Affordable Health Care Act: Let the Ex-Post Games Begin!

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by Cygnis

 

Yes, in essence, this appears to be the case. It is only "taxpayers" that can be affected by the legislation, as the IRS only has jurisdiction over "taxpayers" and has no lawful authority over any "non-taxpayer".

Very interesting times to come.

Why do I suddenly envision mass amounts of people quitting their W-4 jobs..

Hmm, will be a lot of "handy-man" types running around..

reply to post by ownbestenemy



But this law does compel. the penalty may be have been craftily designed to be collected as a tax but the end result is it is still a penalty and to avoid it you must do what congress said. So, they may be stating it isn't the commerce clause that gives them this authority but they are allowing tax law to say they have the authority to compel.

Same end result.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


Does this also pave the way for Congress to act to undo some of this mess, as Congress would never have been able to pass this law if it had been called a tax.

The Commerce Clause usage was some shenanigan to get around calling it a tax, if I recall.

reply to post by DontTreadOnMe

Does this also pave the way for Congress to act to undo some of this mess, as Congress would never have been able to pass this law if it had been called a tax.

I think this paves the way for you and I and most people in America to reevaluate how it was we became, if in fact we ever were, liable for this so called "income tax", and that the complexity of the Affordable Healthcare Act pales to the complexity of the tax code, and vagueness doctrine voids any criminal charges brought against anyone declining to file any tax return because of its vagueness.

I think this ruling has paved the way for a Second Tax Rebellion and Peaceful Revolution through simple non-acquiescence to any government assertion that you or I or most people have any legal responsibility to actually file a tax return.

I think this ruling has put a harsh spotlight on the so called "Personal Income Tax".

reply to post by ownbestenemy


Because ultimately the taxpayer isn't getting an additional tax. While you get penalized for not buying insurance as it currently stands the penalty amounts do little but eliminate the tax credits you get back at the end of the year. Your not going to jail for not paying the penalty, you aren't going to have a lien filed against you, for not buying insurance for a single person you lose the credit for claiming yourself for a family you lose about the equivalent of a dependent deduction. Basically what you will have is a bunch of people who get back more than they pay into their taxes back getting, pissed off because they got less back.

For those that currently have insurance they get to keep their deduction, and will not be paying for anything that they were not yesterday.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by DontTreadOnMe

 

Does this also pave the way for Congress to act to undo some of this mess, as Congress would never have been able to pass this law if it had been called a tax.

I think this paves the way for you and I and most people in America to reevaluate how it was we became, if in fact we ever were, liable for this so called "income tax", and that the complexity of the Affordable Healthcare Act pales to the complexity of the tax code, and vagueness doctrine voids any criminal charges brought against anyone declining to file any tax return because of its vagueness.

I think this ruling has paved the way for a Second Tax Rebellion and Peaceful Revolution through simple non-acquiescence to any government assertion that you or I or most people have any legal responsibility to actually file a tax return.

I think this ruling has put a harsh spotlight on the so called "Personal Income Tax".

Now... to get the general sheeple / people to think about this, get the seed planted and give it some TLC, and we might see some fun things happen..

Sadly, most people think it's their "duty" to pay personal income tax, they are obligated.. Tho as we have discussed before, there is NO LAW stating that we have to, need to, etc.

Plant seeds.. hopefully SOMETHING will grow..

Originally posted by KeliOnyx
reply to post by ownbestenemy

 

Because ultimately the taxpayer isn't getting an additional tax. While you get penalized for not buying insurance as it currently stands the penalty amounts do little but eliminate the tax credits you get back at the end of the year. Your not going to jail for not paying the penalty, you aren't going to have a lien filed against you, for not buying insurance for a single person you lose the credit for claiming yourself for a family you lose about the equivalent of a dependent deduction. Basically what you will have is a bunch of people who get back more than they pay into their taxes back getting, pissed off because they got less back.

For those that currently have insurance they get to keep their deduction, and will not be paying for anything that they were not yesterday.

People getting back more than they pay in is just another example of the questionable method of taxation on this. If people who believe they will never ever make enough money to actually have to pay taxes instead of "getting back what they paid" or "getting more than they paid" want to hold such beliefs then I guess the three card Monty scam of the "income tax" is just for them. People who are either earning enough wealth, or have the ambition to someday do so are totally screwed.

It is an absurd notion to think that every "taxpayer" is "getting back more than they paid". Someone is paying for that.

An excellent analysis, as usual JPZ.

