Tuesday, March 27, 2012

The Government Must Tell Us

Amidst the debate over the Supreme Court case that is challenging some provisions of the Affordable Healthcare Act, it seems that an interesting phenomenon has arisen. It's one I've seen other times, as well: this idea that the government has to tell us what to do, or else we will be completely incapable of, you know, being adults and taking care of ourselves.

Which is, obviously, why the government must tell us that we are required to buy health insurance. Because, naturally, we can't expect to make our own decisions about our healthcare and make the choices that are best for us. No, the government must come and tell us what to do, or else we will be physically and mentally incapable of taking care of our own business.

You have to love the Nanny State mentality, whether you partake in it or not. Whatever else you might say about it, it offers limitless opportunities for amusement.

According to this article, the Obama administration is claiming the interstate commerce clause as justification for the mandatory health insurance bit, once again proving that the government can fit anything under that label. So long as it requires monetary exchange, they can tax it and say that it's interstate commerce, so it's okay for them to get involved. Besides all that, of course, we must think of all those poor people who can't afford health insurance...

And must steal money from taxpayers in order to pay for them. O, having a government that is simultaneously extravagantly spendthrift and also practically bankrupt is sometimes very interesting.


Son III said...

If it is about monetary exchange, alternate currencies would close their non-existent loophole to a limited extent.

Kyla Denae said...

I'm not sure how that would be, Son. They'd still be able to claim that it's a movement of goods, services, or values across a state border, and so would still be able to regulate it. I can see how it would make them have to bend over backwards a bit more, but they've proven time and again that they're more than capable of that.

Son III said...

Barter isn't taxable, though. I cross the state line into Missouri from time to time with lots of valuables with the intent to trade for other valuables, and no taxes are legally levied.

If it isn't legal tender, it isn't taxable under those laws.

Son III said...

If they decide to somehow regulate all or some forms of barter, though, I can see them still winning.

Kyla Denae said...

They do try to do that; I know that trading work for work is illegal, so I'm pretty sure barter of the sort you're talking about is, too. Of course, their failure to actually enforce that is just proof that the government is inept.

Anonymous said...

Trading work for work is not illegal by federal law as long as both parties file the correct forms with the IRS reporting the fair market value of the income payed/received, same with bartered goods.

Some farmers still pay their employees in what is called "commodity wages." It is reported to the IRS on a W-2 in bushel or head amounts.

Technically, poached wildlife (animals, plants, algae, and fungi) and certain unsold raised commodities are also considered income by the Federal government subject to income tax and self employment tax.

If you receive a pig as payment for work, you must report the fair market value of the pig and pay US currency to the IRS to cover the income and self employment tax burden of that transaction. To do otherwise is tax evasion which is illegal.

In some cases, payments made with things or services are not deductible by the payer as expenses of doing business, as is the case with commodity wages.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.