by | BLOG, OBAMA, OBAMACARE, POLITICS, TAXES
Back in 2009, Obama gave a speech at Arizona State University and joked about using the IRS to audit unsavory people. In a jolting forecast nearly four years ago, Glenn Reynolds wrote a response in the WSJ, saying,
“Should the IRS come to be seen as just a bunch of enforcers for whoever is in political power, the result would be an enormous loss of legitimacy for the tax system”.
As the IRS problems continue to unfold, it’s pretty clear that confidence from all sides is low right now.
With that in mind, one question should definitely be discussed: Should we delay the implementation of Obamacare? Obamacare is designed to be enforced by….the IRS.
Last week, CNBC explained how this will work:
“Get ready for the Internal Revenue Service to play a dominant role in health care. When Obamacare takes full effect next year, the agency will enforce most of the laws involved in the reform — even deciding who gets included in the health-care mandate.”
and further:
“In its 5-4 ruling last year, the Supreme Court upheld the law’s mandate that Americans have health insurance, saying that Congress can enforce the mandate under its taxing authority and through the IRS.
As a result, the agency has to administer 47 tax provisions under Obamacare. They include the right to levy a penalty against businesses and individuals who don’t provide or acquire insurance. Noting that the IRS will collect the penalties, the decision labeled them a tax.
The IRS also has to determine how to distribute annual subsidies to 18 million people who make less than $45,000 a year and thus qualify for subsidies in buying health coverage, as well as how to deliver tax credits to small businesses that buy coverage for workers”.
Obviously we currently have incompetency, partisanship, and trust issues in the IRS. And don’t forget about financial — IRS head Shulman asked for more money (prior to leaving in November 2012) in order to handle Obamacare in 2014. And on top of it all, the head of the IRS, Steven Miller, resigned yesterday.
At this point, the targeting has swelled to 500. Can the IRS be trusted anymore in implement Obamacare in a fair and just manner?
UPDATE:….and the concern is now very real, folks. The Internal Revenue Service official in charge of the tax-exempt organizations at the time when the unit targeted tea party groups now runs the IRS office responsible for the health care legislation.
Sarah Hall Ingram served as commissioner of the office responsible for tax-exempt organizations between 2009 and 2012. But Ingram has since left that part of the IRS and is now the director of the IRS’ Affordable Care Act office. This was confirmed today by the IRS.
by | BLOG, OBAMA, OBAMACARE, POLITICS, TAXES
Shhh! Don’t tell anyone your taxes are going up!
A couple of weeks ago, I spoke at a gathering of higher-income earners. The bulk of the discussion was a comparison of what this bracket of folks just paid in 2012 vs what they will pay in higher taxes in 2013. Some of those taxes had to do with the implementation of Obamacare and the new taxes associated with it.
However, many do not realize that Obamacare taxes, (levies created to help pay for the legislation) do not only affect high income earners. With the report out yesterday that 42% of Americans don’t realize that Obamacare is the law of the land, it is certain that many also don’t know that there are taxes — besides the “penalty” — that will affect many average Americans.
Say what you will about ATR; however, they have been one of the few organizations who have chronicled continuously since Obamacare was written, the various taxes that will be/have been imposed at various stages in the game during this Obamacare roll-out. From the perspective of a CPA like myself, having a list compiled together is very useful. Now that tax season is over, it is never to early to think about next year.
Below is a summary of new Obamacare taxes just for 2013,. These will affect (and probably shock) many Americans when they file their taxes next year.
“Obamacare Surtax on Investment Income: A new, 3.8 percent surtax on investment income earned in households making at least $250,000 ($200,000 single). This tax hike results in the following top tax rates on investment income:
Capital Gains: 23.8%
Dividends: 43.4%
Other* 43.4%
*Other unearned income includes (for surtax purposes) gross income from interest, annuities, royalties, net rents, and passive income in partnerships and Subchapter-S corporations. It does not include municipal bond interest or life insurance proceeds, since those do not add to gross income. It does not include active trade or business income, fair market value sales of ownership in pass-through entities, or distributions from retirement plans. (Bill: Reconciliation Act; Page: 87-93)
Obamacare Medicare Payroll Tax Increase:
Pre-Obamacare:
First $200,000, ($250,000 Married) Employer/Employee: 1.45%/1.45%; 2.9% self-employed
All Remaining Wages Employer/Employee: 1.45%/1.45%; 2.9% self employed
Obamacare:
First $200,000, ($250,000 Married) Employer/Employee: 1.45%/1.45%; 2.9% self-employed
All Remaining Wages Employer/Employee: 1.45%/2.35%; 3.8% self-employed
(Bill: PPACA, Reconciliation Act; Page: 2,000-2,003; 87-93)
Obamacare Medical Device Tax:
Medical device manufacturers employ 409,000 people in 12,000 plants across the country. Obamacare imposes a new 2.3 percent excise tax on gross sales – even if the company does not earn a profit in a given year. In addition to killing small business jobs and impacting research and development budgets, this will make everything from pacemakers to artificial hips more expensive. (Bill: PPACA; Page: 1,980-1,986)
Obamacare High Medical Bills Tax:
Before Obamacare, Americans facing high medical expenses were allowed a deduction to the extent that those expenses exceeded 7.5 percent of adjusted gross income (AGI). Obamacare now imposes a threshold of 10 percent of AGI. Therefore, Obamacare not only makes it more difficult to claim this deduction, it widens the net of taxable income. According to the IRS, 10 million families took advantage of this tax deduction in 2009, the latest year of available data. Almost all are middle class. The average taxpayer claiming this deduction earned just over $53,000 annually. ATR estimates that the average income tax increase for the average family claiming this tax benefit will be $200 – $400 per year. To learn more about this tax, click here. (Bill: PPACA; Page: 1,994-1,995)
Obamacare Flexible Spending Account Tax:
The 30 – 35 million Americans who use a pre-tax Flexible Spending Account (FSA) at work to pay for their family’s basic medical needs face a new Obamacare cap of $2,500. This will squeeze $13 billion of tax money from Americans over the next ten years. (Before Obamacare, the accounts were unlimited under federal law, though employers were allowed to set a cap.) Now, a parent looking to sock away extra money to pay for braces will find themselves quickly hitting this new cap, meaning they would have to pony up some or all of the cost with after-tax dollars.
