If you can follow the logic of yesterday's decision about when a mandate is really a tax except when it isn't, then you are better than me. I hope you remember when the US was an economically vibrant country, because that is now all finished. We are going to be France. Soon. John Gault is in Brazil or India or Singapore.
12 comments:
If you read the opinion by the Chief Justice, the explaination is there. The legislation is most certainly not a mandate - Congress is not mandating anyone to do anything other than pay a tax if they don't do something. A mandate is a requirement to do something or else be labeled, by law, a criminal - this legislation does not do this. Also, the AIA is a Congressional policy and it is they who decide (via wording in legislation) if it is to apply or not. By not specifically labeling it a "tax" in the legislation, it isn't viewed as a tax for that purpose. However, for determing the scope of the taxing power, labels do not matter. This is because if it did in fact matter, Congress could circumvent Constitutional limits on power just via labels.
I don't understand your opinion that the US being an "economically vibrant country" is "now all finished", nor do I understand the France connection.
I think the real danger we face is not a new one - that Congress can ignore Article 1 Section 8 and spend as much money as it wants on anything it wants.
The ruling yesterday was clearly a terrible one. But from a strictly economic perspective, is there really a difference between taxing one person for not doing something and rewarding another person (with a tax credit or deduction) for doing something (like buying a hybrid car)? In either scenario, the person not abiding by the wishes of Congress pays more.
-Bub
I think the real danger we face is not a new one - that Congress can ignore Article 1 Section 8 and spend as much money as it wants on anything it wants.
The ruling yesterday was clearly a terrible one. But from a strictly economic perspective, is there really a difference between taxing one person for not doing something and rewarding another person (with a tax credit or deduction) for doing something (like buying a hybrid car)?
In either scenario, the person not abiding by the wishes of Congress pays more.
-Bub
Sorry. Didn't mean to submit my comment multiple times.
-Bub
Anon: This is more of the "Verbal Wizardry" that the four dissenting justices accused Chief Roberts of in a very, very rare jointly signed dissent. Congress did not have to write it in the legislation, Chief Roberts did it for them. And I can't bring it to mind without getting teary eyed.
We are trading liberty for equality and in the end we will have neither. The layer upon layer of entitlements that we are adding to make this country the welfare state it is becoming will drain us of the vibrancy we had and make us the moribund pile of junk that is the French economy as we emulate them. That is what I am thinking.
Thanks so much for your respectful tone and pleasantness. I really appreciate it.
Bub: How true. How about rewarding someone for doing nothing?
Who is John Galt?
I should have prefaced my comment with the fact that I do not support the legislation. However, the Chief Justice did his job and did it well. Anyone who questions that can't see through their own cloud of biased-ness. I think both John Cochrane & Richard Posner provided fine summaries of the court's ruling. The
Also, the entitlement state argument really doesn't hold water empirically:
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/06/the-myth-that-entitlements-ruin-countries-busted-in-1-little-graph/259056/
Dear Anon: You can support the legislation. That's fine. Or not. You are welcome here. Cochrane is a great mind and worth listening to abundantly. But now the government has completed the circle. They can tax you for the things you do and tax you for the things you do not do. Broccoli anyone?
Your observations, and graph, on the entitlement state challenge the imagination.
The "broccoli horrible" is ridiculous as it requires "pil[ing of] inference upon inference". I have a feeling that you didn't read the court's opinion in its entirety, as it doesn't hold in the court's ruling considering that hypothetical was an argument the Chief Justice used to shoot down the ACA based on the commerce clause.
However, "The failure to purchase vegetables..... is not what leads to higher health-care costs for others; rather, it is the failure of individuals to maintain a healthy diet, and the resulting obesity, that creates the cost-shifting problem..... Requiring individuals to purchase vegetables is thus several steps removed from solving the problem. The failure to obtain health insurance, by contrast, is the immediate cause of the cost-shifing Congress sought to address through the ACA...... Requiring individuals to obtain insurance attacks the source of the problem directly, in a single step."
Again, I'm not a fan of the legislation and I agree with you that it now seems the implication is that Congress has the Constitutional authority to create any legislation as long as a tax is added. However, that doesn't take away from the fact that the Chief Justice did his job. Hopefully this will make November interesting for the public.
Regarding the welfare state, are you ignoring the evidence in the graph? There are a plethora of exogenous & endogenous factors affecting PIIGS. How does one explain Sweden ( maybe a competent central bank - Svensson, FTW)? Don't allow ideology to impair your judgment.
PS - don't get too hot down there in G'ville this weekend.
Dear Anon: Too late for that.
Post a Comment