Obama’s Healthcare Bill has left Middle Class and Lower Class American’s twisting in the wind. Selling taxation as a “penalty” and a BFD to the Americans as a sugar coated nasty tasting pill, Obama thinks he has pulled one over on Americans. Has he?
Nancy Pelosi (We have to pass the bill to find out what’s in it), in her lucky purple heels (the same ones she wore when Obamacare passed) may have spilled the beans yesterday:
Former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi may have finally admitted that she and other Democrats lied about the individual mandate. Having just been backed into an inescapable corner by no less an eminence than the United States Supreme Court, which explicitly said that the only way for the individual mandate to pass constitutional muster would be to recast it as a tax, Pelosi may have finally realized she has to acknowledge that reality when questioned by the Daily Caller’s Nicholas Ballasy, while trying as much as possible to dodge the issue by branding any discussion of the mandate’s nature as “Washington talk”.
“Washington talk?“ If getting Pelosi to admit the truth is ”Washington talk,” then Washington could use more of it. Her hemming and hawing answer, and the extremely vague line “take yes for an answer” notwithstanding, it is true that the individual mandate is a tax, and if Pelosi is even willing to hint at that reality, then at least she’s made a baby step toward integrity.
What about when she said “the power of Congress to regulate health care is essentially unlimited” because of the commerce clause? Wrong again. In fact, even the liberal justices joined with Chief Justice Roberts in striking down the law’s justification under the commerce clause.
September 14, 2010
Dr. Laurie Roth
Hidden Real Estate Sales tax in Health care bill – Surprise! There are already at least 20 hidden taxes in the Obama Health care plan coming down upon us the next few years. So, along with rationed care for seniors and forced health insurance, we now find there is a Real Estate Tax snuck into the Health care plan. You may ask, what in God’s green earth does health care have to do with Real Estate taxes??? Absolutely nothing, that is precisely why one got snuck in there.
Starting in 2013, not only will you pay the closing costs and real estate fee when you sell your house but now you will pay a 3.8% Sales Tax. So, if you sell your home for $400,000, perhaps wanting to down size if you are a senior you will pay $15,200 in Tax.
Here we have another assault on our seniors again. Many downsize their homes as retirement comes closer, so along with long lines and rationed care that is substandard, seniors and anyone will have to pay more tax on the home they just sold.
Penalties for individuals: We will pay 2.5% of our annual income as a fine/penalty if we don’t purchase the government approved health care plan.
Penalties on families: Parents will pay a yearly $347 per kid if they don’t purchase a government approved health care plan.
Penalties on employers: If you are a business with 50 or more employers you will get fined at least $2,000 per employee if you don’t provide, once again the ‘government approved health care plan.
Other special taxes and fees:
Investment income: Anyone making $200,000 or over gets to pay 3.8% of their annual investment income. Start adding up them apples, folks.
If you have a fancy health care plan and pay as an individual, $10,200 or $27,800 for a family, you get to pay a 40% annual tax on those health care plans.
Medical aid devices have gotten hit hard as well. They will see a 2.9% tax hike. Sorry if you have an artificial limb….you are screwed.
Medicare gets more money because if you earn $200,000 or more you pay a special Medicare tax of 3.9.%
A TAX UNLIKE ANY OTHER
COURT RULES THAT OBAMACARE CONSTITUTES MASSIVE TAX INCREASE DESPITE OBAMA CLAIMS TO CONTRARY
BY: Bill McMorris -
June 29, 2012
Chief Justice John Roberts ruled Thursday that Barack Obama used “magic words” to characterize a multi-billion dollar tax increase on middle and low income earners as a “penalty.”
“‘Magic words or labels’ should not ‘disable an otherwise constitutional levy,’” he wrote, citing a 1992 sales tax case. “This process yields the essential feature of any tax: it produces at least some revenue for the Government … $4 billion per year by 2017.”
The 5-4 ruling upholding Obama’s chief legislative achievement undermines the president’s claim that he would never raise taxes on Americans making less than $250,000 per year.
Obama attempted to sell the unpopular law to the country on the grounds that the individual mandate represented a penalty rather than a tax, and accused his critics of twisting words.
“For us to say that you’ve got to take a responsibility to get health insurance is absolutely not a tax increase,” he told George Stephanopoulos of ABC news.
When the newsman and former Democratic official pressed Obama on the question and cited a dictionary definition of the term “tax,” the president interrupted him.
“No, but—but, George, you—you can’t just make up that language and decide that that’s called a tax increase,” he said, adding “the fact that you looked up Merriam’s Dictionary, the definition of tax increase, indicates to me that you’re stretching a little bit right now.”
Chief Justice John Roberts and the liberal bloc of the Supreme Court cited the Constitution, as well as the law’s empowerment of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), to conclude that Obama had passed one of the largest tax increases in history.
“The exaction the Affordable Care Act imposes on those without health insurance looks like a tax in many respects,” Roberts wrote. “[The tax] conclusion should not change simply because Congress used the word ‘penalty’ to describe the payment.”
Florida Sen. Marco Rubio slammed Obama for breaking his campaign pledge to avoid middle class tax hikes on multiple television interviews following the ruling.
“For the Obama administration a ‘victory’ is a middle class tax increase … that’s not me saying it, that’s what the Supreme Court said today,” he told CNBC. “The reason why they say this is constitutional is because this is a tax increase … we have now created an IRS problem for millions of Americans.”
