Individual Mandate Constitutional

[Big A]

Lloyd Marcus

Scroll down a little. http://www.lloydmarcus.com/

[Durantula]

This will be the largest tax increase in the history of the world.

Do you bother fact-checking the bullshit Rush Limbaugh spews? There are several ways to attack the PPACA legislation and SCOTUS ruling. Blatant lies is not one of them.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/jun/28/rush-limbaugh/health-care-law-not-largest-tax-increase-us-histor/

[CJ]

Do you bother fact-checking the bullshit Rush Limbaugh spews? There are several ways to attack the PPACA legislation and SCOTUS ruling. Blatant lies is not one of them.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...ase-us-histor/

It is by definition the largest tax increase ever. If you are a hard working American, you will buy either the health insurance, or pay the penalty, it is unavoidable - you absolutely must pay the government no matter what your wishes are. By saying you're receiving a service doesn't change the fact that it's a forced tax. The government is fundamentally removing the freedom of being able to be responsible for your own health care. You will no longer have the option.

[Forever_frost]

It is by definition the largest tax increase ever. If you are a hard working American, you will buy either the health insurance, or pay the penalty, it is unavoidable - you absolutely must pay the government no matter what your wishes are. By saying you're receiving a service doesn't change the fact that it's a forced tax. The government is fundamentally removing the freedom of being able to be responsible for your own health care. You will no longer have the option.

Libs are so happy about this, but something hasn't figured into their calculations. At some point, a Well meaning nutbar will get power. Then, all that power will be at his/her command. You gave the government power over health care? Fine. Know what spreads AIDS? Gay sex. It is now illegal to have gay sex due to health issues. Next? Drinking. Same thing. No drinking. No drugs, red meat, hippies, no cars (CO2), no electric cars (electrocution possibility), no horses or farm animals (danger of injury), no TV's (sedentary lifestyle).

I can keep going.

[Durantula]

It is by definition the largest tax increase ever.

No...it isn't.

If you are a hard working American, you will buy either the health insurance, or pay the penalty, it is unavoidable - you absolutely must pay the government no matter what your wishes are. By saying you're receiving a service doesn't change the fact that it's a forced tax. The government is fundamentally removing the freedom of being able to be responsible for your own health care. You will no longer have the option.

And all of this is irrelevant to what Vertnut said and my response.

[Forever_frost]

No...it isn't.



And all of this is irrelevant to what Vertnut said and my response.

Yes, it really is. Tax numbers and page numbers included.

http://www.atr.org/full-list-obamacare-tax-hikes-a6996

Taxes that took effect in 2010:

1. Excise Tax on Charitable Hospitals (Min$/immediate): $50,000 per hospital if they fail to meet new "community health assessment needs," "financial assistance," and "billing and collection" rules set by HHS. Bill: PPACA; Page: 1,961-1,971

2. Codification of the “economic substance doctrine” (Tax hike of $4.5 billion). This provision allows the IRS to disallow completely-legal tax deductions and other legal tax-minimizing plans just because the IRS deems that the action lacks “substance” and is merely intended to reduce taxes owed. Bill: Reconciliation Act; Page: 108-113

3. “Black liquor” tax hike (Tax hike of $23.6 billion). This is a tax increase on a type of bio-fuel. Bill: Reconciliation Act; Page: 105

4. Tax on Innovator Drug Companies ($22.2 bil/Jan 2010): $2.3 billion annual tax on the industry imposed relative to share of sales made that year. Bill: PPACA; Page: 1,971-1,980

5. Blue Cross/Blue Shield Tax Hike ($0.4 bil/Jan 2010): The special tax deduction in current law for Blue Cross/Blue Shield companies would only be allowed if 85 percent or more of premium revenues are spent on clinical services. Bill: PPACA; Page: 2,004

6. Tax on Indoor Tanning Services ($2.7 billion/July 1, 2010): New 10 percent excise tax on Americans using indoor tanning salons. Bill: PPACA; Page: 2,397-2,399

Taxes that took effect in 2011:

