Page 21 of 24 [ 370 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24  Next

Orwell
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Aug 2007
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,518
Location: Room 101

21 Feb 2011, 1:44 am

Inuyasha wrote:
And if someone refuses to pay the fine, are you saying the Government is not going to do anything about it.

Actually, the jail time is still there, it is either pay the fine or go to jail. Otherwise, how many people you think would pay the fine? Probably 0, they would tell the Feds to go shove it.

The IRS has collection methods other than throwing people in jail. I suppose at the limit they could garnish your wages. The IRS is not permitted to press criminal charges against people who refuse to pay the fine, so they would presumably file civil charges instead.


_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH


Inuyasha
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Jan 2009
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,745

21 Feb 2011, 1:51 am

Orwell wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
And if someone refuses to pay the fine, are you saying the Government is not going to do anything about it.

Actually, the jail time is still there, it is either pay the fine or go to jail. Otherwise, how many people you think would pay the fine? Probably 0, they would tell the Feds to go shove it.

The IRS has collection methods other than throwing people in jail. I suppose at the limit they could garnish your wages. The IRS is not permitted to press criminal charges against people who refuse to pay the fine, so they would presumably file civil charges instead.


Oh so you're saying they can arbitrarily take money from your paycheck to force you to buy a product you don't want.

Hmm, I actually see another way to sue over Obamacare, this time sueing the Federal Government for extortion.



Orwell
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Aug 2007
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,518
Location: Room 101

21 Feb 2011, 2:08 am

Changing the subject instead of just admitting that you were wrong? I can't say I'm surprised.


_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH


aghogday
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Nov 2010
Age: 63
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,562

21 Feb 2011, 2:18 am

@inuyasha

http://www.usatoday.com/money/perfi/insurance/2010-04-29-healthirs28_CV_N.htm

Good reference material for you here. The only way the IRS can enforce the tax is to with- hold it from a tax refund. They have ten years to do it from the date it was not paid. So, if a person is intent on not complying with the tax penalty, they have enough money withheld from their paychecks to ensure they never get a refund.

Absolutely no possibility for jail time. No garnishment of wages. And, no possibility of civil suits. If you overpay the IRS, you are essentially giving them the opportunity to keep the money that you owe. You have a choice and a method not to overpay, so in reality there is no mandate for those that are intent on taking the measures required to avoid it.

96% of Massachusetts citizens provided insurance documentation, but the IRS has normal enforcement powers in the tax laws that cover the penalties in that state.

Do you still think it is as likely that the mandate will be overturned in the Supreme Court.
Are you sure the government is not your friend?



aghogday
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Nov 2010
Age: 63
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,562

21 Feb 2011, 2:38 am

If legal arguments about the constitutionality of the mandate were so important why didn't we hear about the unconstitutionality of it in the mainstream media when an enforceable mandate went into law in Massachusetts.

I remember hearing there would be no criminal charges presssed against people that did not pay the penalty, but did not realize that a person could legally avoid the penalty all together.

I am now convinced that the decisions by the lower court judges may have an element of politicism.



Orwell
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Aug 2007
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,518
Location: Room 101

21 Feb 2011, 2:44 am

aghogday wrote:
@inuyasha

http://www.usatoday.com/money/perfi/insurance/2010-04-29-healthirs28_CV_N.htm

Good reference material for you here. The only way the IRS can enforce the tax is to with- hold it from a tax refund. They have ten years to do it from the date it was not paid. So, if a person is intent on not complying with the tax penalty, they have enough money withheld from their paychecks to ensure they never get a refund.

Absolutely no possibility for jail time. No garnishment of wages. And, no possibility of civil suits. If you overpay the IRS, you are essentially giving them the opportunity to keep the money that you owe. You have a choice and a method not to overpay, so in reality there is no mandate for those that are intent on taking the measures required to avoid it.

96% of Massachusetts citizens provided insurance documentation, but the IRS has normal enforcement powers in the tax laws that cover the penalties in that state.

Do you still think it is as likely that the mandate will be overturned in the Supreme Court.
Are you sure the government is not your friend?

I stand corrected; I assumed a much greater level of enforcement power than even exists here. From what you've, it appears there is a completely legal way of avoiding the "penalty" altogether, so long as one is careful in filling one's taxes... so the "mandate" in practice ends up being "we will make filing your taxes slightly more inconvenient if you don't have health insurance." That's not terribly likely to be held as unconstitutional.


