With the mandate, what limit does the federal goverment have?

[variant]

That it was unconstitutional?

I really don't understand your confusion here.

Justice Roberts rejecting the notion that the act was constitutional because of the commerce clause doesn’t mean the act was unconstitutional. It means in this case, specifically that the act was constitutional because of another of the governments powers.

Yeah ... but the commerce clause already applies to almost everything. It didn't need to be broadened.

Which is why we should be glad that it wasn’t.

The federal government's taxing authority, on the other hand, has previously been extremely limited. Even the federal income tax is a "voluntary tax" ... according to Harry Reid, IRS commissioners and other knowledgeable people. Of course, the IRS meaning of that term seems to be different from common usage.

I suggest you read title 26 sometime.

Now, if they can tax us with arbitrary legislation and command us arbitrarily to buy products of their choosing, their control over us individually is potentially immense. That bothers me.

If they were allowed to act in a dictatorial manner I suppose.

Last I checked most people don't like taxes that arbitrarily control them.

So, if you can't win on opposing them, our democracy probably already has failed completely.

Sure, I do. In technical terms it's called "positive feedback". Positive feedback literally grows without bound. It's highly destructive.

In the technical world the opposite is needed. "Negative feedback" is required to stabilize a system and obtain a high-fidelity output.

In layman's terms correction of any system requires constantly looking at the unexpected "negative" results. Ignoring those negative results allows them to grow catastrophically sometimes.

The problem is that the world is complicated. I don't think people are particularly good at tracing problems to their root causes and affecting the correct solutions. The negative feedback never gets back to it's source.

This means that people with money and power can blind large groups of people by appealing to them emotionally and overruling any amount of research or clear thought any one of us might do on an issue at hand.

There is also the problem is that no ideology has the correct answers to every problem.

Ahh ... but on that point, I haven't conceded, LOL. The Supreme Court went out of its way to interpret the legislation in a manner which was apparently not argued before the justices by either of the litigants.

That doesn’t matter to the court either. The argument of the Supreme Court often is mostly swayed by the filed briefs, with multiple legal arguments in play, so much so that the oral argument is often just for clarification. That is why Justice Thomas prefers to be silent, most of what goes on at the court is done behind closed doors. The court is never beholden to merely sticking to the case as argued by the litigants.

 

[NightHawkeye]

I really don't understand your confusion here.

LOL ... perhaps that's because I don't feel confused at all, Variant.

You are certainly free to use whatever semantics you would like to argue the matter, but we have certainly agreed on the outcome and the effects of the court's ruling.

If they were allowed to act in a dictatorial manner I suppose.

Which some have been. There have been numerous and repeated outcries of such from all sides of the political spectrum.

Last I checked most people don't like taxes that arbitrarily control them.

To which I would simply add "capricious".

So, if you can't win on opposing them, our democracy probably already has failed completely.

Indeed, we seem to be approaching that point considering that half of the households in the country pay no income tax. If the Brookings Institute data is to be believed, the bottom 20% not only pay no income tax, they essentially pay no federal taxes at all.

The problem is that the world is complicated. I don't think people are particularly good at tracing problems to their root causes and affecting the correct solutions. The negative feedback never gets back to it's source.

In that case, we're doomed.

I'm not quite so pessimistic.

This means that people with money and power can blind large groups of people by appealing to them emotionally and overruling any amount of research or clear thought any one of us might do on an issue at hand.

Get busy then ... time's a wastin'

There is also the problem is that no ideology has the correct answers to every problem.

TRUTH is unchanging.

I highly recommend following the truth.

 

[variant]

Indeed, we seem to be approaching that point considering that half of the households in the country pay no income tax. If the Brookings Institute data is to be believed, the bottom 20% not only pay no income tax, they essentially pay no federal taxes at all.

They would pay payroll taxes so, I think your figures are off.

TRUTH is unchanging.

I highly recommend following the truth.

Yours or mine?

 

[NightHawkeye]

They would pay payroll taxes so, I think your figures are off.

LOL ... those are not my figures.

There is a breakdown of how much is paid in total federal taxes by each group. Notice that the third column is "payroll taxes". The bottom quintile initially pays 6.2% in payroll taxes, but they get that back and much more besides at tax time ... as noted in the footnotes.

Yours or mine?

FACTS are FACTS, Variant, to the repeated chagrin of both political parties.

 

[variant]

LOL ... those are not my figures.

