So we can tax whatever we want to, eh?

[PHOENIX TRADING]

Quote from tomdavis:

Prior to this ruling, the government taxed activity. You could be taxed when you earned income, made a purchase, made a profit, etc.

The fundamental change resulting from this ruling is that now the government can now tax inactivity. You can now be taxed if you fail to get out of bed at a time prescribed by the government, don't eat your carrots or don't give your kids a hug at bedtime. You can be taxed for doing nothing at all. This ruling opens the door for the government to place a tax on everything you don't do.

The real danger is what cash-strapped city and state governments will do with this ruling. Ten years from now there could be thousands of local laws based upon taxing inactivity to generate revenues.

nannycrats will counter that avoiding activity in itself is an ACTIVITY thus it should be taxed.

 

[OccupyThis]

Quote from Free Thinker:

your ignorance is showing. if you have no property and no income you would recieve your insurance coverage as a subsidy.
its only those who have the income that refuse to buy insurance that will have to pay the tax. even then the tax will be much less than the insuance would have cost. another subsidy.

And if I can afford a health club membership but refuse to purchase it? If I can afford to eat all vegetables but refuse to eat them? If I can afford to go on a diet but refuse to go on one?

The dems flat out lied to the American public. They told us by no means was this a tax and the SCOTUS called their bluff which they'll now face the ramifications of come Nov.

Obamadoesntcare will be repealed.

50 + 1.

 

[Mav88]

your ignorance is showing. if you have no property and no income you would recieve your insurance coverage as a subsidy.
its only those who have the income that refuse to buy insurance that will have to pay the tax.

I stand corrected, I looked it up. I am an honest and critical thinker unlike you.

even then the tax will be much less than the insuance would have cost. another subsidy

oh that makes me feel better, you would make me buy something I don't want, but give me a sale price so you can feel better about it...

my point still stands, if you call a penalty for inactivity a tax in order to make it constitutional, then you open the door to tax just about anything you like

 

[Grandluxe]

Quote from TGregg:

Boy the libtards opened up a can of worms with this one. My suggestions:

Baggy pants that show underwear
Nose rings
Unatural hair color
Macs
Filing for government assistance
Clueless Voting (no idea about the three branches of government)
Breeding kids that go to jail
Having kids out of wedlock
Having kids from multiple partners
Having kids that fail to graduate from high school
Calling somebody else a racist
Living in an urban environment
Contributing to NPR
Mohawks
Earings on guys
Any piercings other than ear lobes
Living in your mom's basement after age 20
IQ below 90

Any others?

One ludicrous example is this:
Since unhealthy/fast food is a major factor in health concerns and adds to the cost of healthcare, it stands to reason they should be severely limited.
So every household can only eat one fast food meal a month, this shall be enforced by fast food commissars set up all over the country which shall issue coupons to said households monthly to be used at KFC and MacDonalds. Anyone caught eating fried chicken or burgers at home in violation of the law shall be subjected to a tax.

 

[pspr]

Quote from tomdavis:

Prior to this ruling, the government taxed activity. You could be taxed when you earned income, made a purchase, made a profit, etc.

The fundamental change resulting from this ruling is that now the government can now tax inactivity. You can now be taxed if you fail to get out of bed at a time prescribed by the government, don't eat your carrots or don't give your kids a hug at bedtime. You can be taxed for doing nothing at all. This ruling opens the door for the government to place a tax on everything you don't do.

The real danger is what cash-strapped city and state governments will do with this ruling. Ten years from now there could be thousands of local laws based upon taxing inactivity to generate revenues.

The dangers of this SCOTUS ruling are daunting. I agree with others that Roberts should be pressured to retire for medical reasons during the Romney Administration and this issue of taxing inactivity should be revisited by SCOTUS in a future ruling soon.

 

[RCG Trader]

Quote from pspr:

The dangers of this SCOTUS ruling are daunting. I agree with others that Roberts should be pressured to retire for medical reasons during the Romney Administration and this issue of taxing inactivity should be revisited by SCOTUS in a future ruling soon.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/conten...de/image.img.572.jpg/1340931211577.cached.jpg

 

[Ricter]

Quote from Free Thinker:

your ignorance is showing. if you have no property and no income you would recieve your insurance coverage as a subsidy.
its only those who have the income that refuse to buy insurance that will have to pay the tax. even then the tax will be much less than the insuance would have cost. another subsidy.

Good point, which answers my earlier "run away to Alaska" question.

 

[Brass]

Quote from Mav88:

I stand corrected, I looked it up. I am an honest and critical thinker unlike you...

"Unlike" FT? You're the one who got it wrong, deep thinker.