Many on the right are blasting the recent ruling on Obama care, stating that the government has this supposedly new power to compel you to do things by using taxes as an incentive. As if taxing people if they do not buy things is a new phenomenon, or some new concept. The fact is, this has been going on for decades.
Buy a house, or you pay more in income taxes, because people who rent cannot deduct mortgage interest, nor can they deduct the property taxes that are paid as a part of the rent.
Buy energy efficient appliances, get a tax deduction.
Buy an energy efficient car, get a tax deduction.
Obtain an expensive college education, get a tax deduction.
Do with a student loan, deduct the interest.

Or are you pulling a switcheroo by claiming that a deduction on your taxes for buying something is any different from an addition to your taxes by not buying something? That is the same logic that a business uses when they are prohibited by law from charging extra for customers who pay by credit card, so they give a discount for cash.

Then there are the taxes that are designed to punish you for buying products, instead of not buying them:
Taxes on tobacco, alcohol, luxury goods, gasoline, tanning beds, certain foods, cars, and on and on. There are even taxes that increase with income, designed to punish you for being successful.

There is nothing new here, and you are fooling yourself if you think that the SCOTUS has changed anything with this ruling.

That doesn’t mean that I am in favor of Obamacare. What it means is that I have long ago come to the understanding that taxes in this country only provide about 65% of what the government spends, and are used more for behavior modification than they are for revenue generation.

Categories: Uncategorized