Posted on 01/18/2015 7:12:51 PM PST by george76
Those Americans who didn’t get health insurance last year could be in for a rude awakening when the IRS asks them to fork over their Obamacare penalty — and it could be a lot more than the $95 many of them may be expecting.
The Affordable Care Act requires those who didn’t have insurance last year and didn’t qualify for one of the exemptions to pay a tax penalty, which was widely cited as $95 the first year. But the $95 is actually a minimum, and middle- and upper-income families will actually end up paying 1 percent of their household income as their penalty.
...
the average penalty for lacking health insurance in 2014 will be $301... to a $325 minimum or 2 percent of income in 2015, and to a $695 minimum or 2.5 percent of income in 2016.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
I thought it was also a per person thing...so if you file for a family of 4, it’s 4x the penalty.
People who owe money just won’t file. They think of a ‘tax return’ as a check they get from the government. No check, no file.
You idiots voted for it.
So enjoy it.
Unless they changed the law, the taxpayer cannot be required to “fork over” a big penalty. As I understand it, the IRS can only deduct the penalty from any refund due the taxpayer. The law, I understand, is very clear on this point. So if the taxpayer has arranged withholding sensibly, the gummint doesn’t collect the penalty.
Of course, the law also denies subsidies to anyone who does not purchase insurance on an exchange established by a state, and we know what IRS regulations did with that little inconvenience.
I believe that the IRS can collect their damn ACA tax/fine, (or whatever they want to call it these days), by ways other than a tax refund.
Shouldn’t be a surprise. The penalty/tax was very widely discussed and it was the central issue in the court case.
Gruber’s people
Waiting for uninformed and stupid to finally realize that this really affects them - badly! Too many seem to have been too passive after this was passed, it if finally time for them to pay the piper.
If you can’t afford lousy insurance that doesn’t really cover pre-existing conditions (despite promises that it did) although it does cover illegals (yes, he lied), then rest assured: the penalties and beatings *will* continue until morale improves.
I can’t believe some of the names I was called during the Obamacare debate.
I can’t believe some of the things I had said to me.
Turns out - I was right.
I hope every Obama voter goes broke trying to pay their taxes.
Most of whom you’d consider lower-income people will have the penalty waived if the bronze plan premiums in their area are considered unaffordable to them (without subsidies).
But government free stuff is supposed to be free!
That is the planned next chapter. People will be demanding it be free. The democrats have planned that all along. This crap was set up to fail.
But most of these people make money at tax time due to all the credits. So they will find out they lose that “refund” they already spent on that big screen TV.
Obama: “How can I tax thee, let me count the ways.”
Even if so, it wouldn't matter if you're at the income level that justifies the percentage as opposed to the fixed fine. 1% of each of each filer's income, totaled up, is still 1% of their total income.
Millions of taxpayers having their money stolen by the democrats. That cannot help the democrats in the next election.
That is a nice truck. It would be a shame if something happened to it.
Regardless what Obama’s activist justices wanted everybody to think about the constitutionality of Obamacare, these justices wrongly ignored the following. As mentioned in related threads, Constitution-respecting justices had historically clarified that the states have never delegated to the feds, expressly via the Constitution the specific power to regulate, tax and spend for intrastate healthcare purposes.
”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.
In fact, regardless that federal Democrats and RINOs will argue that if the Constitution doesn’t say that they cannot do something then they can do it, note that the Supreme Court has condemned that foolish idea. More specifically, the Supreme Court has clarified in broad terms that powers not expressly delegated to the feds via the Constitution, the specific power to regulate intrastate healthcare in this case, are prohibited to the feds.
”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.
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.