Texas bill would reward companies

Status
Not open for further replies.

TXgolfer

Dream Weaver
Premium Member
Joined
Jul 26, 2009
Messages
19,035
Reaction score
7
A Texas lawmaker has introduced legislation that would provide state-level tax breaks to companies that flout a provision in President Obama's health care law that requires employers to cover contraception.

Republican State Rep. Jonathan Stickland's bill is designed to protect companies that view the contraception mandate as an attack on their religious beliefs. Many of them say forms of contraception, particularly "morning-after" pills, amount to abortion-inducing drugs.

Numerous religious nonprofits and corporations have sued over the mandate. So far, federal courts have provided temporary relief from the mandate's penalties to nine out of 14 corporations, although the merits of their claims may be headed to the Supreme Court.

Oklahoma-based company Hobby Lobby became the public face of the dispute, after the arts-and-crafts behemoth found a way to delay its insurance year and avoid up to $1.3 million in fines per day when the mandate kicked in at the start of the year.

Mr. Stickland's legislation, House Bill 649, encourages companies that balk at "Obamacare" by exempting them from "all taxes levied by the state if they are forced to pay punitive fines related to the Obamacare contraception mandate," according to a press release from his office.

"It is simply appalling that any business owner should have to choose between violating their religious convictions and watching their business be strangled by the strong arm of Federal mandates and taxation," the lawmaker said. "I intend to do everything I can to help save Hobby Lobby and protect them from our out-of-control federal government."

Texas bill would reward companies for balking at Obamacare - Washington Times
 
Good to see you flouting the rules by posting a blatantly political thread.
 
It will be unconstitutional, so no doubt.
 
Good to see you flouting the rules by posting a blatantly political thread.

I don't think it is political. This is about businesses and taxes. By your logic, everything would be political.

Edit to add: I think this thread is somewhat informative to many. A lot of people do not realize how vastly different tax polices are from state to state. Plus, we do have business owners on this site. A potential tax advantage might be something that they would like to be apprised of.

So, like any other issue, this topic is only political if people choose to make it political.
 
Interesting. How, exactly, would a state giving state tax incentives be unconstitutional?

There are always loopholes, no matter what. Federal makes one law. States get around them. Nothing new....has been around for long time.
 
There are always loopholes, no matter what. Federal makes one law. States get around them. Nothing new....has been around for long time.

This isn't a loophole. It is a state tax. States are allowed to tax as they see fit for the most part. For instance Washington does not have a state income tax. Across the border Portland does not have a sales tax.

California charges 9.5% sales tax on the full value of a vehicle. Texas charges 6.25% on the net cost (after trade in) of a vehicle.

So what is being proposed here, is an adjustment in state business taxes to offset the burden on new federal penalties. It is an interesting move because Texas is already seeing a large influx of business migration and a bill like this could really add to that.
 
Interesting. How, exactly, would a state giving state tax incentives be unconstitutional?

First Amedment - the government can't award the companies based on religious belief.

State tax incentives must to be completely neutral, not based on religious belief.
 
First Amedment - the government can't award the companies based on religious belief.

State tax incentives must to be completely neutral, not based on religious belief.

They aren't. In fact they are doing just the opposite. :)
 
Good luck, it is strongly unconstitutional, not from my opinion.

Again, how so?

Your stated reason is incorrect.

1) The 1st Amendment provides for free exercise.
2) Both Federal and State governments provide tax deductions/ exemptions for religious non-profits already
3) This bill is not limited to religious businesses. All businesses burdened by the fines are eligible.
4) The rights of states to regulate revenue collection is Constitutionally protected.
 
I don't find any incorrect on my side.

The government can't make any laws to endorse the companies based on religious belief.

The article from OP.
A Texas lawmaker has introduced legislation that would provide state-level tax breaks to companies that flout a provision in President Obama's health care law that requires employers to cover contraception.

Republican State Rep. Jonathan Stickland's bill is designed to protect companies that view the contraception mandate as an attack on their religious beliefs. Many of them say forms of contraception, particularly "morning-after" pills, amount to abortion-inducing drugs.

Use taxpayer's expense to fund the companies based on religious belief. :ugh:

That's unconstitutional and the government has no business to endorse the companies because of religious belief.

This article clearly stated that tax break will goes to companies because of religious belief - very obviously.
 
I don't find any incorrect on my side.

