Full List of Obamacare Tax Hikes

Originally posted by spiritualzombie


They will just say you are blaming Bush... I bet in 1948 there were a lot of Germans saying... Oh here we go, let's keep blaming Hitler for Germany's problems.

Way to derail the thread...


Hitler and Bush.

Nothing on Obamacare and its Tax hikes .


NOTHING

Originally posted by spiritualzombie

Originally posted by RealSpoke
reply to post by sonnny1

 

We wouldn't have a "war on terror" without Bush. Sorry, but Bush started all of this, therefore he is the worst president in modern history. His lies killed millions of civilians..

Republicans arent concerned with mass killing of civilians. This is a non-issue for them. Its the taxes, man... Its the money (only when Democrats are in office) that gets them all upset...

They will just say you are blaming Bush... I bet in 1948 there were a lot of Germans saying... Oh here we go, let's keep blaming Hitler for Germany's problems.

Having been to Iraq and Afghanistan, I have to call you guys on this. What "mass killings?" What "millions" of civilian casualties? Please cite some sort real evidence for such hyperbole.

reply to post by spiritualzombie

They will just say you are blaming Bush... I bet in 1948 there were a lot of Germans saying... Oh here we go, let's keep blaming Hitler for Germany's problems.

Right, because in 1945 Hitler had finished out his Constitutional terms as elected dictator and couldn't run for another term so he peacefully made way for the duly elected occupiers. Nice history lesson.

Truly thread derailment here at its best. On the last page I posted an on topic and well thought out list of questions and comments only to have a completely irrelevant post dog-pile my post into oblivion. Wow ATS, way to deny ignorance.

reply to post by MsAphrodite


Your "well thought out questions" only raise more questions. Let's begin with this question:

What will happen when they need medical care?

This "well thought out question" is hardly thought out at all! The question presupposes that a person who has opted out of the "shared responsibility payment" - and let's clarify the fact that you've presumed those opting out would also pay the fine, which is merely a presumption and nothing more - could not possibly pay for their own health care without an insurance policy.

So poorly thought out is this question that it ignores the individual from 18 to 24 who declines to pay an average of $110 per month for health insurance, and continues to decline to pay from 25 to 34 years of age when that average jumps to $135 a month, and all this money saved totals, without interest accrued, $22,500, but why should we assume this individual has declined to invest that money in something else? Even if this individual simply spent the ages of 18 to 24 stuffing the $110 under his mattress but then got wise and found a savings and loan that paid 6% annual interest rates, so he deposited a principle of $7,920 into that savings and loan and then continued to deposit each month the average he would have spent on insurance ($135) for the next nine years. Instead of $22,500 he would now have $33,113.56 by the age of 34.

Now, since this individual was prudent enough to create a savings account based solely upon his savings of not purchasing a health insurance policy, why would we assume this individual stopped being prudent at only invested that much in savings? Why is it a given that this person didn't add even more to his savings account each month? Let's say he, only after the age of 25 with a principle of $7,920 added $200 per month in his savings. By the age of 34 he would have, with interest, a total of $42,614.58. That total is based merely upon a savings account. What if this individual successfully invested in stocks and bonds instead? Let us, however, grant you some beingness on this "well thought out question" of yours, and for the sake of argument say this individual only invested in a savings account and only has $42,614.58 in that account at the age of 34 and suddenly winds up with cancer.

This cancer winds up costing upwards of $100,000 but all he has is $42,614.58. However, he has established impeccable credit at this point, and paying the $42 and change up front he is in a position to negotiate payments for the remaining amount.

Oh, but JPZ, you might say, what if he doesn't survive? Who will pay the bill then? If you were to ask such a question, this only raises even more questions. Why should someone who doesn't survive the upwards of $100,000 cancer treatment leave a debt behind? Why should anyone owe a debt on treatment that didn't work? So, let's not worry about his non-survival and let's assume the doctors did their job and this 34 year old is now a cancer survivor with a debt of roughly $60 grand. It took him only 15 years, starting at the age of 18 through 24 only stuffing money under his mattress, then by 25 opening a savings account to get to the point of $42,614.58. Why should we assume this individual at the age of 34 isn't capable of earning more than he was at 18 years or even 24 years old. This cancer survivor could have the remaining debt for his treatment paid off in a decade even with interest.

Your "well thought out questions" were simply questions that declined to consider many variables and begged the question that we all accept that such a person could never possibly pay their own medical bills on their own without any insurance policy.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux



They will pay the fine because it will be via the IRS. The fine will be taken from their wages. Currently there are 16,500 new IRS agents being added.

reply to post by MsAphrodite

They will pay the fine because it will be via the IRS.