There is a breakdown of how much is paid in total federal taxes by each group. Notice that the third column is "payroll taxes". The bottom quintile initially pays 6.2% in payroll taxes, but they get that back and much more besides at tax time ... as noted in the footnotes.

Thats not what your graphic says.

It says the lowest quintile pays a .08% rate total not 0 or negative, which includes people without income to pay income taxes on, and includes after tax rebates.

It also says my 20% income tax rate is far too high for my quintile so I feel this is misleading. I'm single and have no deductions.

 

[SnowCal]

Thats not what your graphic says.

It says the lowest quintile pays a .08% rate total not 0 or negative, which includes people without income to pay income taxes on, and includes after tax rebates.

It also says my 20% income tax rate is far too high for my quintile so I feel this is misleading. I'm single and have no deductions.

The way the graph was put together is misleading. Here's one rub: one of the major welfare programs in the US today is the EITC. That Reagan-era program created a negative income tax liability for a lot of people. I don't have the actual figures handy (on my phone) but suppose that with EITC and other credits a good 1/4 of the population has a negative income tax liability. We group them with the quarter above them. Just to break even that quarter of low incomes with positive tax liability has to pay as much in taxes as the negative liability group is receiving in their returns. That's just to break even and make it look like no taxes are being paid. The wealthier groups are not having folks with negative liability subtracted from their contributions on the other hand.

A lot of the folks in the bottom 50 aren't full-time workers either. There are a lot of college students and pensioners paying nothing in taxes. Some of those college students are riding around in Beamers and are about to land jobs on Wall St. But they're bottom 50 and paying no taxes right now. And that drags down the number. Not too many college students, if any, are considered 1%era, despite their resources.

 

[Maren]

LOL ... tenth amendment not so much: United States Bill of Rights - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Tenth Amendment – Powers of States and people.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
​

Ninth amendment ... already usurped for practical purposes. Government does what it wants.

Ninth Amendment – Protection of rights not specifically enumerated in the Constitution.

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
​

Eighth amendment ... still a matter of policy ... except for "excessive" fines perhaps.

Eighth Amendment – Prohibition of excessive bail and cruel and unusual punishment.

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
​

Seventh amendment ... still a matter of policy

Seventh Amendment – Civil trial by jury.

In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
​

Sixth amendment ... been shaky for years, but was finally shredded by President Obama, who now has the ability to execute citizens without trial.

Sixth Amendment – Trial by jury and rights of the accused; Confrontation Clause, speedy trial, public trial, right to counsel

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
​

Fifth amendment, mostly still regarded ... though imminent domain has been abused spectacularly.

Fifth Amendment – due process, double jeopardy, self-incrimination, eminent domain.

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
​

Fourth amendment ... questionable

Fourth Amendment – Protection from unreasonable search and seizure.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
​

Third amendment ...still regarded.

Third Amendment – Protection from quartering of troops.

No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
​

Second amendment ... largely intact, but under repeated vicious assault.

Second Amendment – Militia (United States), Sovereign state, Right to keep and bear arms.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
​

First amendment ... largely intact, but under continued assault.

First Amendment – Establishment Clause, Free Exercise Clause; freedom of speech, of the press, and of assembly; right to petition

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
​

I don't feel like responding to this as individual points. What I will point out is that Freedom of Speech, while not as strong as it was prior to 9/11, in the last few decades is likely stronger than it has ever been in US history. At least part of this is because acts (such as flag burning) are no considered "speech" and protected, something that wasn't that way for most of US history.

Another protection that is stronger today is the fifth, to the point we have people complaining on how criminals can be freed if their fifth amendment rights are abused by law enforcement. Yes, there has been a move by the courts to side more with law enforcement over the last decade or so (again, particularly after 9/11), but the protections are still mostly stronger than fifty years ago.

I also think many people have a tendency to rewrite history, to want to believe the assault on the Bill of Rights is a new thing. People forget John Adams signing the Alien and Sedition Acts into law, which allowed things like charging newspaper editors (and other politicians) with a crime if they made negative comments about the government. Then again, maybe something like that could be useful today to slow down negative campaigning and the lies that are spewed by politicians during elections.

People forget how Lincoln suspended parts of the Bill of Rights during the Civil War (or as this person claims, ignored the Bill of Rights completely) such as suspending habeas corpus, shutting down newspapers that disagreed with the war, and created restrictions on firearms.

