Janet Novack: How Health Insurance Individual Mandate Quacks Like A Tax:
Roberts concludes the mandate functions more like a tax than the “penalty” for not buying insurance the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act labels it as, because in most cases “the amount due will be far less than the price of insurance,’’ and the IRS is “not allowed to use those means most suggestive of a punitive sanction, such as criminal prosecution,’’ to enforce it.
Because the penalty is so low as to be ineffective, it invites actuarial disaster. Because insurers can’t reject you for a pre-exisiting condition, it will be cheaper to wait until you are sick to get “insurance.”
Peter Reilly: Julian Block On The Tax In The Health Care Act That Everybody Knew Was A Tax. He notes an anomoly in the wage and “unearned income” surtaxes:
Whether by design or inadvertence, Congress created rules that require a person to pay more Medicare surtaxes solely because he or she is married. Congress allows two cohabitating singles to each have up to $200,000 in wages without exceeding the threshold for the 0.9 percent tax. Congress penalizes them if they marry. Wages above $250,000 exposes them to the 0.9 percent tax. Similarly, two cohabitating singles each can have MAGI of as much as $200,000 without exceeding the threshold for the 3.8 percent tax. If they marry, MAGI above $250,000 exposes them to the 3.8 percent tax. Their reward for a walk down the aisle is that they could become liable for both surtaxes.
The question answers itself. “So here’s my issue. What if our politicians are giving us a health care system that is as screwed up as our tax system? I’m just asking.” (Christopher Bergin).
Here’s the problem: if you currently employ 49 people, you’re not going to be hiring that 50th guy, because that would cancel your exemption. Which means your current workforce is either going to have to work harder (to make up for that missing 50th employee), or you’re going to need to scale back even further.
The Eve of Destruction: “The Supreme Court once acknowledged that the ‘power to tax is the power to destroy.’ Let the destruction begin!” (David Windish)
Howard Gleckman at TaxVox, The Supreme Court Says the Health Care Mandate is a Constitutional Tax:
But the Court rejected the White House’s main legal argument—that Congress has the authority under the Commerce Clause to require people to get insurance. It will be interesting to see how legal scholars read this in the coming weeks: Is the Court saying that tax policy is the only tool Congress has to enact certain social welfare programs? If so, it would put an already-stressed tax code under even greater pressure.
I get an Instapundit mention! No link, alas… (update: linked now, thanks Instapundit!)
And a floor wax and a dessert topping! The Individual Insurance Mandate is Constitutional Because it is Both a Penalty and a Tax. Wait…What? (Anthony Nitti)
Kay Bell: Tax component saves health care act
Paul Neiffer: ObamaCare Survives The Supreme Court! “For now, the most immediate effect facing farmers is the imposition of the Medicare Surtax on earned income and unearned income starting January 1, 2013.”
Tax Policy Blog has a Roundup of Reactions to Supreme Court Health Care Ruling
If you want to read about something besides yesterday’s Supreme Court decision:
Hiring the Right Accountants For Your Business (Missouri Tax Guy)
Russ Fox: eFile an FBAR? Use Internet Explorer, Not Firefox or Chrome. Remember, it’s due tomorrow.
Tags: Kay Bell, Russ Fox, Tax Policy Blog, Janet Novack, Instapundit, Christopher Bergin, TaxGrrrl, Paul Neiffer, Martin Sullivan, Obamacare, Howard Gleckman, Hank Stern, Missouri Tax Guy, Peter Reilly, Anthony Nitti, ACA, David Windish