commerce clause as well. It's about time that these arguments get on the table anyway.

  You don't have to pay SS or medicare. Don't work, live off of non-earned income? You don't have to pay. I didn't pay a cent into SS in '11 because I had no U.S. based earned income. I had U.S. based interest income but I didn't have to pay SS from it.
  
  This is the first time in American history there is a "tax" (in reality it is a forced purchase) simply for being an American citizen domiciled in the U.S.
  
  This administration has been unprecedented in many ways - nearly all bad. In my lifetime the most divisive, the most incompetent and the most unconstitutional.
• Footwedge

  queencitybuckeye;1141094 wrote:I said nothing of the sort. As inferences go, this one is particularly stupid, even by your standards.
  
  Did you actually study Economics somewhere (if so you should sue) or are you another self-taught idiot like Footwedge who opens his copy of Adam Smith and faps?

  As Reagan would say..."there you go again". How do you manage to braek rules here with every post and never get banned?
  
  Actually, it's great that the mods continue their contention with you. Every ladder has a bottom rung...and you don't seem to mind the board chuckling at your boorish attacks.
  
  And I certainly would be careful about channeling your tripe that Boatshoes doesn't understand economics. He runs circles around your third grade level.
  
  You sir need to read a book or two on a subject before posting on a subject.
• Manhattan Buckeye

  " He runs circles around your third grade level. "
  
  If nothing else this administration has shown us that academic "achievement" does not necessarily equate to success without real world experience. I've never seen so many Harvard educated people act so incompetently. I wouldn't trust this administration to run a lemonade stand.
  
  How is the mandate going to work? I'm allowed 29 days inside of the U.S. and still maintain for tax purposes an ex-patriate status, am I forced to purchase insurance or pay a fine? What about the millions of illegal immigrants, are they subject to this? How is this going to be enforced (my guess - selectively, I don't see Eric Holder and the gang going into housing projects and garnishing unemployment checks and TANF)?
  
  Has anyone actually read the law as written? If there's another bomb like the 1099 provision (which the Democrats said was a really a good clause until popular opinion and reason told them they were being idiots)?
  
  This is going to be a debacle. Will just raise costs, make healthcare worse for most and expand our ever-intrusive public sector.
• Con_Alma

  BoatShoes;1141076 wrote:Oh really. Well, Congress takes our money and forces us to use a product they provide for us called Medicare and requiring us to purchase health insurance is hardly different than taking our money and purchasing it for us. It is a difference in form and not substance.
  
  Please let me know when you're going to show some intellectual coherency and start advocating the repeal of medicare because I have yet to see that from conservatives out there opposed to the mandate their party came up with.

  No one is forced to purchase Medicare or SS. No one. There are many, many people that do not pay into either Medicare or SS.
  
  Oh really.
• BoatShoes

  queencitybuckeye;1141094 wrote:I said nothing of the sort. As inferences go, this one is particularly stupid, even by your standards.
  
  Did you actually study Economics somewhere (if so you should sue) or are you another self-taught idiot like Footwedge who opens his copy of Adam Smith and faps?

  If people respond to incentives then there are things the government can do to encourage people to adhere to their burden under the common law to conduct themselves as a reasonable prudent person...that is, be more personally responsible. Whether it should is a different question.
  
  But I suppose I'll get on that lawsuit then. :rolleyes:
• Con_Alma

  BoatShoes;1141492 wrote:"If people respond to incentives then there are things the government can do to encourage people to adhere to their burden under the common law to conduct themselves as a reasonable prudent person...that is, be more personally responsible. Whether it should is a different question.
  
  ..."

  I aree with this. The government attempts to influence activity all the time with incentives. The question is should the government be able to economically force certain purchases.
• Belly35

  

  Manhattan Buckeye;1141363 wrote:You don't have to pay SS or medicare. Don't work, live off of non-earned income? You don't have to pay. I didn't pay a cent into SS in '11 because I had no U.S. based earned income. I had U.S. based interest income but I didn't have to pay SS from it.
  
  This is the first time in American history there is a "tax" (in reality it is a forced purchase) simply for being an American citizen domiciled in the U.S.
  
  This administration has been unprecedented in many ways - nearly all bad. In my lifetime the most divisive, the most incompetent and the most unconstitutional.

  MB ... I have "NOT MY PRESIDENT" stickers