Tax Incentive vs Mandate

Would converting a mandate to a tax incentive make a difference to you as a voter?

  • No. Tax incentives are the same as mandates with a fine.

    Votes: 5 71.4%
  • Yes. There's a substantial difference between them.

    Votes: 2 28.6%

  • Total voters
    7

dblack

Platinum Member
Joined
May 21, 2011
Messages
35,118
Reaction score
3,892
Points
1,130
Some Republican proposals to 'replace' ACA have offered up the idea of a tax incentive to encourage insurance coverage, rather than the individual mandate. In my view the two approaches are functionally equivalent and equally offensive. But it seems mine is a minority opinion. Thus the poll.

What do you think?

For the purposes of the poll, assume that the numbers are the same in either case. In other words, the incentive option would involve a tax increase of exactly the same amount as the fine for the mandate - with the incentive that you would get it back as a deduction if you were adequately insured.
 
Last edited:

iamwhatiseem

Gold Member
Joined
Aug 19, 2010
Messages
25,200
Reaction score
7,345
Points
280
Location
On a hill
I would instead propose that you lose EIC funds if you do not provide proof of insurance.
As I have stated 100's of times, the IRS should never be in the business of redistributing wealth. Only in specific circumstances should a person EVER have a negative tax liability.
The problem with the tax incentive is the ease of defrauding the system. You know as well as I know that the government would do a lousy job of checking claims...so not only would people get EIC funds - but more on top of that - and still be costing the system for receiving medical care without paying.
 
OP
D

dblack

Platinum Member
Joined
May 21, 2011
Messages
35,118
Reaction score
3,892
Points
1,130
I would instead propose that you lose EIC funds if you do not provide proof of insurance.
As I have stated 100's of times, the IRS should never be in the business of redistributing wealth. Only in specific circumstances should a person EVER have a negative tax liability.
The problem with the tax incentive is the ease of defrauding the system. You know as well as I know that the government would do a lousy job of checking claims...so not only would people get EIC funds - but more on top of that - and still be costing the system for receiving medical care without paying.
Tax credits are different. I'm merely interested in how it will play if they try to convert the mandate into an equivalent tax incentive. As far as I see it, that would be the same shit with a different name, and we're suckers if we fall for it. But I've definitely talked to people who see it differently.
 

bendog

Platinum Member
Joined
Mar 4, 2013
Messages
34,578
Reaction score
3,976
Points
1,140
Location
Dog House in back yard
i was always for the incentive approach, coupled with tax credits for people w/o hc insurance. I was ok with expanding medicaid to children, because of lack of a better idea. But, we had an opportunity to get rid of schips and still cover the kids ... and their parents as well.

Though the dems' demand to control what policies americans buy has saved conservatism from itself.
 
OP
D

dblack

Platinum Member
Joined
May 21, 2011
Messages
35,118
Reaction score
3,892
Points
1,130
i was always for the incentive approach, coupled with tax credits for people w/o hc insurance. I was ok with expanding medicaid to children, because of lack of a better idea. But, we had an opportunity to get rid of schips and still cover the kids ... and their parents as well.

Though the dems' demand to control what policies americans buy has saved conservatism from itself.
Controlling which policies count as 'adequate coverage' is another issue entirely, and will be a problem in either case.

So, are you saying you're ok with tax incentives, but not an equivalent mandate and fine? What are you seeing as the difference?
 

g5000

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 26, 2011
Messages
93,942
Reaction score
15,594
Points
2,180
Some Republican proposals to 'replace' ACA have offered up the idea of a tax incentive to encourage insurance coverage, rather than the individual mandate. In my view the two approaches are functionally equivalent and equally offensive. But it seems mine is a minority opinion. Thus the poll.
A tax incentive is a distinction without a difference.
 

g5000

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 26, 2011
Messages
93,942
Reaction score
15,594
Points
2,180
We have had federal mandates for a long time.

If you don't have a mortgage, you pay a tax penalty.

If you don't have kids, you pay a tax penalty.

If you don't buy the right kind of refrigerator, you pay a tax penalty.

It really wasn't a leap to make you pay a tax penalty for not buying the right kind of health insurance.

This shit needs to be outlawed.
 

bendog

Platinum Member
Joined
Mar 4, 2013
Messages
34,578
Reaction score
3,976
Points
1,140
Location
Dog House in back yard
Well, to answer as best I can, I believe the mandate is constitutional as a tax, but also that beyond debate was even more so a valid exercise of the commerce clause. Imo Roberts' decision was politically motivated because people always don't like taxes. Moreover, by not going the commerce route, which was the constitutional justification for medicaid, he freed himself to insert the poison pill of allowing states to opt out of the medicaid expansion, which everyone knew would cover the most the fastest.