The government can't make any laws to endorse the companies based on religious belief.

The article from OP.


Use taxpayer's expense to fund the companies based on religious belief. :ugh:

That's unconstitutional and the government has no business to endorse the companies because of religious belief.

This article clearly stated that tax break will goes to companies because of religious belief - very obviously.

Despite what the article might say, all business burdened by the fine are eligible. Therefore, no businesses would be given an advantage based on religious views. An atheist porn shop owner forced to pay these federal fines would qualify for the same state exemption. You are getting hung up on words and not focusing on application of the law.

And I remind you, this bill supports free exercise.
 
Despite what the article might say, all business burdened by the fine are eligible. Therefore, no businesses would be given an advantage based on religious views. An atheist porn shop owner forced to pay these federal fines would qualify for the same state exemption. You are getting hung up on words and not focusing on application of the law.

And I remind you, this bill supports free exercise.

I disagree because the article clearly state about tax break based on religious belief, so the article that you posted don't lie.

Now, I'm not interested to debate with you and my post - #3 still stand, no matter if you don't agree.
 
I disagree because the article clearly state about tax break based on religious belief, so the article that you posted don't lie.

Now, I'm not interested to debate with you and my post - #3 still stand, no matter if you don't agree.

It doesn't matter what the article says. Laws are not found unconstitutional based on articles :lol: The constitutionality of laws is based on the law itself and it's application.

The Supreme Court ruled that the Obamacare mandate is a tax. Constitutional as a tax. Some states already allow people to deduct their federal tax burden from their state taxes. In fact, Alabama (your state) is one of them, so you should be very familiar with this.

This law would provide a STATE tax deduction for all businesses that incur this federal fine/tax. That is perfectly legal.....in fact, as shown above, it is already done in many states.

Now, if they only gave that tax break to religious businesses......that would be unconstitutional. But they are not proposing that. This deduction would be available to all businesses.
 
Wirelessly posted

I already see this in the pharnacy. Most of them are Employees of the State of Fl and I also see it with Tri care. They pay $0 copay for some of the family planning medications, not all of them.
 
Wirelessly posted

I already see this in the pharnacy. Most of them are Employees of the State of Fl and I also see it with Tri care. They pay $0 copay for some of the family planning medications, not all of them.

I wouldn't be surprised if Florida try's to find a way to deal with this too.
 
Wirelessly posted

TXgolfer said:
Wirelessly posted

I already see this in the pharnacy. Most of them are Employees of the State of Fl and I also see it with Tri care. They pay $0 copay for some of the family planning medications, not all of them.

I wouldn't be surprised if Florida try's to find a way to deal with this too.

Some companies do not realize that it is much cheaper to pay for contraceptives than it is for people to have children that the parents can not afford to care for. So it falls on the tax payers.

So a reward system will bring relief and compliance of the companies. Good business all around.
 
It doesn't matter what the article says. Laws are not found unconstitutional based on articles :lol: The constitutionality of laws is based on the law itself and it's application.

The Supreme Court ruled that the Obamacare mandate is a tax. Constitutional as a tax. Some states already allow people to deduct their federal tax burden from their state taxes. In fact, Alabama (your state) is one of them, so you should be very familiar with this.

This law would provide a STATE tax deduction for all businesses that incur this federal fine/tax. That is perfectly legal.....in fact, as shown above, it is already done in many states.

Now, if they only gave that tax break to religious businesses......that would be unconstitutional. But they are not proposing that. This deduction would be available to all businesses.

If you think that my post is incorrect, so I think your post is incorrect too.

Fair enough, so I like to make clarify but I don't think that you will get it because of different philosophy.

The religious belief is KEYWORD in the article and the government (the state legislature is part of government) can't reward the companies based on religious belief that majority of legislators agreed. My final answer - entire of proposed law is unconstitutional.
 
If you think that my post is incorrect, so I think your post is incorrect too.

Fair enough, so I like to make clarify but I don't think that you will get it because of different philosophy.

The religious belief is KEYWORD in the article and the government (the state legislature is part of government) can't reward the companies based on religious belief that majority of legislators agreed. My final answer - entire of proposed law is unconstitutional.

They state would not be rewarding companies based on religious belief. ALl who paid these federal fines would receive a tax credit. This is not about philosophy. It is about application of the law. The wording of an article is inconsequential.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top