_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH


Orwell
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Aug 2007
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,518
Location: Room 101

21 Feb 2011, 2:48 am

aghogday wrote:
If legal arguments about the constitutionality of the mandate were so important why didn't we hear about the unconstitutionality of it in the mainstream media when an enforceable mandate went into law in Massachusetts.

On this point, there is typically a different standard applied to actions taken at a state level vs things the federal government does. It's one of the weird little quirks of our federalist system; it actually was quite some time before legal opinion held that anything in the Bill of Rights actually guaranteed rights to all US citizens; it merely prevented the federal government from transgressing on certain rights, but nothing prevented states from violating those rights.

Quote:
I am now convinced that the decisions by the lower court judges may have an element of politicism.

Well, that's obvious.

I love how everyone likes to pretend that our judicial system is completely neutral and apolitical. Are people really naive enough to believe that judges don't have political views? Scalia and Sotomayor don't vote? Come on.


_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH


aghogday
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Nov 2010
Age: 63
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,562

21 Feb 2011, 3:13 am

Orwell wrote:
aghogday wrote:
@inuyasha

http://www.usatoday.com/money/perfi/insurance/2010-04-29-healthirs28_CV_N.htm

Good reference material for you here. The only way the IRS can enforce the tax is to with- hold it from a tax refund. They have ten years to do it from the date it was not paid. So, if a person is intent on not complying with the tax penalty, they have enough money withheld from their paychecks to ensure they never get a refund.

Absolutely no possibility for jail time. No garnishment of wages. And, no possibility of civil suits. If you overpay the IRS, you are essentially giving them the opportunity to keep the money that you owe. You have a choice and a method not to overpay, so in reality there is no mandate for those that are intent on taking the measures required to avoid it.

96% of Massachusetts citizens provided insurance documentation, but the IRS has normal enforcement powers in the tax laws that cover the penalties in that state.

Do you still think it is as likely that the mandate will be overturned in the Supreme Court.
Are you sure the government is not your friend?

I stand corrected; I assumed a much greater level of enforcement power than even exists here. From what you've, it appears there is a completely legal way of avoiding the "penalty" altogether, so long as one is careful in filling one's taxes... so the "mandate" in practice ends up being "we will make filing your taxes slightly more inconvenient if you don't have health insurance." That's not terribly likely to be held as unconstitutional.


I just stumbled over the article, my assumptions were like yours before I came across it. It would be of no benefit to conservatives to explain it in the level of detail that was presented in the article; the fear element prized by commentators would largely be gone. It would also not be the politically correct thing for people on the left to advertise you can get away with not paying it if you avoid tax refunds.

If the political junkies on this forum aren't aware of the ability to completely avoid the tax penalty, chances are most of the general public is not aware of it either. It's no wonder the administration is not terribly worried about the judgements made so far. If the Supreme Court rules it unconstitutional, I suspect the decision will be largely influenced by politics. If the tax penalty can be legally avoided, it's not a mandate by strict definition.



aghogday
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Nov 2010
Age: 63
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,562

21 Feb 2011, 4:06 am

Orwell wrote:
aghogday wrote:
If legal arguments about the constitutionality of the mandate were so important why didn't we hear about the unconstitutionality of it in the mainstream media when an enforceable mandate went into law in Massachusetts.

On this point, there is typically a different standard applied to actions taken at a state level vs things the federal government does. It's one of the weird little quirks of our federalist system; it actually was quite some time before legal opinion held that anything in the Bill of Rights actually guaranteed rights to all US citizens; it merely prevented the federal government from transgressing on certain rights, but nothing prevented states from violating those rights.

Quote:
I am now convinced that the decisions by the lower court judges may have an element of politicism.

Well, that's obvious.

I love how everyone likes to pretend that our judicial system is completely neutral and apolitical. Are people really naive enough to believe that judges don't have political views? Scalia and Sotomayor don't vote? Come on.


Thanks for clarification on the Massachusetts mandate. There was a legal challenge to the Massachusetts mandate; I see now that it was not a constitutional issue.

I think most people that follow politics understand the politics behind the nomination of Supreme Court Judges and the influence politics makes.