That said, I never liked Obamacare. Imo, govt functions best when it does not tell people how to behave. We are a market economy. The RW idealogues controlling the gop argue govt has no role in markets. That's bs. Reagonomics (or Thatcherism or neoliberalism which are the same thing) all used govt to influence market choice BY MAKING IT EASIER FOR INDIVIDUALS TO ENTER, AND EXIT, MARKETS. In fact, doing just that is the rationale that justifies govt confiscating wealth in taxes. (There's a message there for people like take a step back)

If people have the opportunity to purchase insurance affordably, they will. Young people don't need the insurance I do, being a middle aged guy with dependents. The families with those 40K deductable "insurance" policies didn't chose those because they thought it was a good policy; they bought them because that was all they could afford, and I know privately employed professionals who surprisingly are in that boat. Some cheapskates will try and skate, but as with medicare, govt can impose a stiff penalty on those who try and go without insurance, only to try and get into the market after they get sick.

To me there's a philosophical difference in being told you have to do something compared to govt affecting the markets to make it easier for you to make a rational decision in your best self interest.

In shot, that's why I'm not a dem.
 
Last edited:

Edgetho

Gold Member
Joined
Mar 27, 2012
Messages
12,506
Reaction score
2,635
Points
280
Some Republican proposals to 'replace' ACA have offered up the idea of a tax incentive to encourage insurance coverage, rather than the individual mandate. In my view the two approaches are functionally equivalent and equally offensive. But it seems mine is a minority opinion. Thus the poll.
A tax incentive is a distinction without a difference.
No it isn't.

Only a mandate works when it comes to Insurance.

I cant tell you how many times I had to sit across from a pissed off customer who had to buy Flood Insurance and try to de-fuse him or her.

I can't tell you how many times I've heard,"I've been here 10 years and never experienced a Flood", to which my stock answer was, "I've never been in a plane crash either. What's yer point?"

Only the government sells Flood Insurance (well, there's "Surplus Lines" but that's another ball game) and it's through FEMA. Your Flood Policy might say "State Farm" or "Farmers" or "Allstate" on it but it's through FEMA. Trust me.

Know why? Because Private Insurance Companies don't have the power to FORCE people to buy Flood Insurance. And if they weren't FORCED to buy Flood Insurance, most of them wouldn't. And without mass participation, the whole thing just falls apart.

So if you've got a Mortgage on your House, and you're in Flood Zone A, your Bank is going to FORCE you to buy Flood Insurance (because of government rules).

It's got to be mandated or it won't work.

Well, it probably isn't going to work anyway. But that's not because of anything other than dimocrap scum being so incredibly arrogant that they thought they could build the railroad and run it all by themselves.

They fucked it up and it's probably going to fail. Too bad. We need a MANDATED Health Insurance program in this Country. Bad.

But like everything else dimocraps touch, it turns to shit
 
OP
D

dblack

Platinum Member
Joined
May 21, 2011
Messages
35,118
Reaction score
3,892
Points
1,130
Well, to answer as best I can, I believe the mandate is constitutional as a tax, but also that beyond debate was even more so a valid exercise of the commerce clause. Imo Roberts' decision was politically motivated because people always don't like taxes. Moreover, by not going the commerce route, which was the constitutional justification for medicaid, he freed himself to insert the poison pill of allowing states to opt out of the medicaid expansion, which everyone knew would cover the most the fastest.

That said, I never liked Obamacare. Imo, govt functions best when it does not tell people how to behave. We are a market economy. The RW idealogues controlling the gop argue govt has no role in markets. That's bs. Reagonomics (or Thatcherism or neoliberalism which are the same thing) all used govt to influence market choice BY MAKING IT EASIER FOR INDIVIDUALS TO ENTER, AND EXIT, MARKETS. In fact, doing just that is the rationale that justifies govt confiscating wealth in taxes. (There's a message there for people like take a step back)

If people have the opportunity to purchase insurance affordably, they will. Young people don't need the insurance I do, being a middle aged guy with dependents. The families with those 40K deductable "insurance" policies didn't chose those because they thought it was a good policy; they bought them because that was all they could afford, and I know privately employed professionals who surprisingly are in that boat. Some cheapskates will try and skate, but as with medicare, govt can impose a stiff penalty on those who try and go without insurance, only to try and get into the market after they get sick.

To me there's a philosophical difference in being told you have to do something compared to govt affecting the markets to make it easier for you to make a rational decision in your best self interest.

