I will see if I can find it.
Thank you for making my point. SCOTUS told the administration that this wasn’t a fine. It was a tax. If they’re the same thing then there would not have been a need for the distinction.
The intent of the people that wrote and passed the tax was to fine and punish. This is explicitly true.
And they were told they lack the authority to fine in this case; however, Congress can levy taxes.
The intent of the government body that passed a tax was explicitly to punish. A tax was used to punish as espoused by the government bodies that legislated it and was/is responsible for enforcing it. They wrote a tax to punish. Full stop.
Of course it is. It’s completely meaningless but can still be discussed. We’re not solving any problems here in real life on PWI anyways.
Let’s back up here for a second. I honestly don’t have a strong opinion on it. More so just speaking from two sides, one being the realist and one being the “moral” side, just fyi. Me saying it’s our duty comes from the real life side, not fantasy land where it’s not possible to sustain our society without taxes.
1 Like
Absurd. Both are infringements on your freedom. One isn’t more “aggressive” than the other. You’re trying to invent a distinction that doesn’t exist to avoid the problem I raised.
Sure - taxation is a measure designed to raise money to pay for a public good, and its impact on behavior in incidental. A fine is a penalty to punish, or specifically, to discourage, behavior, and its impact on raising money is incidental.
I think it was to influence behavior (like I originally said). They wanted people to buy Obamacare on the exchanges in order to pay for the program. It incentivized buying into the program because the alternative was to pay for the program anyway (via a new tax). I don’t view that as punitive (and neither did the SCOTUS) because it’s just another social program being paid for by the people.
I’ve never had to go on unemployment, but I don’t view the unemployment tax that I hope I never need to use as punitive. It’s a shared benefit not a punishment.
I agree the way the administration framed it is poor and their intent appears to be to punish, but we have the SCOTUS ruling cutting it down.
So, do politicians intend for some taxes to be a punishment? You’ve demonstrated that it’s plausible they might view it as a punishment, but I don’t know of a tax that is a punishment. At least that fits my definition of a punishment.
I understand that you view this as a punishment. I truly do. However, like I said above, I view it as simply another way to pay for the collective program.
You have to remember, the people that refuse the coverage will still be able to utilize the benefit if the need arises without having to pay for it. It’s just the means to make them pay for it.
1 Like
Infringement is also beside the point. One is perpetrated on a person who, by the perpetrators own account, has done nothing wrong. The other is perpetrated on an individual violating the natural god given rights of others.
Does this mean that you are now claiming fines aren’t a punishment?
They did not cut down the punishment. They ruled that the punishment was allowable because it qualified as a tax. Either way, are you now dropping the notion that the difference of intent matters? Because your argument of distinction between taxes and penalties is intent and you’ve just undermined your own argument.
Again, your argument hinges on the intent of the government, not your personal intent.
Again, not according to those who wrote it, nor was that what you previously stated. It was to change behavior. This is evidence by the fact that the fine/tax is much too small to pay for care. But you again are abandoning your own argument the government’s intent. Is the standard for fine vs. tax now the individual’s viewpoint?
how do you even leave the US if you do not consent to taxation?
You get taxed even if you leave and cannot go to another country without a passport making renouncing citizenship unfeasible.
No, I’m saying Congress and the administration mislabeled their tax as a fine and the SCOTUS corrected them.
No, my argument is that their purposes are distinctly different. Intent came up later and is just some rabbit hole we’ve gone down.
Obamacare tired to force people to buy insurance through the threat of a fine (punishment). SCOTUS ruled they could not do that. However, they also ruled these same people could be taxed to indirectly pay for a shared government program.
SCOTUS basically said you don’t have the authority to force people to buy insurance or punish them if they don’t. Hoever, you can tax them to pay for a collective program like unemployment, social security, etc…
There’s a distinct difference.
Purpose, not intent.
I mean, everything philosophically is based on the individual’s viewpoint. This thread is more than enough evidence of that.
You are the one that brought up intent and you meant intent because that’s why you resisted my argument on the capital gains tax. But you honestly have me confused, who’s purposes are you talking about if not the people that make up the government?
Then you aren’t claiming your view on taxation is the correct one? Cause you sure sounded like it before. I think you even compared your viewpoint to gravity because it was so universally true.
Only because I wanted to know if Obama actually said what you claimed he said or if you were inferring intent. Not because my argument is based on the intent of those writing the laws.
I resisted the argument because I don’t see how raising the cap gains rate is a punishment. If your income is solely derived from Cap Gains you pay lower taxes than if it was derived from Ordinary Income. That’s just a fact of our current system.
I’m talking about the purpose of a tax and the purpose of a fine. Not a specific person or entity’s purpose.
In reality? Yes, I’m sticking to my guns on that one. Can a person even be right or wrong philosophically?
pur·pose - the reason for which something is done or created or for which something exists.
In order to have a reason, you have to have something reasoning. I don’t see it as possible to have “purpose” without someone’s reasons. Which in the case of the definition seems to indicate should be the person(s) who created the thing in question. A purpose is specific to a thing or person. Again, I think you are kidding yourself though you appear to be a fine contortionist.
Of course, we just don’t always get to find out the correct answer.
The end to be attained of a tax is funding for a public good.
The end to be attained of a fine is to punish.
The reason for taxation is plainly stated in the Constitution:
I’m not so sure I’m the one that’s kidding themselves.
We both agree that taxation is necessary, in real life.
We both agree that government is necessary, in real life.
We both agree that taxation is legal, in real life.
I hope we both agree that the Constitution applies to us, in real life.
Yet, you’ve essential brush the above aside as if they’re just unfortunate happenstance of reality. Instead, you’ve embraced this theoretical concept that in and of itself is a conundrum. That you’re being robbed in every paycheck because IDK you didn’t sign an agreement to be taxed. That sorta boggles my mind.
Like I’ve said a few times know, I’ve never been one for philosophy or theory. I’m a realist. I believe in how the world is and how the world actually could be. There is no plausible way society could exist without government and there is no plausible way for a government to exist without taxation, which I’m pretty sure you agree with. So how can the very thing necessary for government be stolen from you?
AH, the framers intent is what matters to you then?
So it doesn’t matter to you that the intent of many people making taxes is to punish, and the intent of many people creating fines is to fund the government?
I guess you can believe that if you want. It seems pretty arbitrary to me. To me the intent of the people doing the taxing maters more in my evaluation of if it’s a punishment or not. The actual use of taxes (the reality) maters more than their theoretical intended use.
Then why jump through so many philosophical hoops to avoid calling taxation theft. You are going way out of your way to defend the philosophy of your position when that philosophical technicality doesn’t change the practice. I would have expected a real realist to have jumped on my olive branch of accepting a common definition for what taxation is earlier. You shouldn’t be affronted for calling it theft if you don’t care about the philosophy.
Boredom I suppose.