I think that people understand judges have political views, but the fact that the mandate is unenforcable raises the bar in my opinion on the degree of political influence present to come to an unconstitutional ruling. The Supreme Court process should be interesting.



zer0netgain
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Mar 2009
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,613

21 Feb 2011, 8:20 am

Orwell wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
And if someone refuses to pay the fine, are you saying the Government is not going to do anything about it.

Actually, the jail time is still there, it is either pay the fine or go to jail. Otherwise, how many people you think would pay the fine? Probably 0, they would tell the Feds to go shove it.

The IRS has collection methods other than throwing people in jail. I suppose at the limit they could garnish your wages. The IRS is not permitted to press criminal charges against people who refuse to pay the fine, so they would presumably file civil charges instead.


Given the IRS' history of how they operate.

They fine you...you refuse to pay it...they establish "collection mechanisms."

If you consistently refuse to pay it (each year), I see it being very easy to elevate you into a "tax evader" and make it a criminal offense.

I trust the government (and IRS in particular) about as far as I can throw Mt. Rushmore with one hand.



skafather84
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Mar 2006
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,848
Location: New Orleans, LA

21 Feb 2011, 10:53 am

Orwell wrote:
Quote:
I am now convinced that the decisions by the lower court judges may have an element of politicism.

Well, that's obvious.

I love how everyone likes to pretend that our judicial system is completely neutral and apolitical. Are people really naive enough to believe that judges don't have political views? Scalia and Sotomayor don't vote? Come on.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kids_for_cash_scandal


_________________
Wherever they burn books they will also, in the end, burn human beings. ~Heinrich Heine, Almansor, 1823

?I wouldn't recommend sex, drugs or insanity for everyone, but they've always worked for me.? - Hunter S. Thompson


Inuyasha
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Jan 2009
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,745

21 Feb 2011, 11:53 am

zer0netgain wrote:
Orwell wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
And if someone refuses to pay the fine, are you saying the Government is not going to do anything about it.

Actually, the jail time is still there, it is either pay the fine or go to jail. Otherwise, how many people you think would pay the fine? Probably 0, they would tell the Feds to go shove it.

The IRS has collection methods other than throwing people in jail. I suppose at the limit they could garnish your wages. The IRS is not permitted to press criminal charges against people who refuse to pay the fine, so they would presumably file civil charges instead.


Given the IRS' history of how they operate.

They fine you...you refuse to pay it...they establish "collection mechanisms."

If you consistently refuse to pay it (each year), I see it being very easy to elevate you into a "tax evader" and make it a criminal offense.

I trust the government (and IRS in particular) about as far as I can throw Mt. Rushmore with one hand.


Amen.

@ aghogday

First source about the Massachusetts case plz. Second, it wouldn't surprise me a Left-wing partisan hack of a judge would rule that Government can do whatever the heck it wants to the American People.



aghogday
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Nov 2010
Age: 63
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,562

21 Feb 2011, 1:31 pm

zer0netgain wrote:
Orwell wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
And if someone refuses to pay the fine, are you saying the Government is not going to do anything about it.

Actually, the jail time is still there, it is either pay the fine or go to jail. Otherwise, how many people you think would pay the fine? Probably 0, they would tell the Feds to go shove it.

The IRS has collection methods other than throwing people in jail. I suppose at the limit they could garnish your wages. The IRS is not permitted to press criminal charges against people who refuse to pay the fine, so they would presumably file civil charges instead.


Given the IRS' history of how they operate.

They fine you...you refuse to pay it...they establish "collection mechanisms."

If you consistently refuse to pay it (each year), I see it being very easy to elevate you into a "tax evader" and make it a criminal offense.

I trust the government (and IRS in particular) about as far as I can throw Mt. Rushmore with one hand.


The law that applies to the health care mandate penalty is unique in that they cannot elevevate a person into a tax evader and make it a criminal offense. It would be impossible for the IRS to do this, unless the law is modified by politicians.

The only collection mechanism they have that is associated with this law is to take the money owed out of refunds. The Taxpayer has a level of control to avoid the tax penalty by making sure that they do not have too much money taken out of their paychecks for taxes.

