final bet on product purchasing mandate?

I regardless of how this turns out, I think there is a real lesson in here for us (perhaps more than one). I am still sort of surprised too, even though my gut told me it would go through and my brains says it should not have, not for legal reasons but moral ones, the same morals that say that taxation is actually not ok.

We got obsessed with the word mandate, even though it is not one (really), or the word tax, even though anything we give up to the govt directly or indirectly is a tax. Car insurance is a tax, they really are all taxes unless you give up the money for a good or service of your own free will after you negotiate with the other party. Your mortgage becomes part tax (or tax rebate) when they mess with the rates. Inflation is a tax if not real inflation, etc. etc.

This is why I realized only minutes before the announcement that it would go through. We accepted the taxes long ago and we accepted unequal taxation at the same time. We let people in certain groups pay more or less taxes. Married, kids, church, business, rich, poor, LLC, corp, etc. we let everyone get branded and taxed based on that brand, we as a group have accepted this for a long time....so the concept of dividing us one more way to let people save on taxes is nothing new.

Lesson 1. Stop looking at the words and start looking at the outcomes and actions that come of it. We looked far too close at the words mandate and tax and missed the point all together that this is NOTHING NEW. Even a tax is not just a tax a tax literally means that a few people that only a few other people voted on decided that you don't have a good use for your money and they have a better use and if you don't give it up we will come and ruin you, invade your job and threaten your employer, your family and potentially take away everything you own....now I admit it is easier to say tax, but I think many people forget that taxes are taken by threat of force or kidnapping.

Lesson 2. All of us that felt like this was the first step towards that slippery slope are still in denial that we are already wizzing down the slide with no brakes. It is not right, it is just the way it is. We decided LONG AGO, that others know how to spend our money better than us. We lost this battle about 100 years ago.

Lesson 3. It is time to hire more employees....specifically ones with many years of Federally Lobbying experience, pay in proportion to the increase in sales.

So I say the legislative intent was absolutely to tax, as I define tax as any redistribution of wealth against the will of the owner of said wealth. Republicans and Democrats love taxes.

popcorn eater wrote: I define tax as any redistribution of wealth against the will of the owner of said wealth.

And that is where you go off the rails. If that's how you define "tax", then you are doomed to be outraged for the rest of your life. Taxes are a legitimate function of a civilized society. We can argue over what they should be spent on. (And I guarantee that what *I* think is a legitimate use of them, and what YOU think is a legitimate use are diametrically opposed.) But if you start from the premise that a tax is "a redistribution of wealth against the will of the owner of said wealth", then I can only feel sorry for you.

Did you actually look up the definition of tax before you claimed I went off the rails? Seems Webster and all the Wikis and dictionary.com all agree with me.

I suggest you try....but before you do that, would you be kind enough to post your definition of tax for all to see?

oh and an opinion vs. the definition we are discussing....civil societies don't have the greatest number and percentage of political prisoners vs. others and also don't spend months debating a 2% discount in risk insurance while 100,000's of people starve right next to them. Civil societies don't invade sovereign countries or lock up their citizens based on the perception that they will do crime some time in the future. Civil societies don't put 1 out of 20 people in their 20's in boxes. Again just an opinion. Thanks in advance for being civil, but please don't try to claim that collectively we are such.

Oh and can you elaborate on the legitimate function part. How does something become legitimate? Are the governed really consenting to it or just afraid of being beaten or treated as poorly as a 20 something?

It's ok, I don't expect a response.

Lessee, Dictionary.com says:

Noun: 1) "a sum of money demanded by a government for its support or for specific facilities or services, levied upon incomes, property, sales, etc."
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/tax

I don't see any pejorative garbage such as you describe. The levy of taxes "for specific facilities or services" doesn't come close to your garbage translation...But I certainly agree that government collection of taxes for "for specific facilities or services" is a valid function.

"Legitimate function" has been debated for a little over 200 years. I'll go with the "General Welfare" clause, which is already settled law. I don't expect you to.

Democracy4Sale wrote: Noun: 1) "a sum of money demanded by a government for its support or for specific facilities or services, levied upon incomes, property, sales, etc."

And the ACA tax is levied against what?

Wow.

1. You skipped the 2nd part of the definition and
2. Collectively they say the same thing I did, I am sorry you cannot see that.

Settled by some, but clearly still debated as in order to prioritize welfare we must deprioritize liberties.

"any redistribution of wealth against the will of the owner of said wealth"

"a sum of money demanded by a government for its support or for specific facilities or services, levied upon incomes, property, sales, etc. AND a burdensome charge, obligation, duty, or demand."

The sum of money demanded in your definition is demanded because the person that owns that money did not want to give it of their own free will from my definition. Just a different way of saying the same thing.

The sum of money, which was demanded against the free will of the original earner can also be called wealth derived from his income, property or sales, etc. So now we have a wealth taken against someone's free will.

So this wealth that was taken against the original owner's free will is used to support or for specific facilities or services or redistributed to others for other services, perhaps in addition to the original owner. So now we have "any redistribution of wealth against the will of the owner of said wealth."

and yes, I agree with dictionary.com's 2nd definition too....a burdensome charge, obligation, duty, or demand. The charge is the original owners wealth, the burden is to pay it, which would not be a burden if it was not against his free will, it would also not be an obligation if by his own free will he would do it anyway and it must be demanded (and with force) or he would not redistribute his wealth against his free will. This conversation is about spin, not the actual meaning. And the fact that you skipped the second definition, I believe because it put a negative spin on taxes, is telling. Why did you only post part of it, even though it did not make your point?

Are these statements really that far apart, or are you just trying to throw people off so that they think they want to pay taxes? Can you explain specifically why what I said is different than what dictionary.com? Oh and what's your definition?

Oh and to the last poster, it is levied against your income, but only if you have it.