Only the sad sack employee who has singed an "Employee Withholding Authorization Certificate" (Form W4) appears to be the ones who would have trouble avoiding the fines. Since no criminal prosecution nor any liens will be placed upon anyone who declines to obtain insurance, those who do not sign any Forms W4 and does not allow such a "withholding" scheme, and file as adjusted gross income, the IRS will have a difficult time "collecting" on these people, and that doesn't even cover all the people who simply don't file. You don't honestly think people who don't file would for some odd reason acquiesce to this so called "individual mandate" do you?

The fine will be taken from their wages. Currently there are 16,500 new IRS agents being added.

All for the sad sack employee who stupidly agrees to sign Form W4 when they are under no legal compulsion to do so. In that regard, this is a "tax" on the employee who signs Form W4's and for the rest of the "taxpayers" it is a different story, and for the "non-taxpayers" your point is moot.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux



They may not be under a legal compulsion, but I imagine most business owners will make signing that form a requirement for employment. Things are quite complicated with this new mess.

link

reply to post by MsAphrodite

They may not be under a legal compulsion, but I imagine most business owners will make signing that form a requirement for employment. Things are quite complicated with this new mess.

Most employers all ready do make it a "requirement" to sign an "Employee Withholding Authorization Certificate". I use the full name of the Form W4 to illustrate the absurdity of it all. Employers like to insist that an employee by law has to "authorize" their employer to act as a fiat tax collector and collect the tax even before the employee gets paid. However, there is no where in the tax code where any statute has been made that requires any employee to sign Form W4's or to supply Social Security Numbers (Taxpayer Identification Numbers).

If an employee refuses to supply a Social Security Number and refuses to sign any Form W4 the employer cannot force, as a term of employment, the employee to do so. That forcing would be that employer assessing the employees tax liability, and the only person who has any lawful authority to assess liability for the so called "income tax" is the Secretary of the Treasurer or the employee himself. No Constitutional or subsequent legislation has empowered any employer to assess another persons tax liability.

The law is the law, and were an employer to force, as a term of employment, any employee who knows the law to sign a Form W4 and supply a Social Security Number, that employer would be acting criminally, not to mention the civil suit it opens up.

People can helplessly shrug their shoulders and declare: "But-but-but JPZ, there's nothing I can do", or they can stand tall and assert their unalienable rights and demand all other persons act within the parameters of the law.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


Say what you will. The chances of being hired in this scenario are non-existent.

Originally posted by MsAphrodite
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

 

Say what you will. The chances of being hired in this scenario are non-existent.

Speak for yourself. If you insist on being a sad sack employee helplessly trapped into a system, that's your problem, and for you extricating yourself is still not "non-existent", but highly unlikely.

No employee ever has to acquiesce to any signing of a Form W4 or supply an Social Security Number. The more people come to understand this and act upon it, the less of you there will be and instead just more informed people taking control of their own lives.

reply to post by sonnny1


Blame Bush for what? The things he did? lol

You said Obama was the worst president and I wholly disagree. Bush started 2 wars, killed millions from lies for his and his cronies own profit. I guess you forgot history. It's sad that you don't care about millions of civilians dead over a LIE. You have some goofy partisan bias, I don't. Stop watching Fox, it tends to make people lose intelligence.

I dislike Obama so I don't know what you're going on about. www.abovetopsecret.com...

America and the World is STILL suffering , Under Obama. Spin away , RealSpoke........ Spin Away................

The world will suffer from any of our presidents. They are all funded by goldman sachs and corporations. It's sad that you can't see this. They're all the same party, all the same policies, the I-do-whatever-bankers-tell-me party.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


What about guys like Wesley Snipes ?

Continuing to fight his sentence could prove detrimental once he's in custody, according to Ed Bales, the managing director of Federal Prison Consultants LLC, who has also served time.

"He's fought his case since he started," said Bales. "And what he needs to do is stop fighting and relax and do his sentence."

Link

Even if Taxes are a sham,as I believe, there are rules that the IRS ,and the Government follow , making it impossible under their system, to fight. Going off the grid, is the way to go, but that brings up many logistical problems, for those who have been in the system, and want to get out.


BTW, i love how you guys got back on topic. Thank You.

reply to post by sonnny1


Wesley Snipe, bless his soul, made a "taxpayer" argument. Snipes most imprudently made the infamous 861 argument. The argument is essentially pointing to a section of the tax code (861) and arguing that this section "proves" Snipes was not liable. It is an insane argument. No statute lists who is not liable and the tax code, when one reads it, is clearly speaking to those who are liable. It was and is a foolish argument, it is a "taxpayer" argument, and "taxpayers" are statutorily defined as being subject to any applicable revenue laws.

