Posted on 09/23/2016 11:02:21 AM PDT by amorphous
Are you one of 20 million uninsured Americans who hasn’t signed up for Obamacare?
Then you might be getting a note from the IRS this year “suggesting” you enroll.
“Getting a letter from the IRS can be a threatening and nerve-racking experience; it seldom is seen as a suggestion and more of a threat,” Galen Institute President Grace-Marie Turner wrote in a Forbes column Wednesday.
The IRS is reportedly “reaching out” to Americans who claimed an exemption or chose to pay the tax penalty for not purchasing mandatory health insurance. The ploy is intended to “attract” Obamacare enrollees.
“The government is particularly interested in compliance from healthy young people,” Turner wrote.
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
OK, not really. But, an acceptable excuse is "I couldn't afford the premiums." Well, duh! Very few people can afford them, and the rest have to sacrifice elsewhere to pay the premiums.
I predict the IRS will start enforcing the law as soon as Trump takes office, so that he takes the heat. People that were given a pass until now will think that Trump changed the policy.
Turning the IRS into the Gestapo isn’t exactly my idea of a reasoned thing to do.
We need to start with the IRS, and eliminate about 85-90% of the government employees.
So the IRS is also contacting the people who paid the Obamacare penalty.
But those people are in full compliance with the law. They had the option of not taking Obamacare, in exchange for paying the penalty. It's their free choice.
The IRS has no business telling them what legal tax option to exercise. It'd be like the IRS seeing a capital loss on your tax return, and then sending you a letter with stock market advice.
Totally agree!
I'm all for the states to fund the feds along with the original tariffs concept. Worst mistake this nation ever made, besides the USSC voting to allow abortion, was to give authority to our central government to collect taxes from individuals.
Going to prosecute congress for giving itself a special privilege to bypass the law that it itself passed?
Time for Trump to “reach out” to the IRS and “suggest” it fuhgedabout trying to enforce that illegal and unconstitutional obamanation, if it knows what’s good for it. Then fire them all anyway on January 20. Without benefits.
Trump will be President and if I were the IRS I would just take a back seat and do nothing for the rest of the year. Trump will fire the entire IRS if they are mot careful.
Trump for President.
Whomever came up with the saying, "you can't get blood out of a turnip", never had to deal with the IRS...
I agree with your thoughts there too, but for now we’ll have to keep taxation high by some means. We have to service and pay down the debt.
Getting rid of those employees will help considerably though, reducing deficit spending and turning things around.
I do agree tariffs should be considered as the source of funds for our government, as long as they are low, don’t impact trade too negatively, and provide enough to keep our military top notch.
Our nation’s greatest growth existed before the IRS. Whatever existed to fund the gov’t then should be used again today. I think it was tariffs but I don’t know if it was exclusively tariffs. I just know the IRS needs to be abolished!
Hey, Reagan set the precedent by firing Air Traffic Controllers. Why should the IRS, who’ve also failed to follow law, be an exception?
I hear ya.
For my individual income tax, I pay the full year’s amount of estimated tax in one fell swoop before the first installment deadline (April 15th), at 100% of the prior year’s tax liability. That’s the safe harbor amount.
I used pay quarterly, but it got to be too much of a hassle.
I am of the opinion that every federal government worker and agency should go full lame-duck dark until this election completes. Regardless of who wins there WILL BE retaliations for popping your noise spouting head up while the fireworks is flying.
I'm not sure it's possible to pay down the debt now without major pain, but certainly something that needs to be decided by the smartest people we can find.
Flanking the debt problem from both sides, as you spelled out, certainly seems the only way.
As mentioned in related threads, regardless what lawless Obama’s state sovereignty-ignoring activist justices want everybody to think about the constitutionality of Obamacare, previous generations of state sovereignty-respecting justices had clarified the following about so-called federal healthcare.
The states have never delegated to the feds, expressly via the Constitution, the specific power to regulate, tax and spend for INTRAstate healthcare purposes. This is evidenced by the excerpts below from Supreme Court case opinions.
Regarding the constitutionality of the Obamacare insurance mandate for example, note the fourth entry in the list below from Paul v. Virginia. In that case, justices had clarified that regulating insurance is not within the scope of Congress’s Commerce Clause powers (1.8.3), regardless if the parties negotiating the insurance policy are domiciled in different states.
"State inspection laws, health laws, and laws for regulating the internal commerce of a State, and those which respect turnpike roads, ferries, &c. are not within the power granted to Congress. [emphases added]" - Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
"Congress is not empowered to tax for those purposes which are within the exclusive province of the States." - Justice John Marshall, Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
"Inspection laws, quarantine laws, health laws of every description [emphasis added], as well as laws for regulating the internal commerce of a state and those which respect turnpike roads, ferries, &c., are component parts of this mass." -Justice Barbour, New York v. Miln., 1837.
"4. The issuing of a policy of insurance is not a transaction of commerce within the meaning of the latter of the two clauses, even though the parties be domiciled in different States, but is a simple contract [emphasis added] of indemnity against loss." - Paul v. Virginia, 1869. (The corrupt feds have no Commerce Clause (1.8.3) power to regulate insurance.)
"Direct control of medical practice in the states is obviously [emphases added] beyond the power of Congress." - Linder v. United States, 1925.
"From the accepted doctrine that the United States is a government of delegated powers, it follows that those not expressly granted, or reasonably to be implied from such as are conferred, are reserved to the states, or to the people. To forestall any suggestion to the contrary, the Tenth Amendment was adopted. The same proposition, otherwise stated, is that powers not granted are prohibited [emphasis added]. ...” —United States v. Butler, 1936.
So what the corrupt Court’s green light for unconstitutional Obamacare actually did was to show how corrupt all three branches of the unconstitutionally big federal government are, the feds wrongly not securing the required consent of the Constitution’s Article V state supermajority before establishing Obamacare.
In fact, Thomas Jefferson had wisely suggested that the federal government’s constitutionally limited powers should be interpreted narrowly to compel the states to amend the Constitution for new federal powers if necessary.
"In every event, I would rather construe so narrowly as to oblige the nation to amend, and thus declare what powers they would agree to yield, than too broadly, and indeed, so broadly as to enable the executive and the Senate to do things which the Constitution forbids." --Thomas Jefferson: The Anas, 1793.
Remember in November !
Patriots need to support Trump / Pence by also electing a new, state sovereignty-respecting Congress that will not only work within its constitutional Article I, Section 8-limited powers to support Trump’s vision for making America great again for everybody, but will also put a stop to unconstitutonal federal taxes and likewise unconstitutional inteference in state affairs as evidenced by unconstitutional Obamacare.
Note that such a Congress will also probably be willing to fire state sovereignty-ignoring activist justices.
Agree. Whatever decisions are made, if there is indeed a desire to actually fix the problem this time, it's going to be painful for quite a number of different entities - probably for everyone until we work our way out of this. It may take several years, but those are much better circumstances than world economic collapse or world war.
Won’t happen before the election. All those folks are potential Hillary voters. Of course, this presupposes Zero WANTS Hillary to win. He has good reason not to want her to win.
Damn, you're a better American than I Muddog. I went "Galt" shortly after Obunga came into office, stopped working and reduced my income tax to null.
One of my goals in life was to become financially independent - that doesn't mean rich, at least not money wise, but I was able to "drop out" of the rat race when he took over the country.
I'm looking to rejoin if Trump wins. In fact, I've been putting things in place to do just that.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.