“There are a lot of things that are constitutional that happen to be bad ideas,” he said.
Obamacare is expected to raise taxes on hospitals, insurers, companies, and individuals by more than $500 billion over the next ten years, according to the nonprofit anti-tax group Americans for Tax Reform. Justices Clarence Thomas, Antonin Scalia, Samuel Alito, and Anthony Kennedy noted the steep price tag in their jointly signed dissent.
“The regulations and taxes will mean higher costs for insurance companies. Higher costs may mean higher premiums for consumers, despite the Act’s goal of ‘lower[ing] health insurance premiums,’” the dissenters argued.
Obama made healthcare taxes a central issue in the 2008 campaign, claiming he would not raise taxes on any American making less than $250,000 per year. He released a campaign ad claiming that Republican Sen. John McCain’s plan to issue tax credits to purchase personal insurance would “tax your healthcare for the first time ever.”
Obama did not mention the word tax in post-decision remarks calling on the country to “move forward.” The White House website still hosts a blog post that claims to “set the record straight” on Obamacare.
“The health insurance reform bill being considered in the Senate does not raise taxes on families making less than $250,000,” wrote Deputy Director of the National Economic Council Jason Furman.
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D., Calif.) was also evasive when asked about the tax increase.
“Call it what you will—it is a step forward for America’s families. And you know what? Take yes for an answer,” she responded. “What you’re talking about here is Washington talk.”
“President Obama looked the camera in the eye and said ‘we’re not taxing you.’… This is disingenuous [and] it will not stand,” South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham told Fox News. “Every Democrat who voted for this bill should be labeled as a massive tax increase member of Congress or repeal the bill—they can’t have it both ways.”
Expanding the Powers of the IRS
n short, health care reform, as currently envisioned by Democratic leaders, would be built on the foundation of an expanded and more intrusive IRS.
Under the various proposals now on the table, the IRS would become the main agency for determining who has an “acceptable” health insurance plan; for finding and punishing those who don’t have such a plan; for subsidizing individual health insurance costs through the issuance of a tax credits; and for enforcing the rules on those who attempt to opt out, abuse, or game the system. A substantial portion of H.R. 3200, the House health care bill, is devoted to amending the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 in order to give the IRS the authority to perform these new duties.
The Democrats’ plan would require all Americans to have “acceptable” insurance coverage (the legislation includes long and complex definitions of “acceptable”) and would designate the IRS as the agency charged with enforcing that requirement. On your yearly 1040 tax return, you would be required to attest that you have “acceptable” coverage. Of course, you might be lying, or simply confused about whether or not you are covered, so the IRS would need a way to check your claim for accuracy. Under current plans, insurers would be required to submit to the IRS something like the 1099 form in which taxpayers report outside income. The IRS would then check the information it receives from the insurers against what you have submitted on your tax form.
If it all matches up, you’re fine. If it doesn’t, you will hear from the IRS. And if you don’t have “acceptable” coverage, you will be subject to substantial fines — fines that will be administered by the IRS.
Under some versions of health reform now circulating on Capitol Hill, the IRS would also be intimately involved in how you pay for insurance. Everyone would be required to buy coverage. The millions of Americans who can’t afford it would receive a subsidy to pay for it. Under the version of the plan currently under negotiation in the Senate Finance Committee, that subsidy would come through the IRS in the form of a refundable tax credit. Under the House plan, the subsidy would come directly from the Health Choices Administration.
In either scenario, the IRS would be the key to making the system work. Before you could receive any subsidy, whether through the IRS or not, the Health Choices Administration would have to determine whether you are eligible for it. To do so, the bills under consideration would give the Health Choices Commissioner the authority to demand sensitive, confidential information from the IRS about individual taxpayers. The IRS would have to provide it.
Under current law, it is a felony for a government official to release taxpayer information in all but the most limited of circumstances. One such exception is for law enforcement; the IRS is allowed to give taxpayer information to prosecutors in criminal cases. The information can also, in some instances, be released to the Social Security Administration and the Veterans’ Administration for the determination of benefits. The health care bills would change the Internal Revenue Code to permit the IRS to give similar information to the vast, new health care bureaucracy.
That means the personal tax information of millions of Americans would enter the system whether they want it to or not. “There’s a mandate to buy insurance,” says one Republican House aide. “You have to buy it. You have millions of people who can’t buy it without a subsidy, so they will have no choice but to accept the subsidy in order to buy insurance, and then the Health Choices Commissioner will have access to their tax records.”
“How many hands would this information go through?” asks a GOP source in the Senate. “What are the quality controls? This increases the risk of misusing this information.”
Some versions of the bill even permit the release of confidential taxpayer information for decidedly less pressing reasons. In H.R. 3200, the IRS would be required to provide taxpayer information to the Social Security Administration for the purpose of helping Social Security officials find qualifying seniors who can then be encouraged to enroll in the prescription drug program. “There is no precedent for using taxpayer information for the purpose of identifying people to go out and advertise to them,” says the House expert.
So far, there has been little substantive public debate about the integral role of the IRS in nearly every aspect of the various national health care proposals. But people who are closely involved with the process are deeply concerned about what they view as a massive, and in some senses unprecedented, expansion of the Internal Revenue Service.
Sen. Marco Rubio: “If You Don’t Buy Health Insurance the IRS is Gonna Come After You”
Trouble viewing video? Click Here.