Are You Insured? The IRS Could be Watching?

[harley]

I think that it is constitutional based on the commerce clause plus the power to tax to provide for the general welfare.

Well, seeing some of the ways the commerce clause has been used in the past 50 years, you are probably right. As I said, the SCOTUS and I don't agree very much on constitutional interpretations. I keep reading the words in the Bill of Rights, which must be the wrong way to do it. If they can rule that growing pot in your house for your own use is a violation of the interstate commerce act, or that the gov't can take your house and give it to a developer under eminent domain, then they can certainly justify this one.

 

[samclem]

How did Mass. and other states with similar requirements to buy health ins. pass their law? Is it that the states definitely have the right too and the Fed is in question?

Yes. The article at this link discusses the potential constitutional problems with the proposed health care legislation, including some relevant precedents.

Congress is supposed to police themselves and not pass bills that are unconstitutional, but, like conference committees and open debate of final legislation, that has apparently fallen out of vogue.

 

[ERD50]

I think that it is constitutional based on the commerce clause plus the power to tax to provide for the general welfare.

I certainly don't know about the constitutionality of it, but it just does not strike me as 'general welfare', when one state (Nebraska) gets a better deal than other states. That seems like "specific welfare" to me.

Ben Nelson Faces Outrage in Nebraska Over Health Care Reform Vote


I'm sure there is precedent. Federal pork going to one state versus another could be considered the same thing. But that doesn't make it right. In fact, I think it makes it wrong, which was my point.

-ERD50

 

[Independent]

Are you referring to a "Flat Tax"?

No, I'm referring to simpler taxes. Imagine that the individual income tax code/regulations cover 10,000 pages. The first 9,999 determine your taxable income. The last page has a table of graduated tax rates. I think of a "flat tax" as replacing the last page with a single number. A "simpler tax" gets rid of as much of the first 9,999 pages as possible.

It's possible to do both. Many flat tax proposals also try to simplifiy that other 9,999 pages. But I see two different concepts.

Looking at graduated tax rates, I see the pros outweighing the cons. But, when I look at using the tax code to as an opportunity for social engineering, I think the cons outweigh the pros.

 

[MasterBlaster]

I certainly don't know about the constitutionality of it, but it just does not strike me as 'general welfare', when one state (Nebraska) gets a better deal than other states. That seems like "specific welfare" to me.

Ben Nelson Faces Outrage in Nebraska Over Health Care Reform Vote


I'm sure there is precedent. Federal pork going to one state versus another could be considered the same thing. But that doesn't make it right. In fact, I think it makes it wrong, which was my point.

-ERD50

I would think that the premise of the quoted article is wrong. The outrage shouldn't be coming from Nebraskans. They got the great deal. The real outrage should come from others.

 

[Independent]

Taxing LTCG at the same rate as earned income would be okay if indexed for inflation. I don't think it's right to hold high net worth people hostage in order to have them form some kind of political constituency against high inflation--it's not like the US money supply is somehow controlled via direct referendum by people with a net worth over $5M.
But, I will go this far toward creating constituencies: let's create a "political constituency" for lower taxes by eliminating itemized deductions (as you suggest) and by reducing the standard deduction and the personal exemption. Get a higher percentage of people paying taxes so there's some meaningful counterbalance to the growth of government. When everyone feels the pain, the pain will be reduced. But if Joe pays no taxes and yet benefits from government spending, he's gonna vote for more spending . . . funded by others.

We're off on a tangent here, but I'll go on anyway. I think experience shows that "richer" people have a lot more political power than their numbers suggest. Money is very important in US politics.

At the same time, "poorer" people don't vote their pocketbooks as much as self-interest might suggest. One reason is that historically Americans have believed that they or their children are likely to end up "richer". So it's better to become rich than to soak the rich. (This belief is probably eroding.)

The obvious example is the estate tax. We're seriously discussing eliminating a tax that only impacts the richest 2% of families. That discusson couldn't happen except for the two observations above.

(But, back to my original statement. If I had a vote in Congress, I'd be willing to accept indexed capital gains if I could get the simplifications I listed.)

 

[Notmuchlonger]

So, now we are looking for "health insurance cheats"?

Soon we will be looking for salt cheats.

NYC asks food manufacturers to hold the salt - Diet and nutrition- msnbc.com

No offense to those who love government meddling in their lives.

But if I got to pack a salt shaker to where I eat out.

ILLLL DOOOO IT