Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
The thing is, there are none of the normal IRS strong-arm tactics allowed in the collection process. My guess is that if you can't afford the penalty, you aren't making enough money in the first place. If you're making tons of cash, and still want to opt out of any healthcare plans, paying the penalty may actually be a cheaper route, and they'll make that deduction for you when you file for a return.
Bullshit. Today it was defined as a tax.
Yup - that's how it passed.
Roberts said:
...taxes that seek to influence conduct are nothing new. Some of our earliest federal taxes sought to deter the purchase of imported manufactured goods in order to foster the growth of domestic industry. Today, federal and state taxes can compose more than half the retail price of cigarettes, not just to raise more money, but to encourage people to quit smoking.
So, essentially if you have a decent job, it's very likely that your employer has you covered and you pay no tax. Very soon, all employers will have to provide coverage or face a penalty of their own (yo can call that another tax if you like). If you can't afford insurance, no tax. If you CAN afford insurance and choose not to, you help your fellow citizens out by paying the tax.
Roberts writes later:
While the individual mandate clearly aims to induce the purchase of health insurance, it need not be read to declare that failing to do so is unlawful. Neither the Act nor any other law attaches negative legal consequences to not buying health insurance, beyond requiring a payment to the IRS. The Government agrees with that reading, confirming that if someone chooses to pay rather than obtain health insurance, they have fully complied with the law.
Indeed, it is estimated that four million people each year will choose to pay the IRS rather than buy insurance.
How many other taxes do you get to opt out of?
Are you drinking? If the price of goods rise (which they have), and the Tax of those goods stays the same (which I said before) the amount of Taxes taken in ALSO rise. Not everybody is sitting around doing nothing, some people are still working, and putting gas in their cars, and buying goods and services. Just because the economy sucks, doesn't mean money isn't moving, and Taxes are not being paid.
, while the tax on Capital Gains is 15%, this is the rate used in order to incurage investment. !
Any tax system which means millionires pay a lower tax % than the people who work for them is not encouraging investment.
It is not designed to encourage investment, it is designed to ensure the wealthy and powerful top 1% of Americans - who control 38% of the nations wealth - support the party who gave them the tax advantages.
Setting Capital Gains Tax at 30% would encourage investment, whilst also ensuring the wealthy paid a roughly similar % of tax as the poor. This, however, is not the point of the law.
Your taxes on money earned from shares are far too low, and the US would be in much better financial shape overall if they were at 35%, not 15%.
This isn't a tax increase as such - it's an end to the tax decreases put in place by Bush.
Raising capital gains taxes would encourage investment? .
Raising capital gains taxes would encourage investment? .
No, you mis-read my post.
Raising capital gains tax to a realistic rate would not largely discourage investment.
Bullshit. Today it was defined as a tax.
Yup - that's how it passed.
Roberts said:
So, essentially if you have a decent job, it's very likely that your employer has you covered and you pay no tax. Very soon, all employers will have to provide coverage or face a penalty of their own (yo can call that another tax if you like). If you can't afford insurance, no tax. If you CAN afford insurance and choose not to, you help your fellow citizens out by paying the tax.
Roberts writes later:
While the individual mandate clearly aims to induce the purchase of health insurance, it need not be read to declare that failing to do so is unlawful. Neither the Act nor any other law attaches negative legal consequences to not buying health insurance, beyond requiring a payment to the IRS. The Government agrees with that reading, confirming that if someone chooses to pay rather than obtain health insurance, they have fully complied with the law.
Indeed, it is estimated that four million people each year will choose to pay the IRS rather than buy insurance.
How many other taxes do you get to opt out of?
and if one doesn't have a 'decent job?' They lost their 'decent job' to a reduction in force?
Too bad they were mid 50s, always had insurance prior?
So they piece together part-time jobs, some paying more, (professional), some less, (minimum wage). No surprise, it's the minimum wage job that offers insurance. Problem is between the jobs, not enough income to eat, much less have income diverted.
