Chief Justice Roberts: It's Not A Tax, It Is A Tax; It's Law, But It's Not 'Unlawful' to Break

Sounds like a lot of double talk right ?

Well it just might be !!

This article highlights some quotes from the Supreme Court "decision".


Quotes like:

He upholds the individual mandate—as a tax, not a penalty—as the law of the land. But then says it would not be "unlawful" for Americans to violate the law's mandate that they "shall" buy health insurance--as long as they are willing to pay the "penalty" for not obeying the law.

What ??

Roberts first examines the question of whether the Anti-Injunction Act prohibits Americans from bringing suit against Obamacare at this time.

“The Anti-Injunction Act provides that ‘no suit for the purpose of restraining the assessment or collection of any tax shall be maintained in any court by any person, whether or not such person is the person against whom such tax was assessed,’” Roberts explains.

“Amicus contends that the Internal Revenue Code treats the penalty as a tax, and that the Anti-Injunction Act therefore bars this suit,” says Roberts.

So, the "penalty" serves as the "tax" ???


But,

Roberts thus concludes that because Congress calls the penalty for not complying with the individual mandate a “penalty” not a “tax,” the "penalty" therefore is not a "tax."

“The Affordable Care Act does not require that the penalty for failing to comply with the individual mandate be treated as a tax for purposes of the Anti-injunction Act,” writes Roberts. “The Anti-Injunction Act therefore does not apply to this suit, and we may proceed to the merits.”

Got it? The chief justice of the United States says the penalty for not obeying the individual mandate is not a tax, it's a penalty. Therefore, the court can rule on it at this time.

Remember: Roberts says, It's not a tax, it's a penalty.

“It is of course true that the Act describes the payment as a ‘penalty,’ not a ‘tax,” says Roberts. “But while that label is fatal to the application of the Anti-Injunction Act, it does not determine whether the payment may be viewed as an exercise of Congress’s taxing power.”

Roberts then concludes that he while he considered the "penalty' and "penalty" in determining that his court could take up Obamcare and rule on it, he will now consider the “penalty” a “tax” for purposes of allowing Congress to force people to buy health insurance.

The article goes on about the Commerce Clause and some other points.


source article
Who else is "confused" ?

So, the "Taxpayers" pay the "Penalties" anyway.

And, the "Taxpayers" pay the "Taxes" just the same .....

And the "Taxpayers" pay the insurance rates too !!!

Our government is a confusing one.

Almost makes you think they may not have the best interests in mind for the people. They probably don't.

Or they do, or they don't, or they do, or they don't.

Double post sorry.

Originally posted by sicksonezer0
Our government is a confusing one.

Almost makes you think they may not have the best interests in mind for the people. They probably don't.

Or they do, or they don't, or they do, or they don't.

You are right, but wrong.
You are wrong, but right.

or...

Oompa loompa doompity doo...
I have another riddle for you...(someone add to this, I'm interested in where it will go...)

Reply to post by sicksonezer0

Of course it's confusing.
The current tax code is intentionally convoluted, as to allow for the wealthy to exploit it.
Yeah, let's have Mitt Romney help bring America back to greatness. The same guy who has millions in off shore accounts. The man speaks of investing in America while he collects interest in Carribean and European banks.


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

We have a ton of these "not unlawful to break" laws in the US.

It's just that nobody cares and unless you have money out the ass you're screwed regardless of whether something is "lawful" or not.

So many "laws" are little more than widely believed facts and that's all it takes to lock you up and throw away the key.