In shot, that's why I'm not a dem.
I don't agree at all, but I appreciate the thoughtful response.
 

bendog

Platinum Member
Joined
Mar 4, 2013
Messages
34,578
Reaction score
3,976
Points
1,140
Location
Dog House in back yard
The bank can't force anyone to buy flood insurance. The govt prevents the bank from issuing a mortgage. The individual then has a choice.
 
OP
D

dblack

Platinum Member
Joined
May 21, 2011
Messages
35,118
Reaction score
3,892
Points
1,130
Some Republican proposals to 'replace' ACA have offered up the idea of a tax incentive to encourage insurance coverage, rather than the individual mandate. In my view the two approaches are functionally equivalent and equally offensive. But it seems mine is a minority opinion. Thus the poll.
A tax incentive is a distinction without a difference.
No it isn't.

Only a mandate works when it comes to Insurance.

I cant tell you how many times I had to sit across from a pissed off customer who had to buy Flood Insurance and try to de-fuse him or her.

I can't tell you how many times I've heard,"I've been here 10 years and never experienced a Flood", to which my stock answer was, "I've never been in a plane crash either. What's yer point?"

Only the government sells Flood Insurance (well, there's "Surplus Lines" but that's another ball game) and it's through FEMA. Your Flood Policy might say "State Farm" or "Farmers" or "Allstate" on it but it's through FEMA. Trust me.

Know why? Because Private Insurance Companies don't have the power to FORCE people to buy Flood Insurance. And if they weren't FORCED to buy Flood Insurance, most of them wouldn't. And without mass participation, the whole thing just falls apart.

So if you've got a Mortgage on your House, and you're in Flood Zone A, your Bank is going to FORCE you to buy Flood Insurance (because of government rules).

It's got to be mandated or it won't work.

Well, it probably isn't going to work anyway. But that's not because of anything other than dimocrap scum being so incredibly arrogant that they thought they could build the railroad and run it all by themselves.

They fucked it up and it's probably going to fail. Too bad. We need a MANDATED Health Insurance program in this Country. Bad.

But like everything else dimocraps touch, it turns to shit
I'm not really interested, in this thread at least, in discussing the merits of forced insurance coverage. I'm wondering what you're seeing as the difference between a tax incentive and a mandate with a fine. As long as the mandate includes no criminal charges, it's functionally the same - if you don't get insurance, you pay more in taxes. What gives?
 

Edgetho

Gold Member
Joined
Mar 27, 2012
Messages
12,506
Reaction score
2,635
Points
280
The bank can't force anyone to buy flood insurance. The govt prevents the bank from issuing a mortgage. The individual then has a choice.
Banks don't 'issue a mortgage' idiot. The borrower gives the Bank a mortgage on which the Bank issues a loan.

Any more brilliant thoughts?
 

bendog

Platinum Member
Joined
Mar 4, 2013
Messages
34,578
Reaction score
3,976
Points
1,140
Location
Dog House in back yard
The bank can't force anyone to buy flood insurance. The govt prevents the bank from issuing a mortgage. The individual then has a choice.
Banks don't 'issue a mortgage' idiot. The borrower gives the Bank a mortgage on which the Bank issues a loan.

Any more brilliant thoughts?
The bank has to sell the mortage. You really make a living at this?
 

Edgetho

Gold Member
Joined
Mar 27, 2012
Messages
12,506
Reaction score
2,635
Points
280
A tax incentive is a distinction without a difference.
No it isn't.

Only a mandate works when it comes to Insurance.

I cant tell you how many times I had to sit across from a pissed off customer who had to buy Flood Insurance and try to de-fuse him or her.

I can't tell you how many times I've heard,"I've been here 10 years and never experienced a Flood", to which my stock answer was, "I've never been in a plane crash either. What's yer point?"

Only the government sells Flood Insurance (well, there's "Surplus Lines" but that's another ball game) and it's through FEMA. Your Flood Policy might say "State Farm" or "Farmers" or "Allstate" on it but it's through FEMA. Trust me.

Know why? Because Private Insurance Companies don't have the power to FORCE people to buy Flood Insurance. And if they weren't FORCED to buy Flood Insurance, most of them wouldn't. And without mass participation, the whole thing just falls apart.

So if you've got a Mortgage on your House, and you're in Flood Zone A, your Bank is going to FORCE you to buy Flood Insurance (because of government rules).

It's got to be mandated or it won't work.

Well, it probably isn't going to work anyway. But that's not because of anything other than dimocrap scum being so incredibly arrogant that they thought they could build the railroad and run it all by themselves.

They fucked it up and it's probably going to fail. Too bad. We need a MANDATED Health Insurance program in this Country. Bad.