7. Medicine Cabinet Tax ($5 bil/Jan 2011): Americans no longer able to use health savings account (HSA), flexible spending account (FSA), or health reimbursement (HRA) pre-tax dollars to purchase non-prescription, over-the-counter medicines (except insulin). Bill: PPACA; Page: 1,957-1,959

8. HSA Withdrawal Tax Hike ($1.4 bil/Jan 2011): Increases additional tax on non-medical early withdrawals from an HSA from 10 to 20 percent, disadvantaging them relative to IRAs and other tax-advantaged accounts, which remain at 10 percent. Bill: PPACA; Page: 1,959

Tax that took effect in 2012:

9. Employer Reporting of Insurance on W-2 (Min$/Jan 2012): Preamble to taxing health benefits on individual tax returns. Bill: PPACA; Page: 1,957

Taxes that take effect in 2013:

10. Surtax on Investment Income ($123 billion/Jan. 2013): Creation of a new, 3.8 percent surtax on investment income earned in households making at least $250,000 ($200,000 single). This would result in the following top tax rates on investment income: Bill: Reconciliation Act; Page: 87-93




Capital Gains


Dividends


Other*

2012


15%


15%


35%

2013+


23.8%


43.4%


43.4%


*Other unearned income includes (for surtax purposes) gross income from interest, annuities, royalties, net rents, and passive income in partnerships and Subchapter-S corporations. It does not include municipal bond interest or life insurance proceeds, since those do not add to gross income. It does not include active trade or business income, fair market value sales of ownership in pass-through entities, or distributions from retirement plans. The 3.8% surtax does not apply to non-resident aliens.

11. Hike in Medicare Payroll Tax ($86.8 bil/Jan 2013): Current law and changes:




First $200,000
($250,000 Married)
Employer/Employee


All Remaining Wages
Employer/Employee

Current Law


1.45%/1.45%
2.9% self-employed


1.45%/1.45%
2.9% self-employed

Obamacare Tax Hike


1.45%/1.45%
2.9% self-employed


1.45%/2.35%
3.8% self-employed


Bill: PPACA, Reconciliation Act; Page: 2000-2003; 87-93

12. Tax on Medical Device Manufacturers ($20 bil/Jan 2013): Medical device manufacturers employ 360,000 people in 6000 plants across the country. This law imposes a new 2.3% excise tax. Exempts items retailing for <$100. Bill: PPACA; Page: 1,980-1,986

13. High Medical Bills Tax ($15.2 bil/Jan 2013): Currently, those facing high medical expenses are allowed a deduction for medical expenses to the extent that those expenses exceed 7.5 percent of adjusted gross income (AGI). The new provision imposes a threshold of 10 percent of AGI. Waived for 65+ taxpayers in 2013-2016 only. Bill: PPACA; Page: 1,994-1,995

14. Flexible Spending Account Cap – aka “Special Needs Kids Tax” ($13 bil/Jan 2013): Imposes cap on FSAs of $2500 (now unlimited). Indexed to inflation after 2013. There is one group of FSA owners for whom this new cap will be particularly cruel and onerous: parents of special needs children. There are thousands of families with special needs children in the United States, and many of them use FSAs to pay for special needs education. Tuition rates at one leading school that teaches special needs children in Washington, D.C. (National Child Research Center) can easily exceed $14,000 per year. Under tax rules, FSA dollars can be used to pay for this type of special needs education. Bill: PPACA; Page: 2,388-2,389

15. Elimination of tax deduction for employer-provided retirement Rx drug coverage in coordination with Medicare Part D ($4.5 bil/Jan 2013) Bill: PPACA; Page: 1,994

16. $500,000 Annual Executive Compensation Limit for Health Insurance Executives ($0.6 bil/Jan 2013). Bill: PPACA; Page: 1,995-2,000

Taxes that take effect in 2014:

17. Individual Mandate Excise Tax (Jan 2014): Starting in 2014, anyone not buying “qualifying” health insurance must pay an income surtax according to the higher of the following




