President Trump: The NEW one and only politics thread

No they don't, at least not necessarily. I have a mortgage and 'nary of penny of its interest is tax-deductible.

 

If the net result is the same thing, why isn't home ownership universal or referred to as mandated?

You're trying to narrow down both halves to a distorted degree to make them seem equivalent, but the key differences are in the parts you are ignoring

 

Apologies. My mistake. Totally agree with you.

 

But again, public health wasn't the key justification of the law. It was the legitimacy of the government using its taxation powers to enact rules that would otherwise be outside of its scope.

You can't establish that power and assume it will only ever be used for public health reasons

 

The key difference is the semantics in what you call a "penalty" and what you call an "incentive."

The bottom line to the taxpayer - whether they paid a lower tax because they took advantage of an incentive or they paid a lower tax because they avoided a penalty is a difference without a distinction.

But yes - much of this would have been avoided had it been structured differently. Raise everyone's taxes by one percent. Then give everyone who buys health insurance a one-percent deduction.

The net result is exactly the same thing.

 

Raise taxes on newspapers. Give a tax deduction on newspapers that endorse Republican candidates.

It's not a mandate to endorse Republican candidates, right? Just a tax?

Intent matters

 

That's what the Supreme Court said, anyway.

 

I agree with you there.

My objection lies with the idea that "the government has no business meddling in our health care."

 

When the massive "terrorism" (or flat-out Pearl Harbor-style sneak) attack takes place within the first few months of the Trump Administration, I sure hope the grid survives long enough for POTUS to Tweet out his blaming of Obama for the thousands of dead Americans.

 

Yeah, I'm coming at this from the opposite perspective. That liberals should have been against this all along and they will come to regret what they sold out because they wanted to claim the victory of passing any sort of national health bill, no matter how much of a deal with the devil it was.

 

Any chance you could invent some examples which don't depend on an overt violation of the first amendment?

 

That was intentional to get you to raise that objection.

You are now advocating for the argument that there is literally no limit on government power so long as it doesn't expressly violate an enumerated personal right. That is *exactly* what I mean by "dangerous precedent."