Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
F3SS

Do you have to pay the Obamacare fine?

85 posts in this topic

Posted (edited)

I had a little tangent about this in another thread moments ago but I feel it deserves it's own discussion. Those of you who are employed, uninsured and receive a

W-2 will not be able to escape the fines. They will just take it out of your tax return. For those of US who pay their own taxes quarterly, check it...

http://www.washingto...es-tax-penalty/

If there’s no tax refund, where else can the IRS get its $95? Typically, the IRS does have a number of steps by which to recoup unpaid taxes. It can garnish your wages, for example, or, in rare cases, seize property. But with the health mandate, the law’s drafters specifically barred the agency from any of those more aggressive tactics.

“In the case of any failure by a taxpayer to timely pay any penalty imposed by this section,” Section 1501 of the Affordable Care Act reads, “Such taxpayer shall not be subject to any criminal prosecution or penalty with respect to such failure.”

If a penalty does not come out of a refund, it does not fully disappear. Instead, it gets carried over to next year’s tax filings and held on the filer’s account. The Internal Revenue Service is also allowed to charge interest on any unpaid tax penalty (More on that in the very thrilling Sec. 6601of the Internal Revenue Service Code). The rate currently hovers around 3 percent.

So the tax penalties accumulate, and the interest goes up and up. But even in an extreme example, where someone doesn’t pay the health law’s penalties for decades, the powers that the Internal Revenue Service has to collect the unpaid fines don’t change.

“The IRS remains very clearly limited in its ability to collect the penalty,” Livingston says, “And the accumulation over time does not change those legal limitations.”

And here it is from section 1501of the ACA

http://www.gpo.gov/f...-111publ148.htm

(2) Special rules.--Notwithstanding any other provision of

law--

``(A) Waiver of criminal penalties.--In the case of

any failure by a taxpayer to timely pay any penalty

imposed by this section, such taxpayer shall not be

subject to any criminal prosecution or penalty with

respect to such failure.

``( B) Limitations on liens and levies.--The

Secretary shall not--

``(i) file notice of lien with respect to any

property of a taxpayer by reason of any failure to

pay the penalty imposed by this section, or

``(ii) levy on any such property with respect

to such failure.''.

Although it is likely that within a year I will be insured through marriage, my lady's work coverage, I will still defy this, however briefly not to mention it is yet unknown whether the coverage I will obtain through her work will be sufficient enough coverage to please the messiah and his goons. Do not comply. Given this information, why not? For now, I'm standing with the questioner from the WaPo article.

EDIT: I tried to trick the text editor by putting a space between one the apostrophes and the B to avoid the smiley face in the law quote but it didn't work. Ignore the face. It is simply "sub-section B"

Edited by F3SS
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Me and many others that I know, will not be complying with Obamacare... Mostly, because we just can't afford to.

Edited by Kowalski
3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I had a little tangent about this in another thread moments ago but I feel it deserves it's own discussion. Those of you who are employed, uninsured and receive a

EDIT: I tried to trick the text editor by putting a space between one the apostrophes and the B to avoid the smiley face in the law quote but it didn't work. Ignore the face. It is simply "sub-section B"

If only Government departments did put smiley faces in their official extortion- I mean, official documentation, I think everyone would be a lot happier to pay Taxes, I'm sure you'll agree.

( B)

Edited by Colonel Rhuairidh
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Kowalski,

That too. A perfectly legitimate and soon to be common reason that I forgot to mention. I was speaking in defiance though. Pure protest. So while you and the others may have a less objectable excuse to not participate you can still have the piece of mind that you're sticking it to 'em at the same time.

Edited by F3SS
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

if only did put a ( B) in ``( B) Limitations on liens and levies.--The

Secretary shall not--

``(i) file notice of lien with respect to any

property of a taxpayer by reason of any failure to

pay the penalty imposed by this section, or

``(ii) levy on any such property with respect

to such failure.''.

I think everyone would be a lot happier to pay Taxes, I'm sure you'll agree.

( B)

Damn smiley's! What do you mean? Like you have in England?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If only Government departments did put smiley faces in their official extortion- I mean, official documentation, I think everyone would be a lot happier to pay Taxes, I'm sure you'll agree.