Originally posted by RealSpoke


You said Obama was the worst president and I wholly disagree. Bush started 2 wars, killed millions from lies for his and his cronies own profit. I guess you forgot history. It's sad that you don't care about millions of civilians dead over a LIE. You have some goofy partisan bias, I don't. Stop watching Fox, it tends to make people lose intelligence.

You dislike Obama,but say Bush is a worse President.



Sorry,I don't buy it one bit. Obama is still involved with Wars,still signing BS Laws, and advancing Bushes policy's. Yes,both from the same cloth, but OBAMA IS THE PRESIDENT. Obama and his personal "kill list" should tell you everyting. God forbid,you or I ,or ANY other American falls under his list . You dont think people are dying under Obama ? How can you give him a pass ? Is it because it doesn't equate under your personal guidelines of being BAD , or WORSE ? Does he have to kill millions ? I think forcing EVERYONE to take a Penalty, under the guise of TAXATION , makes this country one step closer to 1984. Really, I expect you to call it the way it is,and quit using "partisan bias" or "Fox News" as your defense mechanism,to not see How Bad, our current President, truly is. I never liked Bush or his Polices BTW,and I don't listen to Fox. You can quit using that as "my" excuse now, OK ?

reply to post by sonnny1

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

The law is the law, and were an employer to force, as a term of employment, any employee who knows the law to sign a Form W4 and supply a Social Security Number, that employer would be acting criminally, not to mention the civil suit it opens up.

I really respect your views and posts but I have a problem with this.

I was a supervisor and I did not get a social security number from an employee that I hired. The employee only worked for a few months and quit. My employer made me go out and find this person because the federal government was going to fine my place of employment for not supplying his social security number.

You say that you do not have to sign a w-4 or suply a social security number. Please show me any business that will hire anyone who does not do this. I do not wish to be rude but I think you are mistaken because I have been there and done that.

Unless you want to be a landscaper like an illegal, then you have to supply your social security number and sign the darn w-4, or you will not find a job.

Originally posted by neo96
It is a tax increase anyone who think that "Obama care" was about health insurance is kidding themselves.

Fact rates have already increased,

Fact prexisting conditions will have to be paid for somehow since the cost of "taking care of them" is going to have to be paid somehow, and the only way to do that is what?

Mandate they widen the pool of insured, thus deferring the cost by gaining more then enough new healthy customers. Do you not understand why the mandate is necessary for this bill to work or do you think the bill is just the mandate?

Raise taxes,Raise rates.

you all need to stop with the rhetoric. I would love to see just one thread that is not a "piss all of those liberals and anything they say" thread.
How long have you all been Republicans anyway? Long enough to have been Republican for the decades that this was their idea? Especially the mandate?

reply to post by SLAYER69


Spot on actually !

Dont worry though......

Congress would never extend their healthcare package,to the rest of the United States ! It goes against everything they believe in ! You wonder why 79% disapprove of Congress.

reply to post by liejunkie01

You say that you do not have to sign a w-4 or suply a social security number. Please show me any business that will hire anyone who does not do this. I do not wish to be rude but I think you are mistaken because I have been there and done that.

The Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) tells an employer precisely what to do in the event an employee refuses to sign a Form W4 and supply a Social Security Number.

26 CFR 31.3402(f)(2)-1 - Withholding exemption certificates.

For form and contents of such certificates, see 31.3402(f)(5)1. The employer is required to request a withholding exemption certificate from each employee, but if the employee fails to furnish such certificate, such employee shall be considered as a single person claiming no withholding exemptions.

(Emphasis added)

An employers requirement is merely to request, they are not required to demand, coerce, or extort, simply request. If the employee declines their request, that employer is instructed to mark on any return that employee as a single person claiming no withholding exemptions.

26 C.F.R. § 301.6109-1 Identifying numbers.

If the person making the return, statement, or other document does not know the taxpayer identifying number of the other person, and such other person is one that is described in paragraph (b)(2)(i), (ii), (iii), (vi), (vii), or (viii) of this section, such person must request the other person's number. The request should state that the identifying number is required to be furnished under authority of law. When the person making the return, statement, or other document does not know the number of the other person, and has complied with the request provision of this paragraph (c), such person must sign an affidavit on the transmittal document forwarding such returns, statements, or other documents to the Internal Revenue Service, so stating.

Again, this is yet another request provision, and again the employer is told precisely what to do in the event that employer is unable to obtain an "identifying number".

Why employers have taken it upon themselves to become henchmen for the IRS and coerce employees into signing Form W4's and supplying Social Security Numbers is beyond me, because I assure you that any employee who understands the law and is confronted with that sort of criminality merely needs to file a verified complaint having that thug arrested, then there is the opportunity for a civil suit, and do you think the IRS will stand in that employers defense? If you do, think again.