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 : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: MulhollandDrive who wrote (493280)	6/28/2012 7:00:12 PM
From: arno	1 Recommendation Respond to of 793926

Thomas Jefferson... "I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them." "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."

To: MulhollandDrive who wrote (493280)	6/28/2012 7:04:31 PM
From: carranza2	5 Recommendations Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 793926

"Three considerations allay this concern. First, and most importantly, it is abundantly clear You'd think that those super-bright clerks, those denizens of the Harvard and Yale Law Reviews who do most of the writing, would know that "most importantly" is incorrect. It's "most important"....snort!! And 'abundantly clear' is another faux pas. If it is clear, it's clear. No need to say 'abundantly.' "Upholding the individual mandate under the Taxing Clause thus does not recognize any new federal power. It determines that Congress has used an existing one." More bad writing........circular, defensive awkward. I would have said: "We recognize Congress's valid exercise of its power under the Taxing Clause." Nice, direct, short, clear, not fussy . Ummm, clear. Actually, I would have written nothing of the sort since it should have been utterly obvious that the meaning the sentence seeks to convey is contained within the body of the opinion. Didn't need to be said. "The Affordable Care Act's requirement that certain in- dividuals pay a financial penalty for not obtaining health insurance may reasonably be characterized as a tax." Why in the name of Sistrunk and White did the clerk who wrote this piece of garbage use the word "reasonably"? Boys and girls, the Court is an Oracle when it speaks. No reason to use mealy-mouthed words like 'reasonably' if you want your points to stick. The way it is written suggests that the writer feels that there is room for doubt in his reasoning. Read this to see how much more authoritative it sounds when the weasel language is deleted. "The Affordable Care Act's requirement that certain individuals pay a financial penalty for not obtaining health insurance is a tax." Sloppy language is a sign of sloppy thinking. C'est tout. School's out. Even the Supremes are dumbed down. LOL!

To: MulhollandDrive who wrote (493280)	6/28/2012 7:23:44 PM
From: D. Long	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793926

I don't know about this one. Only direct taxes (except for income taxes because of the 16th Amendment) need to be apportioned. I think the mandate would be considered an indirect tax that doesn't require apportionment. Indirect taxes, like a VAT or sales tax, are transactional. If you have health insurance, you avoid the tax. It's the invert of an indirect tax on the purchase of health insurance - don't buy health insurance, don't pay the tax. I've never heard of a tax on inactivity, but now we have one.