Obamacare really is about taxes

In arguments before a Florida court, where the constitutional challenge to the insurance mandate is being heard, Justice Department lawyer Ian Gershengorn said health insurance is "a financing mechanism," not a product.

It seems to me that this opens a completely new line of argument about the constitutionality of the mandate. A financing mechanism is a taxation term. Again we have administration lawyers stating that the mandate is a tax, but in this case they are claiming that health insurance premiums are a tax.

Traditionally health insurance is viewed as a contract between the insurer and the insured, with the premium purchasing a menu of services in the event of certain occurrences. What Gershengorn is arguing completely changes what insurance, and the insurance market, has always been.

This is a problem

If only half of us pay taxes then the other half can vote themselves the use of our money.

I don't think we should be taxing people with relatively small incomes, but for half of the "tax payers" to not pay any income tax is a problem. This approaches the level of theft. If you can vote to raise taxes on the wealthy in order to provide benefits to yourself, without having any skin in the game, there is a problem.

Taxes? Those are for the other guy

How come these liberals that believe in taxing the rich, don't believe in paying taxes? The tax code is complex, but if you get something, and it wasn't a gift or inheritance, it might just occur to you that you should pay taxes on it.

In the past we couldn't confirm people to cabinet posts because they forgot a few hundred dollars in payroll taxes on a housekeeper, but now it's okay to "forget" tens, or even hundreds of thousands, of dollars in taxes? This is just the epitome of Democrat thinking; someone else should pay for what I want to do!

Oh, if it's not clear, this is a rant, and these people really piss me off!

In this case, a pox on only one of their houses. The house occupied by the Hypocrite Party.

Comment on government

Government is evil.

It’s a necessary evil, but it is an evil. Any application of government should be done in a somber fashion, as it is a failure of our humanity that we couldn’t handle it as individual citizens. Deciding whether to apply government to solve a problem should be considered on the same level as burning down an orphanage full of children to solve a problem. Deciding to tax should be thought of like deciding to stab an innocent man for our own gain. Anyone who celebrates government is a ghoulish wretch who must be ostracized from polite society.

Frank J. at imao.us

This is a libertarian statement coming from someone who considers himself a staunch conservative. Anyway, I like it.

Taxes

"Democrat Barack Obama says he would delay rescinding President Bush's tax cuts on wealthy Americans if he becomes the next president and the economy is in a recession, suggesting such an increase would further hurt the economy," the Associated Press reports

So tax increases are bad for the economy? Why then is Sen. Obama's plan to raise them supposed to help the economy? I am just so confused.

Republicans should become Republicans

Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK) has good advice for the Republican Party; start being Republicans. There is no reason to vote the Republican Party back into power if all they will do is act like they have for the past few years. If we want tax and spend government, we can elect the Democrats who, since FDR, have been the party of big government. There is no good reason to elect Republicans to do work that the Democrats are more competent to do.

Standing at the border and screaming "Mexican go home" or picketing abortion clinics is just not any reason to vote for the Republican Party. The first issue is a sure-fire loser and the second is not really one that grips the majority of Americans. The Republicans have come to stand for nothing of any importance.

The Republicans were not elected in 1994 in order to support the more liberal urges of President Clinton, though aside from his wife's health plan he didn't demonstrate a lot of liberalism. They were elected to bring discipline to our national government. And, they succeeded for a time. Unfortunately, they came to love power for the sake of power, rather than using it in order to effect a more responsible form of government. The final straw was the incredibly expensive expansion of Medicare with the addition of Part D. I am happy to know that my parents and their peers are well taken care of, but it saddens me to know that my son, and his children, will still be paying for it after my parents are long dead.

I found this statement of Senator Coburn's to be quite pointed: "Spending other people's money is not compassionate."

Compassion is sacrificing willingly in order to aid another. Tax and spend is not compassion. It is coercion, and a binding of golden chains.

End of rant.

Taxation without representation

I am guest blogging at Zane Safrit's place. Check out his blog. He provides great information and links for small businesses. Zane is a truly good guy and it is a pleasure to work with him. My posts there will be more business related, commentary on health care, accounting and taxes.

This morning I posted a graph showing historical tax levels as a percent of GDP. Zane's question was:

So, you're saying:
A. there's no value-added experience from the taxes we pay, or
B. we're not getting our money's worth,
or...
C. we have taxation without representation.
D. All of the above.

My response was that we're not getting our money's worth as entitlements will eventually eat the whole economy if not changed.

Upon further reflection I would add that we are getting close to taxation without representation. Tax law has been simplified by removing large numbers of taxpayers from the tax roles. Nearly 50% of earners pay no taxes because their income does not reach a taxable level.

If 50% or more of the citizenry does not pay taxes but still enjoys the benefit of government, then they can vote themselves benefits at the expense of someone else. There is no end to the things I might like to have if someone else is paying for them. If the majority can vote themselves benefits at the expense of the minority (the taxpayers) then perhaps that is taxation without representation.

ADDED: James Carville (in reference to downscale urban and rural Democrats) says; “people that look to the federal government to soften the harder edges of capitalism.” I like that. Hard edged capitalism can certainly cause hardship on a micro level.

Golden chains bind us

We are reliant on the government for too much. Live to 62, you get a check every month. Live to 65 you get free or damn near free, healthcare for life. What is magical about attaining a certain age?

We have a social contract that provides benefits for reaching a certain age, or being disabled, or just being to stupid or lazy to be productive. What we need to ask ourselves as a country is can we afford to be so generous.

When social security was created 65 was old age. Now it is common. Just think about this: 1/3 of all the people who have EVER, in the history of humans, attained the age of 65 are alive today!

Is this a tenable situation? How can we possibly pay for such largesse? Already the “rich” pay all of the taxes. We have politicians demagoguing this and saying the rich need to pay their fair share. Anyone can access IRS statistics that show that the top 1% of taxpayers pay 40% of taxes. Those tax filers making over $75,000 comprise 5.4% of tax filers yet they pay 78.4% of income taxes. This is just over 5% paying almost 80% of the bill! Tax cuts for the rich my ass, who else are you going to give tax cuts too? And since when does $75,000 make you rich? Just how much more can you bleed from the most productive part of society?

The lowest 40% of tax filers actually receive a net positive tax payment from the Treasury (due to child tax credit and earned income credits). The lowest 50% pay less than 2% of the taxes. You can only soak the rich for so much before they rebel.

The golden chains must be broken. There is no way to support social payments (social security and Medicare) going forward. These programs have got to be significantly modified. The answer to federal deficits is not more taxes, it is less spending. And less spending means significantly changing the entitlement system.

End of rant.

Voluntary taxes

Senator Harry Reid claims that taxes are voluntary, and that we don’t have employers collect taxes for the government.

Well knock me over with a feather; I’ve been preparing tax returns all these years under the impression that we were forced by government coercion to pay. And I seem to recall my last employer collecting federal income tax, social security tax and Medicare tax out of my pay and forwarding it to the U.S. Treasury. I guess I have just been one confused Aggie all this time.

Would someone out there volunteer to skip paying taxes this year based on Sen. Reid’s claim? Let me know how that works out for you.

Dim bulb from Searchlight indeed!