«
»

When is a tax increase not a tax increase?

Posted 21 Sep 2009 in Barack Obama, healthcare, socialism, totalitarianism

***Scroll down for updates***
When is a tax increase not a tax increase?

When Dear Leader goes on Sunday morning talk shows and shamelessly lies about it, in complete denial of the facts.

WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama says requiring people to get health insurance and fining them if they don’t would not amount to a backhanded tax increase.

“I absolutely reject that notion,” the president said. Blanketing most of the Sunday TV news shows, Obama defended his proposed health care overhaul, including a key point of the various health care bills on Capitol Hill: mandating that people get health insurance to share the cost burden fairly among all. Those who failed to get coverage would face financial penalties.

Obama said other elements of the plan would make insurance affordable for people, from a new comparison-shopping “exchange” to tax credits.

Telling people to get health insurance is absolutely not a tax increase, Obama told ABC’s “This Week.”

“What it’s saying is, is that we’re not going to have other people carrying your burdens for you anymore,” said Obama. “Right now everybody in America, just about, has to get auto insurance. Nobody considers that a tax increase.”

On the contrary, Mr. President. Although people must buy auto insurance for the privilege of driving on public roads, what Democrats are proposing is that Americans must buy insurance for the privilege of breathing. And if they do not purchase an “acceptable” level of insurance, then the government will levy a fine equal to 2.5% of their modified adjusted gross income for the taxable year (let’s see…what else might we call a government-directed fine…A TAX).

Add to that, this government-implemented fine will be imposed by…you guessed it…the IRS. What more must be said to prove that this is yet another Democrat-proposed tax on working Americans for the purpose of funding insurance for those who refuse to pay for their healthcare?

Hey, I’ve got an idea. Let’s look at the actual wording of the bill. Section 401 is quite clearly entitled:

“Tax on individuals without acceptable health care coverage.”

Within that section, on page 203, Lines 14-18 read:

“The tax imposed under this section shall not be treated as tax imposed by this chapter for purposes of determining the amount of any credit under this chapter or for purposes of section 55″

And if this tax isn’t currently in place, but will be imposed if this legislation is passed, then it will, in fact, be a tax increase (regardless of whether or not the Ministry of Truth wants to treat the tax as a tax).

A TAX INCREASE on the American people, Mr. President, for the purpose of institutionalizing government-run healthcare.

Once again, YOU LIE.
—
UPDATE:
Here’s the clip of George Stephanopoulos tripping up President Obama on his tax increase. It’s pretty bad when a former Senior Advisor to the Clinton Administration can see through the “it’s not a tax” subterfuge.

STEPHANOPOULOS: I…I don’t think I’m making it up. Merriam Webster’s Dictionary: Tax — “a charge, usually of money, imposed by authority on persons or property for public purposes.”

OBAMA: George, the fact that you looked up Merriam’s Dictionary, the definition of tax increase, indicates to me that you’re stretching a little bit right now. Otherwise, you wouldn’t have gone to the dictionary to check on the definition. I mean what…

STEPHANOPOULOS: Well, no, but…

OBAMA: …what you’re saying is…

STEPHANOPOULOS: I wanted to check for myself. But your critics say it is a tax increase.

OBAMA: My critics say everything is a tax increase. My critics say that I’m taking over every sector of the economy. You know that. Look, we can have a legitimate debate about whether or not we’re going to have an individual mandate or not, but…

STEPHANOPOULOS: But you reject that it’s a tax increase?

OBAMA: I absolutely reject that notion.

Exit question: can you imagine the hue and cry if Karl Rove were to be employed by a network as one of their reporters?
—
UPDATE: The American Spectator gets deeper into the details of Obama’s impending middle-class tax hike…

Obama is saying that nobody who can’t afford health insurance will be forced to buy it, but he has an odd definition of “affordable.” Under the Baucus plan, individuals would face a tax of at least $750 if they do not purchase health coverage. And while the proposal would provide subsidies to lower-income Americans, those subsidies would stop at 300 percent of the federal poverty level. What that means is that a family of four with a household income above $66,150 would face a tax of $3,800 if it does not obtain health insurance, while an individual with income above $32,490 would face a tax of $950. While the proposal would in fact waive the requirement for individuals who can prove they can’t afford a minimal health insurance policy as defined by the government, to qualify for the exemption, premiums would have to exceed 10 percent of adjusted gross income — or somewhere in the neighborhood of $3,000 for somebody with income of $32,490.

Then there’s this larger idea of uncompensated care. While it is true that some people end up showing up in emergency rooms without paying and that imposes costs on others, there are two things that Obama isn’t taking into account. First, just because you mandate coverage it doesn’t mean you eliminate the uncompensated care. Second, if you have to spend hundreds of billions of dollars on subsidies enabling people to purchase insurance, then that costs far more than whatever would be saved by reducing uncompensated care.

Posted by FullMetalPatriot
12th gen. American, Constitutionalist, Harley-riding Texan, gun owner & NRA member, blogger, illustrator, Florida Gator alumnus. #TCOT

Leave A Comment