As an aside, I agree that Medicare expansion would have been a better policy. Good luck getting that through congress, though.
Because you do get fined for not buying health insurance.
We can argue the semantics of the word 'mandate' all day, but your analogy is upside down.
You are being fined for not paying mortgage interest. You are being fined for each kid you don't have. Buy your house and have your kids or you will continue paying more in taxes!
Person B -- the renter -- will pay more income tax, because Person B does not get to deduct mortgage interest while Person A does.
In much the same way, if Person A carries insurance all year and Person B doesn't, Person B will pay more income tax.
So yes, you do get "fined" for not buying a house. We just spin it as "encouraging the dream of home ownership" instead of as a "fine", a "penalty", as "the government holding a gun to your head and forcing you to buy a house", etc.
If I choose to live rent-free in my parents' basement, I will not get fined for doing so. I keep ALL of my cash. But I'll STILL get fined for having not buying myself insurance.
I'm not sure what logical fallacy you're throwing here, some form of "Denying the antecedent" or something along those lines, but it's not the same situation.
I don't mean this as a rhetorical question, so I apologize if it comes across as snide, but from the point of view of economics, what is the difference? I'm trying to understand why one kind of tax incentive is objectionable and not the other.
If I have $1000 in my pocket right now, I will still have $1000 in my pocket if I choose not to go after an incentive.
But if I have $1000 in my pocket right now, I will not have $1000 in my pocket even if I choose not to buy any health insurance.
In my eyes, being punished for peacefully doing absolutely nothing is as anti-American as it comes. That's another argument, but my point is that the analogy is off the mark.
There is a tax penalty for not having a home mortgage, so it's mandatory in exactly the same sense that health insurance under the ACA is.
You have to spend money on interest to have a portion of that reduced in taxes. It's not a penalty.
It's not a 'tax penalty'. You're keeping more of your money by not paying interest, and pay normal taxes on those. It's not a penalty.
That's really bizarre (although unfortunately, common) thinking.
There's an incentive for having a home mortgage under certain conditions only, and you do not owe anyone additional money if you have no outstanding mortgages on properties.
The same is not true for the ACA. You are fined for not owning something - e.g. if your net worth was $0, you could go into the negative for not having insurance.
If you don't own a mortgage, you cannot be fined into the negative.
The healthcare mandate is a tax. What many people object to here is that most taxes tax an activity (making money, buying things, owning things, etc.), such that one does not HAVE to do any of those things, but if one CHOOSES to, they become subject to the tax. Here on the other-hand they are being TAXED for NOT doing something.
Using your analogy, the healthcare mandate is the same as taxing people for not owning a home.