No jobs to be had.
The mandate made its political début in a 1989 Heritage Foundation brief titled Assuring Affordable Health Care for All Americans, as a counterpoint to the single-payer system and the employer mandate, which were favored in Democratic circles. In the brief, Stuart Butler, the foundations health-care expert, argued, Many states now require passengers in automobiles to wear seat-belts for their own protection. Many others require anybody driving a car to have liability insurance. But neither the federal government nor any state requires all households to protect themselves from the potentially catastrophic costs of a serious accident or illness. Under the Heritage plan, there would be such a requirement. The mandate made its first legislative appearance in 1993, in the Health Equity and Access Reform Today Actthe Republicans alternative to President Clintons health-reform billwhich was sponsored by John Chafee, of Rhode Island, and co-sponsored by eighteen Republicans, including Bob Dole, who was then the Senate Minority Leader.
Yes, Obama OWNS Tax Increases; however, the "mandate" originated with Republicans. In other words, they were for it before they were against it. Republicans had every opportunity to reform healthcare - but they did not.
The mandate made its political début in a 1989 Heritage Foundation brief titled Assuring Affordable Health Care for All Americans, as a counterpoint to the single-payer system and the employer mandate, which were favored in Democratic circles. In the brief, Stuart Butler, the foundations health-care expert, argued, Many states now require passengers in automobiles to wear seat-belts for their own protection. Many others require anybody driving a car to have liability insurance. But neither the federal government nor any state requires all households to protect themselves from the potentially catastrophic costs of a serious accident or illness. Under the Heritage plan, there would be such a requirement. The mandate made its first legislative appearance in 1993, in the Health Equity and Access Reform Today Actthe Republicans alternative to President Clintons health-reform billwhich was sponsored by John Chafee, of Rhode Island, and co-sponsored by eighteen Republicans, including Bob Dole, who was then the Senate Minority Leader.
More: Why Republicans Oppose the Individual Health-Care Mandate : The New Yorker
Yes, Obama OWNS Tax Increases; however, the "mandate" originated with Republicans. In other words, they were for it before they were against it. Republicans had every opportunity to reform healthcare - but they did not.
The mandate made its political début in a 1989 Heritage Foundation brief titled “Assuring Affordable Health Care for All Americans,” as a counterpoint to the single-payer system and the employer mandate, which were favored in Democratic circles. In the brief, Stuart Butler, the foundation’s health-care expert, argued, “Many states now require passengers in automobiles to wear seat-belts for their own protection. Many others require anybody driving a car to have liability insurance. But neither the federal government nor any state requires all households to protect themselves from the potentially catastrophic costs of a serious accident or illness. Under the Heritage plan, there would be such a requirement.” The mandate made its first legislative appearance in 1993, in the Health Equity and Access Reform Today Act—the Republicans’ alternative to President Clinton’s health-reform bill—which was sponsored by John Chafee, of Rhode Island, and co-sponsored by eighteen Republicans, including Bob Dole, who was then the Senate Minority Leader.
More: Why Republicans Oppose the Individual Health-Care Mandate : The New Yorker
Let me get this right. You are advocating 'legislation by think tanks? Regardless of how far back?'
Will taxes go up?What "tax increases"?
My taxes won't go up. How will yours?
Americans for Tax Reform : Full List of Obamacare Tax Hikes
None of those apply to me.
Do any of them apply to you?
What "tax increases"?
My taxes won't go up. How will yours?
My taxes won't go up either since I will continue to buy health insurance. I guess all these free loaders who choose to let people like you and I subsidize their healthcare costs are just in a tizzy because they are finally being called out on their mooching ways. Now they will have to pay to mooch.
Pelosi: Senator Kennedy can now rest in peace. Mary Jo Kopechne unavailable for comment.
Pelosi: Senator Kennedy can now rest in peace. Mary Jo Kopechne unavailable for comment.
I hope that pig is smoldering.