I understand that this is hard to believe because this is the first law that makes it possible for someone to avoid paying a tax to the IRS, without getting in trouble. It is opposite from the mindset we have held all of our lives about the IRS. Remember, though, the IRS is just a group of government workers that get their marching orders from tax laws voted into law by politicians who are supposed to represent the people that elect them.

People were very upset that they could face jailtime for avoiding the tax penalty. The politicians listened and changed the law to eliminate this concern.

Please don't take my word for it; if you didn't read the article detailing this that I linked from USA Today.



Inuyasha
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Jan 2009
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,745

21 Feb 2011, 1:34 pm

What link, and quite frankly I could care less what USAToday says.



Blue_Jackets_fan
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 27 Oct 2010
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 322

21 Feb 2011, 3:05 pm

Orwell wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
And if someone refuses to pay the fine, are you saying the Government is not going to do anything about it.

Actually, the jail time is still there, it is either pay the fine or go to jail. Otherwise, how many people you think would pay the fine? Probably 0, they would tell the Feds to go shove it.

The IRS has collection methods other than throwing people in jail. I suppose at the limit they could garnish your wages. The IRS is not permitted to press criminal charges against people who refuse to pay the fine, so they would presumably file civil charges instead.


Yeah, but the IRS can and WILL make your life a living hell. Ask anyone who f***s up their taxes.



aghogday
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Nov 2010
Age: 63
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,562

21 Feb 2011, 3:19 pm

Inuyasha wrote:
zer0netgain wrote:
Orwell wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
And if someone refuses to pay the fine, are you saying the Government is not going to do anything about it.

Actually, the jail time is still there, it is either pay the fine or go to jail. Otherwise, how many people you think would pay the fine? Probably 0, they would tell the Feds to go shove it.

The IRS has collection methods other than throwing people in jail. I suppose at the limit they could garnish your wages. The IRS is not permitted to press criminal charges against people who refuse to pay the fine, so they would presumably file civil charges instead.


Given the IRS' history of how they operate.

They fine you...you refuse to pay it...they establish "collection mechanisms."

If you consistently refuse to pay it (each year), I see it being very easy to elevate you into a "tax evader" and make it a criminal offense.

I trust the government (and IRS in particular) about as far as I can throw Mt. Rushmore with one hand.


Amen.

@ aghogday

First source about the Massachusetts case plz. Second, it wouldn't surprise me a Left-wing partisan hack of a judge would rule that Government can do whatever the heck it wants to the American People.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romneycare#Fountas_v_Dormitzer

As far as your concern about a partisan hack of a judge; first it would take someone to challenge the tax penalty law. Secondly, if a partisan ruling was made it could be appealed all the way to the Supreme Court, just like the partisan ruling on the mandate. There is no rational reason for the tax penalty law to be overturned and changed into one that makes avoiding the tax a criminal offense.

Most people are law abiding citizens; they are likely to either purchase the insurance or pay the tax penalty, if they find that more cost effective. Politicians understand this. Even if the Supreme Court rules the mandate unconstitutional and a person feels like the government is abusing them by imposing the tax penalty, they can avoid paying the tax and get away with it.

If you can look at it this way; for those that refuse coverage and pay a tax penalty, if they do need emergency room care they can't afford, they still receive a benefit that they can avoid paying for. The tax penalty makes health coverage more affordable for others and others pay higher health care costs because of unfunded emergency room visits. It prevents some people from getting a free ride that so many conservatives are concerned about.

Per the law, the government doesn't get to do whatever it wants. If a judgement is made in the courts that overturns a law, elected politicians have to vote on a new law. The voters put them into office and the politicians pay attention to the voters needs if they want to be re-elected.

Many people on the democratic side were expecting at least a public option to compete with insurance companies. The democratic politicians didn't come through on the promise, because some were more concerned with the conservative political fall out from a public option than they were a mandate. As a result many democratic politicians lost their postions.

If the healthcare reform makes it through the courts the Republicans can try as hard as they can to repeal it, but even if they have a Republican President they will be right back in the scenario that the democrats were in when they passed something other than what they promised.

When all is said and done people will probably still be getting their health care reform benefits. Once people fully understand and benefit from reform and realize the mandate does not have consequences that people are confused about, support will probably increase for the current health care reform plan. Some republican supporters may be disgusted that they didn't repeal it and we're back to another cycle of control for Democrats.