1 Adult


2 Adults


3+ Adults

2014


1% AGI/$95


1% AGI/$190


1% AGI/$285

2015


2% AGI/$325


2% AGI/$650


2% AGI/$975

2016 +


2.5% AGI/$695


2.5% AGI/$1390


2.5% AGI/$2085


Exemptions for religious objectors, undocumented immigrants, prisoners, those earning less than the poverty line, members of Indian tribes, and hardship cases (determined by HHS). Bill: PPACA; Page: 317-337

18. Employer Mandate Tax (Jan 2014): If an employer does not offer health coverage, and at least one employee qualifies for a health tax credit, the employer must pay an additional non-deductible tax of $2000 for all full-time employees. Applies to all employers with 50 or more employees. If any employee actually receives coverage through the exchange, the penalty on the employer for that employee rises to $3000. If the employer requires a waiting period to enroll in coverage of 30-60 days, there is a $400 tax per employee ($600 if the period is 60 days or longer). Bill: PPACA; Page: 345-346

Combined score of individual and employer mandate tax penalty: $65 billion/10 years

19. Tax on Health Insurers ($60.1 bil/Jan 2014): Annual tax on the industry imposed relative to health insurance premiums collected that year. Phases in gradually until 2018. Fully-imposed on firms with $50 million in profits. Bill: PPACA; Page: 1,986-1,993

Taxes that take effect in 2018:

20. Excise Tax on Comprehensive Health Insurance Plans ($32 bil/Jan 2018): Starting in 2018, new 40 percent excise tax on “Cadillac” health insurance plans ($10,200 single/$27,500 family). Higher threshold ($11,500 single/$29,450 family) for early retirees and high-risk professions. CPI +1 percentage point indexed. Bill: PPACA; Page: 1,941-1,956

[Durantula]

For starters, you're using a right-leaning source. They're not going to publish numbers (or even the whole truth) if it doesn't promote their agenda. Fart noise.

In 2019, the CBO estimates, the government will see increased revenues of $104 billion. We then divided that number into the projected GDP for 2019, which according to the CBO economic forecast is $21.164 trillion. That would mean the tax increase provisions of the health care law would amount to .49 percent of total GDP.

Depending on your rounding, that would mean the tax increases resulting from the health care law would be about the size of tax increases proposed and passed in 1980 by President Jimmy Carter, in 1990 by President George H.W. Bush and in 1993 by President Bill Clinton.

The health care-related tax increases are smaller than the tax increase signed into law by President Ronald Reagan in 1982 and a temporary tax signed into law in 1968 by President Lyndon B. Johnson. And they are significantly smaller than two tax increases passed during World War II and a tax increase passed in 1961.

The tax increases in the health care legislation do reverse a trend of federal tax cuts and represent the first significant tax increases since 1993.

But they are not the largest in the history of the United States.

And -- despite what Limbaugh said -- that means they cannot be the largest ever in the history of world. Limbaugh's inflated rhetoric takes a wrong claim and puts it into the realm of the ridiculous. We rate it Pants on Fire.

[Forever_frost]

So you have conflicting numbers? It even includes PAGE numbers.

[Durantula]

So you have conflicting numbers? It even includes PAGE numbers.

Yeah, your numbers don't take in the entire picture. Like I said, a right-wing site isn't going to tell the whole truth if it doesn't fit their agenda.

My source is an independent, nonpartisan fact checking website citing figures by the CBO, a nonpartisan government agency. That CBO numbers act as a reliable source in news articles, academic papers, and such. Yours wouldn't. I wonder which is correct?

[DON SVO]

Yeah, your numbers don't take in the entire picture. Like I said, a right-wing site isn't going to tell the whole truth if it doesn't fit their agenda.

My source is an independent, nonpartisan fact checking website citing figures by the CBO, a nonpartisan government agency. That CBO numbers act as a reliable source in news articles, academic papers, and such. Yours wouldn't. I wonder which is correct?

So his page numbers and direct quotations are not relevent?

[Durantula]

So his page numbers and direct quotations are not relevent?

The list of taxed raised are correct. His (and the website's) math is wrong and assessment that this is the biggest tax increase in history (or even just American history) is a blatant lie.