Yes, Obama OWNS Tax Increases; however, the "mandate" originated with Republicans. In other words, they were for it before they were against it. Republicans had every opportunity to reform healthcare - but they did not.
The mandate made its political début in a 1989 Heritage Foundation brief titled Assuring Affordable Health Care for All Americans, as a counterpoint to the single-payer system and the employer mandate, which were favored in Democratic circles. In the brief, Stuart Butler, the foundations health-care expert, argued, Many states now require passengers in automobiles to wear seat-belts for their own protection. Many others require anybody driving a car to have liability insurance. But neither the federal government nor any state requires all households to protect themselves from the potentially catastrophic costs of a serious accident or illness. Under the Heritage plan, there would be such a requirement. The mandate made its first legislative appearance in 1993, in the Health Equity and Access Reform Today Actthe Republicans alternative to President Clintons health-reform billwhich was sponsored by John Chafee, of Rhode Island, and co-sponsored by eighteen Republicans, including Bob Dole, who was then the Senate Minority Leader.
More: Why Republicans Oppose the Individual Health-Care Mandate : The New Yorker
Holy fucking shit now obamacare originated with the Republicans because it was a tax? That's rich.Yes, Obama OWNS Tax Increases; however, the "mandate" originated with Republicans. In other words, they were for it before they were against it. Republicans had every opportunity to reform healthcare - but they did not.
The mandate made its political début in a 1989 Heritage Foundation brief titled Assuring Affordable Health Care for All Americans, as a counterpoint to the single-payer system and the employer mandate, which were favored in Democratic circles. In the brief, Stuart Butler, the foundations health-care expert, argued, Many states now require passengers in automobiles to wear seat-belts for their own protection. Many others require anybody driving a car to have liability insurance. But neither the federal government nor any state requires all households to protect themselves from the potentially catastrophic costs of a serious accident or illness. Under the Heritage plan, there would be such a requirement. The mandate made its first legislative appearance in 1993, in the Health Equity and Access Reform Today Actthe Republicans alternative to President Clintons health-reform billwhich was sponsored by John Chafee, of Rhode Island, and co-sponsored by eighteen Republicans, including Bob Dole, who was then the Senate Minority Leader.
More: Why Republicans Oppose the Individual Health-Care Mandate : The New Yorker
Let me get this right. You are advocating 'legislation by think tanks? Regardless of how far back?'
Olstyle -
It's not näive to look at this from the point of view of the greater society, and also from the perspective of the government.
There is no economic imperative why money earned from dividends or shares should be taxed at a lower rate than income from salaries. Money earned is money earned, and if a person feels that they can earn money by investing in shares, they will do so.
The major impact of the Bush tax cuts has not been to boost investment, but to reduce government income. In good economic times this was sustainable, but in poor economic times it is not.
The idea that people like myself would sell all of my shares if they were taxed at a sustainable level is a nonsense. I have shares because I consider them a good long term investment, and taxation plays a very small role in that decision (within reason).
What I think one needs to accept first and foremost is that the reason for the Bush tax cuts were not economic but political.
Is there really anyone out there who thought the amount of shares purchased would jump so substantially when the Capital Gains Tax was slashed that it could actually counterbalance the costs of cut to the government?
Of course not.
OldStyle -
Actually, I'm a little right of centre, politically.
This shouldn't mean common sense has to leave the building, and espousing a model in which 1% of Americans control 38% of the wealth is neither conservatism nor democracy - it's plutocratic tyranny.
As mentioned, governments right around the world sought to increase their tax take in light of the recession, as revenues fell away in other forms of taxes. Luckily, in most genuine democracies it is possible to act for the government to act to the benefit of the economy, whereas in the US, the politics are so childish the country seems unable to save itself.
One example of this - the US is now the only democracy in the world without VAT - the most effective way of reaping income from the shadow economy, and distributing the tax burden across those who consume. It's a tax backed by every conservative party in the world - except in the US. Why?
Because two party politics have simply locked your government into a straightjacket, in which politicans will not do what they know they should do.
