USA Middle Class is NOT a Bottomless Pit to Loot

commentary by Roger Erickson

"Nearly 6 million Americans - most of them in the middle class - will face a tax penalty for not carrying medical coverage once President Barack Obama's health care overhaul law is fully enacted."

Tax penalty to hit nearly 6M uninsured people

I knew there was a catch, but it's just sinking in. Just another tax, if we don't submit to the FIRE segment.

That sellout might be touted as an incentive to practice preventive health maintenance, but that excuse is a joke. If that were the real goal, provide incentives to drink less sodas, eat less crappy food, be less obese, and stop excessive practice of things we didn't excessively practice prior to at least 1970. The F500 lobby wouldn't like that any more than the FIRE industries. It's very profitable to systematically make American's unhealthy, then twice as profitable
to make heroically expensive efforts to repair the self-inflicted damage.

If an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, they key fraud corollary is that a pound of cure is far more profitable to a few parasites, than is that ounce of prevention. It's all in the perspective, and situational awareness.

Meanwhile, the 1%, Upper Looting Class simply don't recognize that the USA is not a bottomless pit to loot. First we finally depleted the Grand Banks of cod, now we've depleted the US middle class of financial assets.

We could review the passenger pigeon & American Bison too. However the next targets are US middle class real assets, or what's left of them.

We finally got a moratorium to ONLY deplete whatever cod actually show up off the Grand Banks.

Can we at least suggest a moratorium to ONLY loot whatever middle class asset sticks it's head above the crowd - to get lopped off? That's not the end goal, but it has to at least be a start, for Pete's sake!

Gerard N. Magliocca — Clear Statement Rules and Taxes

The most interesting part of his ruling, I think, is the explanation of why letting Congress tax commercial inaction is not problematic given that Congress cannot command us to act in commerce. The Chief gives three reasons for this distinction.

1. Nothing in the Constitution says that inaction may not be taxed
2. The courts would invalidate a tax that was high enough to amount to a penalty.
3. Taxes are less coercive than commands.

What is missing from this list? Do you see it?

Read it at Balkinization
Clear Statement Rules and Taxes
by Gerard N. Magliocca | Samuel R. Rosen Professor at the Indiana University Robert H. McKinney School of Law