But like everything else dimocraps touch, it turns to shit
I'm not really interested, in this thread at least, in discussing the merits of forced insurance coverage. I'm wondering what you're seeing as the difference between a tax incentive and a mandate with a fine. As long as the mandate includes no criminal charges, it's functionally the same - if you don't get insurance, you pay more in taxes. What gives?
Because people will pay the miniscule fine and still, when they end up in the E-Room with a gunshot wound, won't have Health Insurance to pay for their treatment.

Guess who will?

The Tooth Fairy?
 

bendog

Platinum Member
Joined
Mar 4, 2013
Messages
34,578
Reaction score
3,976
Points
1,140
Location
Dog House in back yard
Congress mandated federally regulated or insured lenders to require flood insurance on properties that are located in areas at high risk of flooding.

Below you'll find the insurance requirements for your flood risk area. If you're not sure which area your property is in, take your Risk Profile to learn more.

Residents of High-Risk Areas
Homes and buildings in high-risk flood areas with mortgages from federally regulated or insured lenders are required to have flood insurance. In high-risk areas, there is at least a 1 in 4 chance of flooding during a 30-year mortgage.

Residents of Moderate-to-Low Risk Areas
Homes and businesses located in moderate-to-low risk areas that have mortgages from federally regulated or insured lenders are typically not required to have flood insurance. However, flood insurance is highly recommended because anyone can be financially vulnerable to floods. People outside of high-risk areas file over 20% of NFIP claims and receive one-third of disaster assistance for flooding. When it's available, disaster assistance is typically a loan you must repay with interest.

A lender can require flood insurance, even if it is not federally required
 

Edgetho

Gold Member
Joined
Mar 27, 2012
Messages
12,506
Reaction score
2,635
Points
280
OP
D

dblack

Platinum Member
Joined
May 21, 2011
Messages
35,118
Reaction score
3,892
Points
1,130
No it isn't.

Only a mandate works when it comes to Insurance.

I cant tell you how many times I had to sit across from a pissed off customer who had to buy Flood Insurance and try to de-fuse him or her.

I can't tell you how many times I've heard,"I've been here 10 years and never experienced a Flood", to which my stock answer was, "I've never been in a plane crash either. What's yer point?"

Only the government sells Flood Insurance (well, there's "Surplus Lines" but that's another ball game) and it's through FEMA. Your Flood Policy might say "State Farm" or "Farmers" or "Allstate" on it but it's through FEMA. Trust me.

Know why? Because Private Insurance Companies don't have the power to FORCE people to buy Flood Insurance. And if they weren't FORCED to buy Flood Insurance, most of them wouldn't. And without mass participation, the whole thing just falls apart.

So if you've got a Mortgage on your House, and you're in Flood Zone A, your Bank is going to FORCE you to buy Flood Insurance (because of government rules).

It's got to be mandated or it won't work.

Well, it probably isn't going to work anyway. But that's not because of anything other than dimocrap scum being so incredibly arrogant that they thought they could build the railroad and run it all by themselves.

They fucked it up and it's probably going to fail. Too bad. We need a MANDATED Health Insurance program in this Country. Bad.

But like everything else dimocraps touch, it turns to shit
I'm not really interested, in this thread at least, in discussing the merits of forced insurance coverage. I'm wondering what you're seeing as the difference between a tax incentive and a mandate with a fine. As long as the mandate includes no criminal charges, it's functionally the same - if you don't get insurance, you pay more in taxes. What gives?
Because people will pay the miniscule fine and still, when they end up in the E-Room with a gunshot wound, won't have Health Insurance to pay for their treatment.

Guess who will?

The Tooth Fairy?
What are you getting at?

To reiterate, I'm asking, if the numbers are the same - if the fine for the mandate is the same as the deduction offered for the incentive - if it's the same amount of money out of your pocket in either case, why does it matter what it's called?
 

Edgetho

Gold Member
Joined
Mar 27, 2012
Messages
12,506
Reaction score
2,635
Points
280
I'm not really interested, in this thread at least, in discussing the merits of forced insurance coverage. I'm wondering what you're seeing as the difference between a tax incentive and a mandate with a fine. As long as the mandate includes no criminal charges, it's functionally the same - if you don't get insurance, you pay more in taxes. What gives?
Because people will pay the miniscule fine and still, when they end up in the E-Room with a gunshot wound, won't have Health Insurance to pay for their treatment.

Guess who will?

The Tooth Fairy?
What are you getting at?

To reiterate, I'm asking, if the numbers are the same - if the fine for the mandate is the same as the deduction offered for the incentive - if it's the same amount of money out of your pocket in either case, why does it matter what it's called?
You are completely illogical
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top