Skip to main content

View Diary: The two chief justices (108 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  But I don't see it that way. He didn't say you (0+ / 0-)

    had to buy the shitty product, he said you have to pay the shitty tax.  You could buy the product and avoid the tax if you wanted to, but the purchase is not required.*

    Very similar to what happens when you purchase a house to live in.  You don't have to purchase the house.  You do have to pay a tax on your income.  But if you do purchase the house, you can avoid paying the tax on that part of your income represented by your mortgage and real estate taxes.

    One could argue that shitty health insurance is still better than a shitty house if it has the potential to save your life (albeit at a personal expense you would prefer to avoid), since without your life you won't be occupying the shitty house.

    In other words you don't have to eat your broccoli, no matter how much your mom threatens to stuff it down your pie hole.

    *As it turns out, saying you are "required" to pay the tax is an exercise in semantics, if it is true what they say that there is no real enforcement mechanism.

    Because stupid people are so sure they're smart, they often act smart, and sometimes even smart people are too stupid to recognize that the stupid people acting smart really ARE stupid.

    by ZedMont on Thu Jun 28, 2012 at 07:00:29 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site