Are taxes penalties?
I have a valid question.
- Thread starter actinanass
- Start date
Eric Fehrnstrom, Mitt Romney Adviser: Individual Mandate Is A 'Penalty,' Not A 'Tax'
<IFRAME height=315 src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/aDfH_lajwmA" frameBorder=0 width=420 allowfullscreen></IFRAME>
<IFRAME height=315 src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/aDfH_lajwmA" frameBorder=0 width=420 allowfullscreen></IFRAME>
Again, are taxes penalties?
This has nothing to do with this campaign. This has to do with the language, in which, everyone is using.
I hear fair share one day, then penalties the next. Are they one, and the same? Not to mention, who collects both? The Irs...?
So, can someone put it in words the difference between the two? I'm not trying to look at a youtube....
This has nothing to do with this campaign. This has to do with the language, in which, everyone is using.
I hear fair share one day, then penalties the next. Are they one, and the same? Not to mention, who collects both? The Irs...?
So, can someone put it in words the difference between the two? I'm not trying to look at a youtube....
Which
is a master at.
Do you pay taxes to have water, trash disposed of, roads, public schools, the military (which Texass is living off of)... Are those services penalizing you?
Which
is a master at.
Do you pay taxes to have water, trash disposed of, roads, public schools, the military (which Texass is living off of)... Are those services penalizing you?
This has nothing to do with what taxes pay for. This has to do with the issue of the language. The Irs collects taxes, and penalties. Do they not?
What's really the difference is the question?
This has everything to do with you trying to find a way back into the conversation - after debacle of the past week. Hence, it has everything to do with the campaign.
I'm going to let you ruminate over "the language". In politics and right wing speak, words are what ever you make them.
Kinda like the language:
That's why, when you said this:
. . . and then tried to slide-in under the radar with this:
I knew . . .
This has everything to do with you trying to find a way back into the conversation - after debacle of the past week. Hence, it has everything to do with the campaign.
In this instance, I'm not talking about the campaign at all. I'm talking about the difference between a tax, and a penalty. In which are both collected by the IRS.
So, you agree that a tax is the same as a penalty?
That's why, when you said this:
. . . and then tried to slide-in under the radar with this:
I knew . . .
Since you're trying to deflect the subject shows more about how ridiculous the democrats argument has become.
I have a valid question too.... do you consider yourself honest? Yes or no.
Ok great... now that we have that out of the way. Care to explain why the individual mandate was an awesome idea when it was proposed by Conservatives and the bane of Freedom™ & Liberty™ when it was advanced by Democrats?
I'll wait
Ok great... now that we have that out of the way. Care to explain why the individual mandate was an awesome idea when it was proposed by Conservatives and the bane of Freedom™ & Liberty™ when it was advanced by Democrats?
I'll wait
I didn't like it in anyway. I'm totally against mandating people to buy anything on a federal level. I rather have it be a state by state issue because every state can deal with their tax issues the best way.
No offense but I doubt you'd have a problem with it if it wasn't "Team Obama" promoting it.
On to the issue at hand. Realistically if we're going to tie Health Care delivery to an insurance system everyone needs to be insured. Part of the reason our whole system is so costly (and stunningly inefficient) is because the status quo is retarded and will never work.
This "mandate" (and don't forget "subsidized mandate" for those who legitimately can't afford it) works so well in Massachusetts, Germany, Switzerland etc because these places have recognized that the only way an insurance system functions is if everyone buys in.
Arguing against this stuff is basically arguing against reality. No mandate and yet you still want to keep an "insurance" system? Cool... I want to fly accross the Atlantic on a pegasus.... it's not going to happen though.
Last edited:
(1) This is not about Democrats.
(2) This is about YOU.
(3) I'm not letting you deflect.
If tax/penalty is one in the same, then whats your argument. None. You're just trying to find a way into the conversation after you've been waxed !!! by the Supreme Court.
.
`
Last edited:
Ok great... now that we have that out of the way. Care to explain why the individual mandate was an awesome idea when it was proposed by Conservatives and the bane of Freedom™ & Liberty™ when it was advanced by Democrats?
I'll wait
Your wasting your time. he didn't even know until recently, if he even knows at all that so called Obamacare was the republican alternative to so called Hillarycare.
