[ExI] Warren Buffett is worried too and thinks Republicans are "asinine"

[spike]

>. On Behalf Of Omar Rahman

>.If the Supreme court has declared it a tax then it's a tax and therefore
the IRS can collect it. Where is the problem?

 

The problem is on page 231 of the PDF of the ACA:

 

(3) LIMITATIONS ON LIENS AND LEVIES.-The Secretary (or,

if applicable, the Attorney General of the United States) shall

not-

(A) file notice of lien with respect to any property

of a person by reason of any failure to pay the penalty

imposed by this subsection; or

(B) levy on any such property with respect to such

failure.

 

Then later on page 249: 

 

''(g) ADMINISTRATION AND PROCEDURE.-

''(1) IN GENERAL.-The penalty provided by this section

shall be paid upon notice and demand by the Secretary, and

except as provided in paragraph (2), shall be assessed and

collected in the same manner as an assessable penalty under

subchapter B of chapter 68.

''(2) SPECIAL RULES.-Notwithstanding any other provision

of law-

''(A) WAIVER OF CRIMINAL PENALTIES.-In the case of

any failure by a taxpayer to timely pay any penalty imposed

by this section, such taxpayer shall not be subject to any

criminal prosecution or penalty with respect to such failure.

''(B) LIMITATIONS ON LIENS AND LEVIES.-The Secretary

shall not-

''(i) file notice of lien with respect to any property

of a taxpayer by reason of any failure to pay the

penalty imposed by this section, or

''(ii) levy on any such property with respect to

such failure.''.

 

So the ACA was designed to make the standard of constitutionality under the
Welfare clause in the preamble, which empowers the government to "promote
the general welfare."  Putting liens against a prole's property or
threatening to imprison her for refusing to pay for Sandra Flock's birth
control pills can scarcely make the grade for promoting the general welfare,
as the Supreme Court agreed.

 

That subchapter B of chapter 68 allows the IRS Secretary  to issue notice
and demand payment.  The special rules below that provision specify they IRS
may not do anything about it if the taxpayer opts to not pay.  The IRS may
withhold funds from the tax refund however.  Of course that is easy to fix:
arrange to not have a refund coming by not over-withholding.  

 

The SCOTUS (rightly in my opinion) offered a way out, just by observing that
the 16th amendment can cover a passive act (not doing something) as a
taxable event.  I read the 16th amendment; it looks to me like it can be
applied to anything the government wants.  They could solve homelessness by
using the IRS to force everyone to buy a home, merely by requiring penalties
for those who don't have one, for instance.  Then we could heap more
pressure on the stubbornly homeless by calling them irresponsible jerks,
problem solved.  We could empty mental health institutes by having the IRS
command the patients to get sane. Conclusion: by Supreme Court decree, the
IRS could replace the FBI, the ATF, all domestic law enforcement agencies
and completely wipe away crime and all other social ills.  Or not.

 

However, even with all its miraculous healing power, the IRS still cannot
make people buy health insurance, because the ACA law specifically forbids
the IRS from issuing criminal penalties for non-payment, and from any liens
or levies on property.  Also note there are no provisions for modification
of the ACA by careful design.  

 

If the IRS cannot collect the opt-out tax for the ACA with legal force, this
means the opt-out tax becomes a donation.  The government is certainly a
non-profit (it is a massively negative profit) and donations to NPOs are tax
deductible, so one might argue the opt-out tax is itself tax deductible.  By
that reasoning, the opt-out tax cancels itself.  The taxpayer could just
write the opt-out tax check to herself and be done with it.

 

spike

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20131104/e21cd663/attachment.html>