Posted on 10/16/2013 7:50:01 AM PDT by sickoflibs
Wage garnishment. Only those receiving a paycheck will pay the penalties. The super rich and deadbeats, aka liberals, will not be subject to penalties.
So now my belief that I have to work to earn a living is false at least in this country?
I'm sure the above will 'hold' for about a year but the reason extremist democrats wanted the IRS to do the collection in the first place was because of the power of the IRS.
An 'in-house' collection service would have been cheaper... dems wanted the muscle of the IRS... and their hatred of conservative citizens.
The power of the IRS will be used, the law changed, and the sweetness thrown out as soon as extremest democrats understand people are going to resist signing up for ObamaCare. When extremists can't force the young to buy insurance they don't need the whole system will collapse. They'll change the law before they'll allow that to happen. You know that Sick, right?
It looks like the text they offer is from 2010. My distrust for all things Obama tells me it may be different from what is in the millions of pages of operational regs.
I think when push comes to shove, they’re not going to throw people in jail for resisting. However, there are many things they can do to destroy lives short of jail, like freezing bank accounts and seizing property with liens. They’ll do that.
Yeah, and the IRS didn’t do anything wrong when they targeted Tea Party organizations for additional scrutiny. After all, when they didn’t target like minded marxist groups, they were just “not enforcing” that aspect of the regulations.
It’s not as if the Tea Party groups lost their first ammendment right, they just didn’t get treated as a non-profit by the IRS.
When conservatives make these issues too simplified, they are just confusing people!
/s off
If you honestly think that the IRS will change their behaviour because some nuance in the “law as passed,” then I have a bridge to sell you.
While that’s always a possibility, I don’t believe the IRS has nor will be given the power to do that.
A very good idea, IMO. I say that because that's exactly what I did. ;-) I'm too busy to post much more on the subject today. Hang in there.
While the text of the law clearly states they cannot go after you for failing to pay the fine, the administration has little (if any) respect for the law. On that basis, those claiming the IRS can confiscate your bank account or place a lien on your property may not be that far off base.
You’re more trusting than I am. We’ll see.
Those groups were asking the IRS to give their contributors a special tax deduction for political contributions. That law says its up to the IRS to approve those.
That law doesnt impose any special tax on people. Can you read ‘Shall not’ ??
Not quite right. They are not enforcing certain parts of the law. Courts said they wont tell the POTUS how to enforce a law.
That is much different to the courts than IRS/justice prosecuting someone in violation of that same law they are procecuting them for.
If they try to do that then even the most liberal judges will rule to throw it out of court since the text of bill is so clear.
Lawyers will be lining up to take that first case on and beat the government
If you work and they deem you can support yourself by working they will punish you, that’s what it all boils down to. I recently moved out of New York city after growing up there, I’m 51 now. Best decision I ever made because now they are going to vote in a hardcore communist as Mayor, Bill De Blasio. Without a shred of doubt they will vote him in. So now the people in that city are going to have to deal with communism at the local level as well as communism at the Federal level. Why work? Seriously, unless a person works merely for enjoyment there isn’t going to be much of a financial reward, not that anyone will be working in the near future anyway as companies start mass layoffs. The best thing to do is get paid under the table, work off the grid because they are going to go full out after everything you own
That one I can buy. That's a far cry from the imaginary horror predictions of the IRS SWAT Team breaking down doors to drag us away to the Obama-care prisons.
And its only those who dont have employer based insurance too.
So lets say that millions ignore the scary Halloween claims posted here, and they ignore Obama making the similar demands to comply, and they dont pay that annual $70 or so...
Then the Fed government goes to garnish millions of working Americans for the annual $70 they dont pay. Seems like that should keep them busy.
And Obama-care lets them buy insurance AFTER they get sick, that's worth way more than $70.
script and I are not trusting at all.
We are calling for massive passive resistance by Americans to not comply with O-care especially if it is in their best personal interests to not comply.
And we have the facts on our side clearly posted in plain English.
Why so many here want to frighten Americans into joining and funding those Obamacare exchanges is a mystery to us.
That can only make it stronger.
Your fears are keeping your prisoner. Sheep are scared. Tigers fight back
Those getting a good deal I expect to join, if there are any.
You know I think they set up O-care after seeing how corporations use company health insurance programs to skim money from lower level employees. There was an article detailing how they do it on the web last year. Overall, it seems like a similar system. Rates and coverages are all subjective to the whims of the government directors. Party members will get favored, others, not so much.
There are still civil penalties. This provision does not waive them. Overview of common civil penalties
‘(B) LIMITATIONS ON LIENS AND LEVIES- The Secretary shall not— ‘(i) file notice of lien with respect to any property of a taxpayer by reason of any failure to pay the penalty imposed by this section, or ‘(ii) levy on any such property with respect to such failure.’
As someone pointed out above, liens and levies can potentially be exercised by persons or entities other than the "Secretary" (including by the IRS, Justice Department [for a judgement lien in a civil suit], and maybe others). It is not clear to me how much protection is granted by prohibiting the "Secretary" from filing liens and levying on property.
I join you in that call. I have to say this, though: I am an older person, I have always had health insurance and always will. Not because it's "required" but because it's a sensible thing for a person my age to do (Mrs. Liberty is getting ready to have an expensive surgery. I will not deliberately go into poverty to make a point). But if I were in my twenties, I'd be a little ticked at being seen as a cash cow for older people who did nothing to prepare for being, well, older.
I'm the same way about my retirement. I'm saving as much as I can in a 401K, but I'll be pretty ticked off if they decide to "means test" Social Security, because that would mean I get screwed for practicing the virtue of saving.
My point. I may lose my insurance in January if it goes up so much that I can no longer pay the premiums; and I know that my current plan will still be cheaper than the stuff offered on the so called exchanges. But I am not the young person that files a simple 1040. They could put me through a meat grinder if so inclined.
Some country huh? We have to eat sh1t in the hopes of staying below the radar and surviving. That’s why some days I half hope the SHTF scenario, which I believe is inevitable, hits now rather than later. I want the liberals that voted for this garbage to go down the crapper with us. Bring it on & get it over with while I am still healthy enough to protect my family from ObamaZombies.
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.