If you want to argue the courts largely ignore the expansion of the Federal Government, that seems to have largely been true throughout US history. If you want to talk about the other protections of the Bill of Rights, it seems to me that the courts go through phases -- alternately strengthening and then weakening those rights.

And since we forget this, we also forget the Supreme Court isn't a static group. While precedents are considered important, the Supreme Court often rules against its previous precedents on issues it feels are important. Especially with a 5-4 decision, all it takes is the change of one member of the Supreme Court for them to decide the case differently the next time it comes before the court.

 

[variant]

The way the graph was put together is misleading. Here's one rub: one of the major welfare programs in the US today is the EITC. That Reagan-era program created a negative income tax liability for a lot of people. I don't have the actual figures handy (on my phone) but suppose that with EITC and other credits a good 1/4 of the population has a negative income tax liability. We group them with the quarter above them. Just to break even that quarter of low incomes with positive tax liability has to pay as much in taxes as the negative liability group is receiving in their returns. That's just to break even and make it look like no taxes are being paid. The wealthier groups are not having folks with negative liability subtracted from their contributions on the other hand.

A lot of the folks in the bottom 50 aren't full-time workers either. There are a lot of college students and pensioners paying nothing in taxes. Some of those college students are riding around in Beamers and are about to land jobs on Wall St. But they're bottom 50 and paying no taxes right now. And that drags down the number. Not too many college students, if any, are considered 1%era, despite their resources.

It seems to me you have a problem with progressive taxation.

I make an average income for the United States and get next to nothing back in tax returns because I am single, don't own a house and have a small side business.

I don't have a problem paying more than college students with no income or people at or near the poverty line, or even people with mortgages and kids.

I still have more resources than any of those people, and can take on a mortgage, kids or a student lifestyle at will.

I think that the reason people are so hyper about their taxation rates is that they are either greedy or misuse their money. I'de rather there be someone there if my life turns catastrophic like, having a stroke or loseing an arm in a car accident than have a slightly lower tax rate.

 

[Wolseley]

With the mandate, what limit does the federal goverment have?

I don't know----but it ain't looking good:

SCOTUS Ruling Means Bigger, More Intrusive IRS | Fox Business

 

[SnowCal]

It seems to me you have a problem with progressive taxation.

I think you misread my point. I agree with what you are saying. My complaint was directed at NHE: that the chart he used to make his case was misleading for a couple reasons.

The first is that Reagan-era reforms pushed a lot of welfare into the tax code. EITC was not a bad idea at all and works better than what it replaced, but a side effect is that it screws with the tax data. One of the easiest ways to get back to pre-Reagan tax rates for low-income Americans would be to push welfare assistance out of the tax code. The net effect policy-wise would be negligible but it would dramatically effect the chart we're discussing and make NHE happy.

The second is that a lot of people in lower income brackets are pretty marginally attached to the labor force. As a college student with a good summer job I pay next to nothing in federal taxes. My income is low to start and I'm able to write off most of what I owe on educational expenses. A few years from now I should be in a very different tax bracket and paying quite a bit in taxes, but today I skate courtesy of the deductions available to me. That isn't true of a lot of people in my income bracket though. Many are not college students or pensioners, they're simply the working poor and they don't have the deductions available to them that I do (though quite a few have significant deductions for children, EITC, etc...) Lumping us together is pretty misleading. Middle-class college students receiving very preferential tax treatment do screw up these numbers.

Also, just looking at federal taxes is bad form. I also pay state and local taxes. And they are significant. What's more? In most parts of the country state and local taxes are strongly regressive. Poor people tend to pay much higher tax rates than their wealthier neighbors.

 

[sk8Joyful]

With the mandate, what limit does the federal goverment have?

I don't know----but it ain't looking good:

SCOTUS Ruling Means Bigger, More Intrusive IRS | Fox Business

what would your health reform penalty look like?

The IRS penalty is either a fixed dollar amount, or

a percentage of income above the filing threshold, whichever is greater.



The law sets the fixed dollar penalty at $95 in 2014, $325 in 2015, $695 in 2016, and indexed to inflation...

thereafter (capped for a family at 300% of the individual amount).


ain't Tyranny the most wonderful experience in your life

​

 

[Rion]

Allen West Response to ObamaTax: Everyone Should Buy a Glock 9mm or We'll Tax You - Katie Pavlich

 

[Bubbahotep]

Wats to stop them from telling us to buy solar panels and hitting us with a tax penalty if we don't. It's for the environment and the children after all.