( B)

Ah, post-edit that makes a lot more sense. But nah, I'd be just as critical.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kowalski,

That too. A perfectly legitimate and soon to be common reason that I forgot to mention. I was speaking in defiance though. Pure protest. So while you and the others may have a less objectable excuse to not participate you can still have the piece of mind that you're sticking it to 'em at the same time.

Stick it to the man! :yes:

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I had a little tangent about this in another thread moments ago but I feel it deserves it's own discussion. Those of you who are employed, uninsured and receive a

W-2 will not be able to escape the fines. They will just take it out of your tax return. For those of US who pay their own taxes quarterly, check it...

I thought there was a poverty level exception to that, even if your employed but making below the poverty level, that you wouldn't be paying any fines. What's the poverty level anyway? Below 25,000 or so?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought there was a poverty level exception to that, even if your employed but making below the poverty level, that you wouldn't be paying any fines. What's the poverty level anyway? Below 25,000 or so?

Well you are right far as I know which btw is another crappy thing. Not crappy because I want the poor to be poorer but because it is the middle class who needs to pick up the tab. This whole thing was sold as a way for everybody to chip in and pay their fair share. A classic Obama pitch which, in sheep language, translates to everybody pays and insurance prices drop. Rich people won't be financially effected but there isn't enough of them to help the middle class, the broke don't have to pay and the middle class has to break their backs a little more to afford their own insurance plus pay for those who can't. They say the wealth gap is already expanding so as more and more people enter the poverty line and the middle class shrinks, those left in the middle class have to keep paying more and more to support more and more poor folks. And forcing the middle class to buy insurance or pay hefty fines isn't going to help matters. What about folks in the middle who can't afford insurance yet are still mandated to because of their income threshold? They will receive a fine. They probably won't be able to afford the fine. And so on and so on they snowball into further debt, never again to have that sweet tax return they counted on every year and one by one they begin to enter the poverty line by choice or by attrition. The attrition has been stated. The choice happens when someone decides all they have to do is make a thousand dollars less each year and they'll be covered for free. Sooner or later those left paying for insurance will be inundated by those not paying. Then the system crashes. It's unmanageable and future a democrat stands up and tells everyone about all the unexpected consequences and a few unfounded republican jabs and makes the big announcement. "There's only one way to deal with this. We the government need to eliminate the middle man, insurance companies, and take over the healthcare industry. We never intended for it to be this way but we're in a mess and the old ways aren't working". The sheep buy the bs, applaud and once again believe that this time healthcare will be free and efficient. No matter what scenario is laid, single payer is the only logical conclusion to this disaster designed with intent.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the UK we don't need to take out any sort of health insurance, ever. The National Health Service is paid for out of normal taxation, and treats everyone regardless of their income. It actually works out cheaper than the American system. Why are some Americans so afraid of this?

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well you are right far as I know which btw is another crappy thing. Not crappy because I want the poor to be poorer but because it is the middle class who needs to pick up the tab. This whole thing was sold as a way for everybody to chip in and pay their fair share. A classic Obama pitch which, in sheep language, translates to everybody pays and insurance prices drop. Rich people won't be financially effected but there isn't enough of them to help the middle class, the broke don't have to pay and the middle class has to break their backs a little more to afford their own insurance plus pay for those who can't. They say the wealth gap is already expanding so as more and more people enter the poverty line and the middle class shrinks, those left in the middle class have to keep paying more and more to support more and more poor folks. And forcing the middle class to buy insurance or pay hefty fines isn't going to help matters. What about folks in the middle who can't afford insurance yet are still mandated to because of their income threshold? They will receive a fine. They probably won't be able to afford the fine. And so on and so on they snowball into further debt, never again to have that sweet tax return they counted on every year and one by one they begin to enter the poverty line by choice or by attrition. The attrition has been stated. The choice happens when someone decides all they have to do is make a thousand dollars less each year and they'll be covered for free. Sooner or later those left paying for insurance will be inundated by those not paying. Then the system crashes. It's unmanageable and future a democrat stands up and tells everyone about all the unexpected consequences and a few unfounded republican jabs and makes the big announcement. "There's only one way to deal with this. We the government need to eliminate the middle man, insurance companies, and take over the healthcare industry. We never intended for it to be this way but we're in a mess and the old ways aren't working". The sheep buy the bs, applaud and once again believe that this time healthcare will be free and efficient. No matter what scenario is laid, single payer is the only logical conclusion to this disaster designed with intent.

