Taxing Your Mere Existence
posted at 6:33 pm on August 17, 2009 by Legal Insurrection
As set forth in my prior post, IRS The New Health Care Enforcer, the new tax provisions in the Senate and House draft health care bills tax people for failing to obtain acceptable health coverage. These taxes are crucial to implementing a health care mandate (which Barack Obama said during the primary he was against) whereby the power to tax compels people to obtain coverage.
This tax, though, is unlike any other tax. Normally, the federal government taxes income, the purchase and sale of goods and services, and other economic behavior. To the extent the tax laws address non-economic behavior, i.e., one’s mere existence, those laws grant credits or deductions (for example, for a dependent).
I am aware of no other tax resulting from one’s failure to engage in economic activity. Under these draft bills, if you exist, the government taxes you unless you engage in economic activity (and the government may tax that activity as well, as in the case of expensive employer-provided health care plans).
Even the per capita taxes which exist in some states or municipalities do not tax the failure to engage in economic behavior; each person pays the same tax regardless of what they do or do not do.
What a bizarre concept is a tax to enforce a health care mandate. If you buy a computer at a store, you expect to pay a sales tax; but do you expect to pay the tax for not buying a computer? If you earn income at a job, you expect to pay taxes on the income; but do you expect to pay taxes for not working?
This is not strictly a constitutional issue. The prevailing view seems to be that such a tax would pass constitutional muster, although there certainly are arguments to the contrary.
Rather, this is a political issue. Does the American public truly understand the impact of allowing the federal government to tax individuals based on what such individuals do not do, the equivalent of a tax on one’s mere existence?
Taxing inaction destroys our right to be left alone, which is one of the foundations of liberty in this country. The implications of such a tax as a tool of political coercion truly are revolutionary.
Cross-posted with updates at Legal Insurrection Blog









Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Interesting, another way to look at is as a form of punitive taxation. Taxation as a means of Federal Government imposed punishment for failing to obtain acceptable health coverage. I’m not a lawyer by any means, but I would question if this could be considered as punitive taxation and if it is legal.
BDU-33 on August 18, 2009 at 2:42 AM
If the federal government is allowed to pass a law punitavely taxing the refusal to purchase insurance, what then is the limit to the amount of intrusion into personal decision-making will we tolerate?
What’s next, an obesity tax, another tax on smokers’ choices, a cholesterol tax?
Where does it end?
This is a road upon which it is best not to embark at all, for it leads to a place where freedom is but a memory.
hillbillyjim on August 18, 2009 at 5:44 AM
bullseye.
NickelAndDime on August 18, 2009 at 3:07 PM
Is this even Constitutional? Can they tax you on something you don’t use? They could tax you in the event you do use it, but not until you do.. But I don’t see how this is within constitutional law.
There are only two kinds of taxes, direct apportioned; and indirect non-apportioned (excise). This is neither. I can see a SC case on this should someone be “taxed” for non-compliance. You would think Obama would know this, being a Constitutional law professor.
Patriot Vet on August 18, 2009 at 7:00 PM