Click the link I posted. It breaks the whole thing down into both the percentage of GDP the taxes will generate and how much total over various time periods.

[Baron Von Crowder]

The list of taxed raised are correct. His (and the website's) math is wrong and assessment that this is the biggest tax increase in history (or even just American history) is a blatant lie.

Click the link I posted. It breaks the whole thing down into both the percentage of GDP the taxes will generate and how much total over various time periods.

Show me the math, lump sum in total, for how much taxes will be taken in, please.

[CJ]

No...it isn't.



And all of this is irrelevant to what Vertnut said and my response.

If you fundamentally do not understand what a tax is, this conversation as achieve it's apogee. It isn't up for debate, it's a definable legal term with criteria which this legislation meets. Just because you don't agree doesn't mean you're right.

Show me where in the history of the US the government has forced an individual to pay more than $2000 annually at minimum.

[DON SVO]

The list of taxed raised are correct. His (and the website's) math is wrong and assessment that this is the biggest tax increase in history (or even just American history) is a blatant lie.

Click the link I posted. It breaks the whole thing down into both the percentage of GDP the taxes will generate and how much total over various time periods.

The main issue is the requirement of all citizens to 'contribute'.

By definition of Socialism, this falls into it unless it can be considered a tax. Obama does not want it to be a tax: it goes against everything he claims he isn't trying to do. The flipside is that it isn't a tax, but a form of government protocol mandating each individual recieve equal healthcare... if a large percentage of our population cannot get healthcare but the ones who have it already have to pay for others, that is spreading the wealth around.

So, the conundrum is that either (A) it's a tax ... or (B) it's a socialist maneuver.

[Durantula]

Show me the math, lump sum in total, for how much taxes will be taken in, please.

Click the link I posted.

I've given you all the information. I'm not going to spoon feed it to you too.

If you fundamentally do not understand what a tax is, this conversation as achieve it's apogee. It isn't up for debate, it's a definable legal term with criteria which this legislation meets. Just because you don't agree doesn't mean you're right.

Whether or not it's a tax is not what I'm disputing. I'm telling you it's not the largest tax increase in history.

Show me where in the history of the US the government has forced an individual to pay more than $2000 annually at minimum.

Ah, I see where the confusion is coming from now. The individual amount is not particularly relevant. Or, at least, you should be more specific when saying "biggest tax increase in history." A blanket statement like that suggests you're speaking of the revenue generated, which is not a large amount of money. That's how most have interpreted the statement.

Furthermore, the penalty is only paid if you don't obtain health insurance. The vast majority of the country will buy insurance.

The main issue is the requirement of all citizens to 'contribute'.

By definition of Socialism, this falls into it unless it can be considered a tax. Obama does not want it to be a tax: it goes against everything he claims he isn't trying to do. The flipside is that it isn't a tax, but a form of government protocol mandating each individual recieve equal healthcare...

So, the conundrum is that either (A) it's a tax ... or (B) it's a socialist maneuver.

Yeah, Obama's unwillingness to call it a tax the last 2-3 years almost cost him his legislation. It's only a tax in a very narrow, technical sense but a tax is a tax. He should have just swallowed the rhetoric from the start.

However, the tax is part of the personal responsibility necessary to implement universal care. Those abusing hospital and doctor's offices without insurance are passing those costs on to the rest of us via taxes and increased insurance premiums. By forcing the uninsured into the market (or paying the penalty), we don't have to worry about paying for their health care for them.

if a large percentage of our population cannot get healthcare but the ones who have it already have to pay for others, that is spreading the wealth around.

What you describe here is currently happening and has been for many years. The individual mandate solves this problem by forcing everyone to pay for themselves. Conservatives should ideally be pleased with this concept. "Personal responsibility" has been a GOP talking point for decades. If I remember correctly, it was actually the conservative Heritage Foundation who originally proposed the individual mandate in the 80s for this same reason. It kicks the free loaders off the wagon.

And for what it's worth, the CBO predicted around "only" 4 million Americans would forego health insurance for the tax penalty, and these are people who can afford health insurance but don't want it. That's a relatively obscure amount of people.