Unfortunately, I'm old and tired, and have most certainly missed some of the nuances. This business of slaying tyrannical dragons via verbal jousting matches gets wearisome over time.

Until such time as my befuddled mind can unravel the intricacies, I'll stand on my fallback - I've drawn my line, and dared them to cross it and try to collect. That's what the Second Amendment is for.

If I'm reading this right - and I'm probably not - are you saying that anyone who doesn't file a W-4, such as an "independent contractor", self-employed entrepreneur, etc, are not bound by the provisions of the ACA since it has suddenly been shifted from a "not tax" to a "tax"? that there are not enforcement teeth available in the provisions against such persons?

Not everyone is cut out to be self-employed on their own, but I could see a new model emerging to employ a lot more "independent contractors" in umbrella organizations in preference over "employees". There's not that much difference, except in the benefits package and the tax payments.

If that be the case, then a wholesale shift from "employees" to "independent contractors" for most, and genuine self-employment for a large factor of the remainder could effectively starve this beast down to size rather than skewer it on the lance, and remind them just who is the boss in America. I can see potential great benefits in shifting to that model under the ACA for both former employers and former employees.

Did I read that sort of right, or do I just need another cup of coffee?

reply to post by nenothtu

If I'm reading this right - and I'm probably not - are you saying that anyone who doesn't file a W-4, such as an "independent contractor", self-employed entrepreneur, etc, are not bound by the provisions of the ACA since it has suddenly been shifted from a "not tax" to a "tax"? that there are not enforcement teeth available in the provisions against such persons?

Not everyone is cut out to be self-employed on their own...

What I am saying, for those not cut out to be "self employed", are under no legal compulsion to sign any Form W4 which allows employers to withhold a "tax" with every paycheck. Employees can, and should, take control of their own tax liability if they have one, and if they don't, then why in God's name would they be "authorizing" employers to "withhold taxes" for a tax they don't even owe?

What I am suggesting is that before we even consider the use of violence against a government, there is the practical matter of simply starving the beast.

Originally posted by KeliOnyx
reply to post by ownbestenemy

 

Because ultimately the taxpayer isn't getting an additional tax.

Let us play with this a bit. Let us assume I am a taxpayer but do not actively engage in the "insurance" market. Your argument and stance falls apart. I surely am confronted with an additional tax! Go ahead and say otherwise, but there will be taxes levied upon those who did not have them yesterday; but they do today.

While you get penalized for not buying insurance as it currently stands the penalty amounts do little but eliminate the tax credits you get back at the end of the year.

It isn't and shouldn't be the job of Congress or the IRS to decide who to penalize or who to reward. Yet, this is what it is. The taxing scheme is designed to provide political leverage where needed and this bill highlights it.

Your not going to jail for not paying the penalty, you aren't going to have a lien filed against you, for not buying insurance for a single person you lose the credit for claiming yourself for a family you lose about the equivalent of a dependent deduction.

Than, by your understanding it is a scam. Not to provide or give better opportunity to the "less fortunate" to obtain health insurance, but rather, to obtain "tax-credits". This is the power I speak of when I say I digress with certain forms of the opinion.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


So then, when they refuse to allow employer withholding, what do they accrue to themselves? Quarterly tax payments? Estimated tax payments?

They keep their employer benefits as employees, but restructure their tax liabilities as independent contractors or self-employed entrepreneurs? If that's the case, then it would benefit them, but still leave the employer holding a 2000 dollar a head bag, wouldn't it?

reply to post by nenothtu

So then, when they refuse to allow employer withholding, what do they accrue to themselves? Quarterly tax payments? Estimated tax payments?

If they're liable, I suppose so, but where in the tax code have they been made liable, and if they haven't been made liable, then why would they be filing at all?

They keep their employer benefits as employees, but restructure their tax liabilities as independent contractors or self-employed entrepreneurs? If that's the case, then it would benefit them, but still leave the employer holding a 2000 dollar a head bag, wouldn't it?

All of that is in regards to liability. What makes a waiter liable? What makes a janitor liable? What makes a security guard liable? What makes most people liable to the tax? How did they become subject to the applicable revenue laws to begin with?

No one I know seems to know the answer to that. If no one knows the answer then the vagueness doctrine I linked earlier applies.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
No one I know seems to know the answer to that. If no one knows the answer then the vagueness doctrine I linked earlier applies.

I have always held that legislation should be transparent, open and unambiguous. This, among nearly most of the trash that Congress passes, is far from unambiguous.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux

All of that is in regards to liability. What makes a waiter liable? What makes a janitor liable? What makes a security guard liable? What makes most people liable to the tax? How did they become subject to the applicable revenue laws to begin with?