I see what you mean. Seems like people in the middle always get squeezed from both ends, doesn't it?

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the UK we don't need to take out any sort of health insurance, ever. The National Health Service is paid for out of normal taxation, and treats everyone regardless of their income. It actually works out cheaper than the American system. Why are some Americans so afraid of this?

Because Obamacare is nothing at all, like ya'lls system.... Plus, I just don't want the government involved with my health care.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because Obamacare is nothing at all, like ya'lls system.... Plus, I just don't want the government involved with my health care.

So you would rather pay more, and get a much worse system?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So you would rather pay more, and get a much worse system?

Uh, no I would not. Not sure what you're trying to say....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Uh, no I would not. Not sure what you're trying to say....

Well, that's what you have at the moment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

So you would rather pay more, and get a much worse system?

the system isn't changing, so she wont get anything worst that she has now, obamacare however will make it more expensive.

i can't think of a reason why you'd think obamacare will improve anything or make it cheaper. it wont. and please stop comparing uk to usa.

Edited by aztek
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Although it is likely that within a year I will be insured through marriage, my lady's work coverage, I will still defy this, however briefly not to mention it is yet unknown whether the coverage I will obtain through her work will be sufficient enough coverage

If you have or will have insurance, then you have insurance. What are you whining about?

If you get a penalty for not having insurance, it carries over year after year until you pay it with interest. The IRS never forgets.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you have or will have insurance, then you have insurance. What are you whining about?

If you get a penalty for not having insurance, it carries over year after year until you pay it with interest. The IRS never forgets.

I'm just standing with my convictions.

And it also doesn't have any legal consequences for not paying it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm just standing with my convictions.

And it also doesn't have any legal consequences for not paying it.

legal. probably not. Monetary. definitely. You will pay. Sooner or later.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

legal. probably not. Monetary. definitely. You will pay. Sooner or later.

Ok, then find the part in the bill that helps your argument. I did for mine. Do you have a better source? Mine was official.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the UK we don't need to take out any sort of health insurance, ever. The National Health Service is paid for out of normal taxation, and treats everyone regardless of their income. It actually works out cheaper than the American system. Why are some Americans so afraid of this?

Americas have this incredible fear of anything that even remotely resembles socialism, even if it would help them. Never mind that we have socialism at every stage in this country, from public school to Social Security. No one seems to understand we're as far as from the old model of socialism as we can be. Just say "government" and anything else in the same sentence and instantly it's socialism.

Personally, I think that was fine when this country was in its infancy, but we have way too many people and way too many health threats to debate politics when people here in the US are dying from lack of health care. Health care in this country is united we stand, divided we die, and we're divided and we're dying because of it.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, that's what you have at the moment.

I chatted with a guy in the in the UK who would disagree with you. He was another dialysis patient such as myself, when by the name blood b pos. He was struggling much worse than I was at the time. He was peritoneal vs my hemo dialysis which puts mine as the more costly. Yet I was somehow making it and he was falling through the cracks, trying to work the best he could while dealing with the kidney failure. Sounds like the UK system didn't to well with chronic terminal illness.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I chatted with a guy in the in the UK who would disagree with you. He was another dialysis patient such as myself, when by the name blood b pos. He was struggling much worse than I was at the time. He was peritoneal vs my hemo dialysis which puts mine as the more costly. Yet I was somehow making it and he was falling through the cracks, trying to work the best he could while dealing with the kidney failure. Sounds like the UK system didn't to well with chronic terminal illness.

Well, the NHS does have problems, like a lot of other government programs. But you really can't compare the UK Health System, to the USA Health System. It's like comparing apples and oranges.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I chatted with a guy in the in the UK who would disagree with you. He was another dialysis patient such as myself, when by the name blood b pos. He was struggling much worse than I was at the time. He was peritoneal vs my hemo dialysis which puts mine as the more costly. Yet I was somehow making it and he was falling through the cracks, trying to work the best he could while dealing with the kidney failure. Sounds like the UK system didn't to well with chronic terminal illness.

How much did you have to pay for yours?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.