Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : A US National Health Care System? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (23831)	6/28/2012 1:13:51 PM
From: TimF	Respond to of 42652

Taxation and regulation under the health care Act Richard A. Epstein Posted Thu, June 28th, 2012 12:05 pm Chief Justice Roberts’ decision that sustains the individual mandate under the taxing power of the United States is filled with twists and turns that requires some words of protest. In the section of his opinion that deals with the Commerce Power, the Chief Justice accepts the view that Congress cannot regulate individuals unless and until they engage in some form of economic activity. He therefore accepts in full the arguments against the expanded reading of the Commerce Clause that were made by conservative commentators. He did so, as is his habit, without stopping a moment to analyze the enormous expansion in federal power that was ratified in Wickard v. Filburn, which authorized Congress to regulate under the Commerce Clause of the amount of wheat that a farmer could produce for home consumption. Big government, we shall have, but not that big, after all. But when it comes to the taxing power all bets are off. Here the key statement that he makes is this: “it makes going without insurance just another thing the Government taxes, like buying gasoline or earning income.” With all respect, the point is little short of absurd. The earlier portion of the Chief Justice’s opinion noted the huge expansion in federal power that could arise if the government were permitted to regulate various forms of inactivity. What possible argument then could be put forward to say that the same risks do not apply to the expansion of the taxing authority to those same forms of inactivity, in ways that it has never been exercised before. The two examples that the Chief Justice gives are the tax on buying gasoline or earning income. Both of those are obvious activities that have long been regarded as acceptable bases for taxation. But not buying health insurance is not an activity. I am not aware of any tax imposed on individuals for not buying gasoline and not earning income, or not taking a bath or not working in a home office. To allow this to stand as a tax is to accept the same kind of absurdity that was rejected in connection with the taxing power. Intellectually shabby, to say the least. scotusblog.com

To: TimF who wrote (23831)	6/28/2012 2:57:26 PM
From: Road Walker	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42652

I haven't read the decision, but I wonder where in the constitution the Supreme Court finds the federal power to impose such a tax. Its not in the 16th amendment "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration." --- Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 of the United States Constitution, is known as the Taxing and Spending Clause. [1] It is the clause that gives the federal government of the United States its power of taxation. Component parts of this clause are known as the General Welfare Clause [2] and the Uniformity Clause. Constitutional text The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence [note 1] and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States; en.wikipedia.org

To: TimF who wrote (23831)	6/28/2012 8:10:51 PM
From: gg cox	1 Recommendation Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 42652

Tim, there is no problem with the decision , because it is made. Now live with it.Common sense by the Supreme court...hoo haa You should be happy, you are a citizen in a country where common sense overrules wordsmith wizardry ....er occasionally.