No one I know seems to know the answer to that. If no one knows the answer then the vagueness doctrine I linked earlier applies.

You know, most people are scared stupid of the IRS, and I've never had a minute's trouble out of them, in spite of some... irregularities.

Several years ago, I sold off all of my stock. Rather than figuring the tax out myself (every time I tried, the tax contribution was a horrendous hit) I took it down to the IRS office and said "figure this out. It's all Greek to me". It took them about a half hour, and I walked out having paid about 1/10th of what I would have if I had just sent in MY calculations, going by THEIR rule book.

From what I understand, this ACA has not much at all in the way of teeth built in, and I've heard speculation that it will be implemented as they go along via bureaucratic rules. Now, in your opinion, if congress has not passed a law, but some bureaucrat thought it up instead as he went along, are we really bound by that rule as if it were an actual law?

reply to post by Cygnis

Now... to get the general sheeple / people to think about this, get the seed planted and give it some TLC, and we might see some fun things happen..

Sadly, most people think it's their "duty" to pay personal income tax, they are obligated.. Tho as we have discussed before, there is NO LAW stating that we have to, need to, etc.

Plant seeds.. hopefully SOMETHING will grow..

So, why have people been sent to jail for tax evasion?

reply to post by nenothtu

If that be the case, then a wholesale shift from "employees" to "independent contractors" for most, and genuine self-employment for a large factor of the remainder could effectively starve this beast down to size rather than skewer it on the lance, and remind them just who is the boss in America. I can see potential great benefits in shifting to that model under the ACA for both former employers and former employees.

Except now, the former employee is his own employer, and may be paying a higher income tax as well as matching his own social security and medicare contributions (doubling them) and health care if he/she so chooses. Although, he might have more of an ability to write off deductions, I wish someone on here who has experienced this could give us the pros and the cons and which ones pays off more in the end.

Originally posted by DontTreadOnMe
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

 

Does this also pave the way for Congress to act to undo some of this mess, as Congress would never have been able to pass this law if it had been called a tax.

The Commerce Clause usage was some shenanigan to get around calling it a tax, if I recall.

Though the "penalty/tax/assessment" is already coded and in place, it does place Congress back on the chopping block to justify the tax....I mean penalty...or is it an assessment; you get the point.

Want the "mandate" gone? Repeal the tax/penalty/assessment language and poof! No more mandate. That is why the House was quick to offer repeal language (though given the power this brings I doubt much will happen) and that leaves a lot of representative in a precarious spot of justifying to their constituents why some of them will pay a tax and others will get exempted. But only if Individuals have to fortitude to do so and that is yet to be seen.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by DontTreadOnMe

 

Does this also pave the way for Congress to act to undo some of this mess, as Congress would never have been able to pass this law if it had been called a tax.

I think this paves the way for you and I and most people in America to reevaluate how it was we became, if in fact we ever were, liable for this so called "income tax", and that the complexity of the Affordable Healthcare Act pales to the complexity of the tax code, and vagueness doctrine voids any criminal charges brought against anyone declining to file any tax return because of its vagueness.

I think this ruling has paved the way for a Second Tax Rebellion and Peaceful Revolution through simple non-acquiescence to any government assertion that you or I or most people have any legal responsibility to actually file a tax return.

I think this ruling has put a harsh spotlight on the so called "Personal Income Tax".

Wow, I found the docs I was looking for. That almost never happens. I am copying this from documents I've had for many years, but how one would use this in a court setting is anyone's guess. I hope it helps.

Federal Register, Tuesday, Sept. 7, 1943, s404.104, pg. 12,267: Employee: "the term employee specifically includes officers and employees, whether elected or appointed, of the United States, a State, territory or political subdivision thereof, or the District of Columbia or any agency or instrumentality of any more or more of the foregoing."

"S3401(c) Employee -- for purposes of this chapter, the term employee includes an officer, employee or elected official of the United States, a State or any political subdivision thereof, of the District of Columbia or any agency or instrumentality of any one or more of the foregoing. The term also includes an officer of a corporation."

Here's what you are going to get.

It's called a high deductible premium plan. Most are 5 thousand deductibles.

Blue Cross Blue Shield High Deductible

Looking at the history of the matter on "personal income tax" doesn't look too encouraging.

This is a must read for everyone.

Beware, it's very disheartening and only shows how "frivolous" our court system deems all of us to be.


"Tax protester history in the United States"

en.wikipedia.org...