It was never an awesome idea. Any politician that would embrace a federal mandate does not value freedom & hates our civil liberties, hence, not a true "conservtive".
eliminate the involvement of insurance companies except in catastrophic situations. It would force citizens to seek out the best price for their desired service.
And Thought1, health insurance is not equal to healthcare or access to healthcare.
You'll have to take that up with The Heritage Foundation and the countless conservatives that were pushing the idea in the first place bud.
Re: your comments on Freedom™... please see my lengthier reply above. This is about living in the real world vs pie-in-the-sky fantasies about "market based" Health Care delivery.
You and your bgol cronies are completely missing the point. Healthcare costs are ultimately dictated by the economics involved in the public markets, if the costs are rising due to the patient’s inability to pay, then it is the underlying causation to those ends that is to be realized and addressed. Mandating the privilege though penalty is not at all the correct solution, and if you believe that it is, then it is only so from the perspective of despots and simpletons.
Save your popcorn.
No.
Taxes are the price of admission.
Taxes are the price of admission.
It is a state by state issue when you actually look at the policy. Each state has a choice to opt out if they can find a way to insure the same amount of people in their state for the same or cheaper cost.
It was never awesome but it wasn't bad either. This idea of freedom and civil liberties has a limit when other people are paying the costs of your care. People demand big government by not behaving like responsible adults. Since this policy (attempts) to expand Medicaid (which many people qualify for but don't sign up for as/is) and the "penalty" isn't enforceable as shown by Lawrence O'Donnell, this isn't a real thing but a talking point by those that either don't know better or do and just lie for political.
Fascinating answer. I love that you've evaded the question altogether and called my intelligence into question..... haha... that's awesome.
Look chief. I'm sure you actually believe the stuff you're typing but that doesn't change the fact that it's utter nonsense. A 100% "market based" Health Care delivey model sounds really wonderful in theory but it's a silly panacea that has no counterpart in reality. Paying for the Health Care you need out-of-pocket is only an option for the ultra-rich and completely prohibitive for your average joe. Suggesting otherwise is delusional (do you understand how much Health Care costs? Serious question.)
This is the reason ALL developed countries use an "insurance" model in the first place (via single-payer or a mix of government mandate and private insurance delivery and exchanges.)
I asked you to show me one functional example of a 100% market-based Health Care delivery model because it doesn't exist. That's why Libertarian ideologues actually have to resort to using pet healthcare and lasik eye surgery as examples for their wacky philosophy.
Come back to Earth dude.
Last edited:
Fascinating answer. I love that you've evaded the question altogether and called my intelligence into question..... haha... that's awesome.
Lamarr won't directly answer your question. I have been after him ever since he became a plant here after President Obama won to give me real world examples of his phony Ron Paul libertarian utopia.
He'll pop up in another thread with some more nonsense as if you never asked him your question.
Sounds like the single payer plan to me. That's government buddy.
Duh, but who is going to distribute the risk across the board?
1. I don't give a damn if Ronald Reagan promoted a Mandate, its still a bad idea.
2. I'm not getting in this health care debate again. I'll let Lamarr deal with that one. I feel that this debate is a fruitless effort because you either want an eventual single payer system, or you don't. There's not in between on this issue.
3. Are you really comparing this country to Switzerland, and Germany? Really?
4. So, you basically demonize your opposition because they don't agree with your theories? Kinda sensitive there aren't ya. *referring to the reality comment*.
The way I was "waxed" by the supreme court started this debate. I was pretty much cool with the fact that the mandate can be categorized as a tax. Now you have Pelosi, and company talking about it's not a tax, it's a penalty. This is why I asked this question. It was because of how some on the left have changed the language.
If Obama care didn't have the mandate, you probably wouldn't have heard as much shit from me on this issue.
Who has been saying "if Obama gets unemployment down to the 5% range, and deal with foreign policy right he would win reelection easily"?
Lamarr, you know Thought only sees it his way. This is a fruitless debate.
Well,
Tax, max, Pelosi, . . . who gives a F.
Seriously, its an if you don't purchase insurance, (resulting in someone else being responsible for your healthcare and, possibly, your bad behavior) you pay a price -- whether that price is termed a penalty or a tax (just semantics). Now the semantics may make a difference with respect to how the legislation might be repealed, but for all other purposes -- its just "Partisan Politics."
