A Hendrickson follower indicted on federal tax charges?

[Cpt Banjo]

If memory serves, taxes should be upheld if there is some reasonable relationship to revenue production, or if Congress has the authority to regulate the activity that is being taxed.

The first factor is relevant in determining whether the "tax" is really a tax or a penalty posing as a tax. I'm not sure the second factor is relevant, since the taxing power is independent of Congress' regulatory powers, and the Supreme Court has repeatedly held that Congress can tax things it can't otherwise regulate.

The argument against the tax is that because it isn't an excise, duty, or impost within the accepted meaning of those terms, it must be a direct tax that must be apportioned. Here's a good discussion:
http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog ... e-tax.html

The bulk of the debate centers on whether it's an excise, a type of tax that has always been predicated upon a privilege, an event, the use of property, or certain activities. It's never been based upon inactivity.

[Imalawman]

If you think Lopez was wrongly decided, you're a leftwing nut.

Ha, well, I don't know about that. If you disagree with Lopez, then you really believe in granting the federal government the ability to regulate every aspect of life - which is good or bad depending on your view of things. Frankly, I thought the law itself was fine in Lopez from a moral perspective. However, there was no constitutional basis for the feds to enact it. It should have been a unanimous decision. Its scary to me that 4 justices thought otherwise.

[LPC]

If you think Lopez was wrongly decided, you're a leftwing nut.

I'm having trouble dealing with that statement, because I consider myself to be a leftwing nut, and I agree with Lopez.

So I'm not sure if I'm wrong about being a leftwing nut, or wrong about Lopez.

It's kind of like being a sadist in love with a masochist and refusing to beat him/her. You're not sure if you're winning or losing.

[Quixote]

The first factor is relevant in determining whether the "tax" is really a tax or a penalty posing as a tax. I'm not sure the second factor is relevant, since the taxing power is independent of Congress' regulatory powers, and the Supreme Court has repeatedly held that Congress can tax things it can't otherwise regulate.

If Congress can require people to buy health insurance, it doesn't matter if the money paid for failure to have insurance is a tax or a penalty. But if Congress lacks that power, the nature of the payment becomes relevant. The requirement that everyone have health insurance looks a lot like regulation to me. I doubt the majority of the Court will have any trouble finding it to be regulation disguised as a tax.

The direct tax argument strikes me as a non-starter. There are existing excises on inactivity. A floor stocks tax, for example, is either a tax on existing inventory, which would be a direct tax, or it is a tax on a business's failure to sell that inventory. Even if a tax on inactivity were never heard of, that doesn't mean it's not an excise. Income taxes didn't meet the traditional definition of excises until the Brushaber Court said they did. In Springer, the Court held the income tax to be an excise or a duty. And even if the Court can't decide if the tax is an excise, a duty or an impost, they will have little trouble finding that it is not a tax on property, nor a capitation.

[webhick]

It's kind of like being a sadist in love with a masochist and refusing to beat him/her. You're not sure if you're winning or losing.

It depends on how much you paid to watch.

[LPC]

It's kind of like being a sadist in love with a masochist and refusing to beat him/her. You're not sure if you're winning or losing.

It depends on how much you paid to watch.

Which reminds me of one of my favorite Duckman rants, about the anger and frustration you feel when your wife runs off with a woman and you don't have a chance to watch.

My second favorite rant.

[Lorax]

Justices Breyer, Souter, Stevens and Ginsburg all thought Lopez was wrongly decided and if you think they're leftwing nuts then you're just poorly informed UGA. By the way, go Gators. Also, while I'm certainly a man of the left, calling me a nut just because I agreed with a four justice minority is rather rude and uncalled for.

Edit: I could probably think of some things that Congress isn't allowed to regulate, but when you look at the cases where the Court said Congress could regulate a farmer growing wheat solely for use inside his state, or where the Court decided Congress could ban racial discrimination in privately owned and operated hotels and bars because of the commerce clause, I don't see why Congress couldn't regulate guns in schools because of the cumulative effect on the economy.

[Joey Smith]

Please take the "everybody who is not a tea partier is a leftwing commie" stuff and attitude elsewhere, i.e., some other website as it is not appropriate here. Try the comments section to politico.com or worldnetdaily.com or something, but not here.

Locking the thread as having run far away from the original topic.

Calling people an "idiot" or "nut" simply because they have a bona fide disagreement is really stupid and juvenile conduct.