I wonder why they forgot to mention that?
Well you can believe this guy or you can believe what’s happening to your wallet.
So Dick, what are those 16,000 new IRS commandos going to do with all of that free time they are going to have on their hands?
Dear Sir,
You article on Obamacare and the "Republicans' Big Lie" simply is not factual. Read the following piece that I wrote. "Joe" is, in fact, me:
Joe’s Healthcare:
The recent healthcare decision affects us all in different ways. But, let’s consider a very real person named Joe. Now, Joe is a nice fellow who lost his job during this recession and now works two jobs rather than rely on welfare. Joe is also a heart patient, and he does have limited but affordable catastrophic insurance. He hears on television that Obamacare will require him to buy a comprehensive policy that costs almost three times what he is paying now, according to the best estimates of the insurance companies themselves, and that his much less expensive catastrophic insurance will be outlawed. Not permissible. Everyone must be the same. Joe works hard at his two jobs, and his salary is just enough to pay his mortgage, put food on the table, and purchase gas for his car, but it is too high for him to qualify for government subsidies under Obamacare. He cannot afford this new insurance, but Joe hears Democrats on television telling him that he is “selfish” and a “freeloader” if he does not buy insurance because clearly, in their arrogant presumption, “he can afford it.” He can't, but they tell him that, anyway. He must pay a tax-penalty, one that will rise from 1% of his income to 2.5% over three years. Joe sees that these Democrats have no idea how hard he has worked all his life to have a home, how much his mortgage payment is, and know nothing about anything else in his life. They just blindly assume that he can afford their expensive new insurance, a form of insurance that covers Joe for pregnancy, birth-control pills, and pediatric services, none of which he will ever need. And, the cheapest of these more expensive plans offered to him will cover only 60% of costs, anyway. Joe reads that Obamacare imposes a big tax on medical device companies, who are laying off people. Joe’s retirement plan contains stock in two of those companies, stock now losing value. Then Joe hears that even if he were to buy this new insurance, he will not be able to deduct it as medical expense on his tax return, as he usually does, because under Obamacare the income threshold for medical deductions will be raised from 7.5% to 10%, a very difficult level to reach. This will cost Joe about $2,500 on top of the $1,500 tax-penalty he will have to pay if he does not buy insurance. This is also a tax. Joe then learns that some woman named Kathleen Sibelius has added an abortion-services surcharge to every month’s premium in all but the most limited of plans offered to him (i.e. as the norm,not the exception). Joe is a pro-life Catholic. And he doesn’t think he should have to read the fine print just because he is Catholic. In the end, it seems, this new insurance will require him to sell his home and, if he is not careful, to violate his conscience. Joe does not buy this expensive new insurance and lives without any health insurance at all, having lost the affordable catastrophic insurance he once had. Joe is left with nothing, but is penalized . . . taxed . . . for it, anyway. Joe decides to vote Republican.
Sir, there are 21 different taxes in this bill, and at least seven of them hit the middle class. It is hardly a lie to say so. What constitutes a lie are the words "If you like your healthcare, you can keep it," and the words "We will not under any circumstances tax the middle class." Now, THOSE are lies, and we all know who repeatedly gave voice to them. The man lies. Joe Wilson was right. Respectfully,
If only a “Whopping 1.2%” are going to be taxed(penalized) isn’t that a clear indication there wasn’t such a dire need for this law to be passed?
So why exactly does the IRS needs 6000 more agents?
Really? The author of this is DICK POLMAN?
This idiot doesn't grasp the difference between "truth and lie" an opinions.
Children in adult bodies.
What has happened in the past is fact, therefore truth or lie, depending on the observer.
What is in the future cannot be a fact under any circumstances, therefore cannot be truth or lie, merely opinion.
Why would anyone waste their time reading anything written by a fool?
How can you go from “tens of millions” of uninsured to only 1.2% of people not being insured after the mandate becomes law? Only if the vast majority of the uninsured decide to buy the insurance — and pay much higher premiums than the ones they couldn’t afford before the mandate became law — instead of paying the fine which will be much cheaper (at first).
As usual, the liberal’s math is way off.
Lets forget about the penalty and talk about the other taxes associated with Obamacare.
How about the 3.8% tax on home sales, and the other taxes?
Dick, you’re worse than a liar, you’re a fool; in fact you’re worse than a fool, you’re a willing fool:
By 1913, 36 States had ratified the 16th Amendment to the Constitution. In October, Congress passed a new income tax law with rates beginning at 1 percent and rising to 7 percent for taxpayers with income in excess of $500,000. Less than 1 percent of the population paid income tax at the time.http://www.policyalmanac.org/economic/archive/tax_history.shtml
Social Security Act in 1935. This law provided payments known as “unemployment compensation” to workers who lost their jobs. Other sections of the Act gave public aid to the aged, the needy, the handicapped, and to certain minors. These programs were financed by a 2 percent tax, one half of which was subtracted directly from an employee’s paycheck and one half collected from employers on the employee’s behalf. The tax was levied on the first $3,000 of the employee’s salary or wage.http://www.policyalmanac.org/economic/archive/tax_history.shtml
Between 1949 and 1962 the payroll tax rate climbed steadily from its initial rate of 2 percent to 6 percent. The expansions in 1965 led to further rate increases, with the combined payroll tax rate climbing to 12.3 percent in 1980. Thus, in 31 years the maximum Social Security tax burden rose from a mere $60 in 1949 to $3,175 in 1980.
Despite the increased payroll tax burden, the benefit expansions Congress enacted in previous years led the Social Security program to an acute funding crises in the early 1980s. Eventually, Congress legislated some minor programmatic changes in Social Security benefits, along with an increase in the payroll tax rate to 15.3 percent by 1990. Between 1980 and 1990, the maximum Social Security payroll tax burden more than doubled to $7,849.http://www.policyalmanac.org/economic/archive/tax_history.shtml
‘Obama’s supposedly sweeping tax — his penalty for noncompliance — will be levied on a grand total of 1.2 percent of the American people’.
Exactly so who’s going to pick up the tab for the lazy freeloaders, who sit in the back of the cart while the middle class work their butts off? You got it the middle class for the largest tax hike in American history.
Only 1.2% of the public do not buy health insurance? BS! The number is much larger than that. The Philadelphia Inquirer lies flat out! All you have to do is look at the number of people on unemployment, 8.6%, and add in the people who just do not consider it to be worthwhile, and you are way above 1.2%.
Typical idiotic static case analysis. Assumes there will be no behavior modification because of the law. If employers find it cheaper to pay the fine than the new increased premiums they will do so.