tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3389480741181428499.post27355333705081890..comments2019-10-13T04:05:57.650-07:00Comments on E[Optimism]: The Issue of the Day - UpdatedUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3389480741181428499.post-51133005995455805802012-06-28T10:19:43.588-07:002012-06-28T10:19:43.588-07:00I just recently found out about them. I may not be...I just recently found out about them. I may not be the most up-to-date person musically...Expected Optimismhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17529415638698561443noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3389480741181428499.post-65829972785096316272012-06-28T09:18:44.519-07:002012-06-28T09:18:44.519-07:00Consider three possible mandates:
1) Go buy X, or ...Consider three possible mandates:<br />1) Go buy X, or I'll penalize you $Y.<br />2) Go buy X, or I'll tax you $Y.<br />3) I'll tax you $Y, unless you go buy X.<br /><br />#1 is the way the PPACA is written, #2 is the way the early drafts were written, and #3 is the mortgage tax deduction. In terms of economic effects, all three mandates are identical. It doesn't matter whether you call it a penalty for not doing something or a credit for doing it, your incentives and final tax bill are the same. There's a psychological difference, but not an economic one.<br /><br />My understanding when writing this entry was that #1 was unconstitutional while #2 and #3 were constitutional, despite them all being functionally identical. Roberts' argument seems to be that because they are functionally identical, if any is constitutional, they all are.Expected Optimismhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17529415638698561443noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3389480741181428499.post-42529223875500872222012-06-28T08:30:47.689-07:002012-06-28T08:30:47.689-07:00I see now that I completely missed your point on t...I see now that I completely missed your point on the Tax clause. Although it looks like there's essentially no limit on Congress's authority now either way, so long as the commerce in question has a tax for not participating. I still think it's different than "buying a house or having a kid..." as those are active things that you do and then get deductions for. Are there deductions or credits or penalties for NOT doing things? (I suppose you could argue that it's equivalent to everyone paying a higher rate and everyone else getting a deduction FOR doing the thing...)joshuahttp://www.postlibertarian.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3389480741181428499.post-25565227867375335002012-06-28T03:55:36.819-07:002012-06-28T03:55:36.819-07:00Oops, wrong post on that last comment. Good though...Oops, wrong post on that last comment. Good thoughts on the Constitution.<br /><br />I don't think Congress has the authority to make us buy things, i.e. engage in commerce we aren't already engaging in because our lack of engagement affects the engagement itself. It seems like a lot of liberals think that's constitutional based on an old court decision that the government can force a farmer not to grow wheat because he is affecting the rest of the market by doing so. Or something like that. But of course, under that logic, everything we buy or not buy affects the market for everything, so there would be nothing Congress can't make us buy... The idea of how the government is limited on that point seemed to be the chief concern of conservative judges during the hearings, and I haven't seen a good limit from the liberals who are convinced it just has to be constitutional. Indeed, they don't seem very concerned about limiting the government at all.joshuahttp://www.postlibertarian.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3389480741181428499.post-12671304507672163082012-06-28T03:51:32.327-07:002012-06-28T03:51:32.327-07:00I love Gungor.I love Gungor.joshuahttp://www.postlibertarian.comnoreply@blogger.com