This article is within the scope of WikiProject Taxation, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of tax-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
When asked years ago whether Obamacare could possibly be construed as a tax, Obama angrily said "no." Obamacare's individual mandate was NOT in the revenue portion of the bill. Roberts wrote most of the persuasive dissent in the Supreme Court ruling, so he knew very well that Obamacare was not really a tax, and he merely voted with the majority to try to sidestep controversy (as any number of subsequent reports indicated). The morning after the Court's ruling, the White House reiterated the obvious truth that Obamacare was not a tax. So the article ought to delve into these nuances, but instead it coldly declares Obamacare a tax. Which, of course, it isn't. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 17:52, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
I updated this portion of the article to reflect the decision in National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, where SCOTUS upheld the Act as valid under Congress's taxation power in the Constitution. The IRS itself is still disputing whether it is in fact a tax; the important thing for this article is that it is an example of an act being held as valid under the tax power. As an encyclopedia, the angry rhetoric in the preceding comment should not be reflected in the article itself. The appropriate place for a nuanced look at the PPACA is in its own article and the SCOTUS case article, not in the overview article for U.S. Taxation. Laertes513 (talk) 02:39, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
Greetings! New posts should go at the bottom of the page. That said, internal motivations aside, the Supreme Court has held that Obamacare is a tax. It is certainly fair to add analysis by tax experts who say otherwise, but we only report what the sources say. bd2412T 02:56, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
There is no body text about the Affordable Care Act, yet we have a summary line in the lede? Also, I question its due weight as a single reference given the vast scope of the article. I know this is a current event of interest, but even assuming good faith, cherry picking one law and slapping it into the lede has the appearance of impropriety even if none is intended. Why mention this one law, and not every other that results in a "tax"? If we're going to keep this line and source, I would recommend moving them to the body of the article in an appropriate place, perhaps with the other medical (Medicare, etc) detail.It just seems vastly out of place in the lede compared to the scope, and sets it up for unecessary partisan bickering.188.8.131.52 (talk) 19:00, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
I have to agree with the user at IP184.108.40.206 to the extent that mentioning this one tax in the "lede" of this particular article if this particular tax is not covered in the body of the article might be considered a bit tangential. Not a big deal though, for me at least. I went ahead and deleted the reference. Famspear (talk) 21:56, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
I have no issue with removing it from the lede (but agree it would be fine in the article) and have to agree that it should exist in the article content before being mentioned in the lede as the lede summarizes the article (WP:LEDE). With that in mind, our lede for this article needs a good trimming. Morphh(talk)23:18, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
The section is not specifically relevant to the US. Although I don't see the need for the section anywhere, it might be added to the article Taxation as theft. — Arthur Rubin(talk) 15:31, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
Long standing, sourced graph unilaterally removed and replaced with dated one removed by consensus months ago.
EllenCT just replaced a long standing, properly sourced tax chart without discussion with a dated (2011), problematic one from a partisan lobbyist with an internal federal component that's dramatically contradicted by sources like the CBO and Tax Policy Center despite her participating in the discussion that formed the consensus to remove it several months ago. I'd ask that EllenCT reconsider her unilateral move, revert it, and instead attempt to first gain support for it by posting her rationale here. VictorD7 (talk) 06:30, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
I don't care to have another long tiring debate with Ellen rehashing the same thing. Consensus was not to include it and that horse is dead. Any further inclusion is just disruptive editing WP:IDHT. If we have new graphs, then we can discuss them. Let me clarify my edit summary that I was only describing the first graph when making a statement regarding the image caption being inappropriate, which was to say that it was not written from a neutral point of view. Morphh(talk)21:23, 20 May 2014 (UTC)