`
<IFRAME height=315 src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/VDW0ZnZxjn4" frameBorder=0 width=420 allowfullscreen></IFRAME>
Lamarr won't directly answer your question. I have been after him ever since he became a plant here after President Obama won to give me real world examples of his phony Ron Paul libertarian utopia.
He'll pop up in another thread with some more nonsense as if you never asked him your question.
1. Ok.
2. Why bother posting if you won't engage in a debate? Not trying to be an asshole... it just doesn't make any sense. Also.... I've noticed that you haven't really addressed any of my points. With regards to your comment ; "you either want an eventual single payer system, or you don't." That's simply not true. There are many countries that have successfully rolled out the very system we're now implementing (a mix of government mandate and private insurance delivery). So what you're saying is categorically untrue. As I stated earlier..... there's a reason our Health Care system is so incredibly inefficient and costly while grossly undeserving Americans... an "insurance" model without everyone buying in is destined to implode.
3. Why not? How about Japan? Taiwan? The only meaningful difference is a matter of scale.... and scaling isn't an insurmountable problem.
4. No sensitivity whatsoever here man, just being honest. I happen to think you and Lamarr are off living in La-La-Land when it comes to politics/policy and the more you post on these issues the more certain I become of it. Don't take it personally actinanass... it's no actual animosity here.
Romney Now Says Health Mandate by Obama Is a Tax
Published: July 4, 2012
WOLFEBORO, N.H. — Mitt Romney declared on Wednesday that President Obama’s health care mandate was in fact a tax, shifting his campaign’s characterization of the law and aligning himself with the conservative voices in his party.
SOURCE: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/05/us/politics/romney-says-health-care-mandate-is-a-tax.html
___________________________
What changed between July 3rd when the Romney people were saying, its a penalty; and July 4th, when the same people are now saying, its a tax ???
Not a damn thing.
Semantics.
Politics.
Whats the question ?
1. Ok.
2. Why bother posting if you won't engage in a debate? Not trying to be an asshole... it just doesn't make any sense. Also.... I've noticed that you haven't really addressed any of my points. With regards to your comment ; "you either want an eventual single payer system, or you don't." That's simply not true. There are many countries that have successfully rolled out the very system we're now implementing (a mix of government mandate and private insurance delivery). So what you're saying is categorically untrue. As I stated earlier..... there's a reason our Health Care system is so incredibly inefficient and costly while grossly undeserving Americans... an "insurance" model without everyone buying in is destined to implode.
3. Why not? How about Japan? Taiwan? The only meaningful difference is a matter of scale.... and scaling isn't an insurmountable problem.
4. No sensitivity whatsoever here man, just being honest. I happen to think you and Lamarr are off living in La-La-Land when it comes to politics/policy and the more you post on these issues the more certain I become of it. Don't take it personally actinanass... it's no actual animosity here.
Seriously, I wasn't trying to get into the health debate. I'm taking an agree to disagree stance on that issue.
Believe me, when Justice Roberts basically made the mandate into a tax issue. I was pretty much done with this whole issue as a whole. What got me is when the left was trying to state that the mandate is a penalty *which it is*. I wanted to know if there was really a true difference.
Another thing, it's not wise to put countries that depend on our protection as a valid example.
There you go again, demonizing your opposition... So, people who disagree with you have to be in La La land?
Seriously, I wasn't trying to get into the health debate. I'm taking an agree to disagree stance on that issue.
Believe me, when Justice Roberts basically made the mandate into a tax issue. I was pretty much done with this whole issue as a whole. What got me is when the left was trying to state that the mandate is a penalty *which it is*. I wanted to know if there was really a true difference.
Another thing, it's not wise to put countries that depend on our protection as a valid example.
There you go again, demonizing your opposition... So, people who disagree with you have to be in La La land?
Haha..
Haven't responded to any of my points - Check
Faked like you're really offended by my harmless ribbing - Check
Yes people who disagree without articulating an alternative vision rooted in reality are living in La-La-Land imo. No hate.
We can certainly agree to disagree sir.
Last edited:
Similar threads