Needless to say, this tax will especially impact middle class families.
There is one group of FSA owners for whom this new cap will be particularly cruel and onerous: parents of special needs children. Nationwide there are several million families with special needs children and many of them use FSAs to pay for special needs education. Tuition rates at one leading school that teaches special needs children in Washington, D.C. (National Child Research Center) can easily exceed $14,000 per year. Under tax rules, FSA dollars can be used to pay for this type of special needs education. This Obamacare tax provision will limit the options available to these families. (Bill: PPACA; Page: 2,388-2,389)”
So, while Obama claims he wants the wealthy to “pay their fair share”, he doesn’t tell you that he also expects millions of average-income Americans to do so — in order to pay for Obamacare. Unfortunately for all of us, as I wrote about earlier, Obamacare levies (many of which are still to come after 2014) still won’t pay for all of Obamacare in through 2023.
In that regard, we are certain to expect more taxes in the coming decade. Taxes are the government’s never-ending solution to raise more revenue (though we are on track to raise record revenue this year). How else are we expected to finance this brilliant, sinking ship?
by | OBAMA, OBAMACARE, POLITICS, TAXES
Spring Issue of Health Matrix, the Journal of Law-Medicine out of Case Western, had a great piece on Obamacare and the legality and eligibility of certain tax credits. The abstract is below. I advise that you read the piece in its entirety. (more…)
by | ECONOMY, FREEDOM, OBAMA, OBAMACARE, POLITICS, TAXES
I was talking to a small business owner the other day. He said it made more sense to “to pay a $2,000 fine than buy $6,000 insurance policy” (per employee, of course).
But there is no “fine”. It’s a “tax”. Employers who do not provide the one-size-fits-all, government-approved insurance demanded by Obamacare are taxed. And we know it’s a tax because the Supreme Court said so–in fact, if it isn’t a tax, if there is any hint that not purchasing insurance was bad behavior, Obamacare is unconstitutional.
Conservatives, people of integrity should take care to describe this payment to the government accurately: it is a tax on perfectly legal and moral behavior, not a fine for bad behavior. When you hear someone refer to the payment as a fine or hear them denigrate a business who opts to pay the tax rather than purchase insurance, be sure to remind them what the Supreme Court said.
by | ARTICLES, ECONOMY, OBAMA, OBAMACARE, TAXES
I’ve written several articles regarding the folly of Obamacare. This morning, I read a great piece on the need to keep ObamaCare and its impact at the forefront of our discussions .
The full implementation of the Affordable Care Act needs to be a major discussion in the coming months and years, especially in 2014 when every Democratic senator elected in 2008 on the coat-tails of Barack Obama may be branded as the deciding vote to corporatize — with government sanction and force — the mandatory use of seventeen hundredths of private property.
and this:
No, we cannot forget about Obamacare. When our expectation is to have the finest product available, at the expense of another person’s property; and when life is that product, it is impossible — by the laws of economics and the laws of logic — for our nation ever to maintain its prosperity. We will create a stagnant mediocrity, grant to a faceless human authority the power to determine how much life and quality of life is “acceptable,” and elevate our dependence on that authority until property is void, liberty is nostalgia, and self-propriety — i.e., life — is nothing more than a pluralistic determination of worth.
I urge you to read the article in its entirety.
by | ARTICLES, OBAMACARE, POLITICS, TAXES
Just to quickly note — a thoughtful piece by Sean Trende offering an interesting take on the Robert’s decision. The article is highly recommended in its entirety. However, here’s just a taste:
The simple fact is that almost all of us pay higher taxes each year than we otherwise would on the basis of things we forgo: whether it is not buying an electric car, not installing energy-efficient windows in our house, or not having that third kid. There’s no new ground being broken here
Robert’s ruling will be dissected for years to come. Looking at it from Trende’s angle is worthwhile.
by | ARTICLES, OBAMA, OBAMACARE, POLITICS, TAXES
So, the Supreme Court ruled yesterday that ObamaCare is constitutional because it is a tax. That settles it, right?
Not so fast.
On Friday, the day after the ObamaCare ruling, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney insisted the fine is still just a “penalty”.
Carney went on to say Friday that the “penalty” will affect only about 1 percent of Americans, those who refuse to get health insurance. He said the penalty was modeled after the one put in place in Massachusetts when Mitt Romney was governor.
“It’s a penalty, because you have a choice. You don’t have a choice to pay your taxes, right?” Carney said.
Carney was initially reluctant to assign a label to the fine when pressed repeatedly by reporters Friday. “Call it what you want,” he said.
and more:
“You can call it what you want,” he said. “If you read the opinion, it is not a broad-based tax. It affects one percent, by CBO estimates, of the population. It is not something that you assess like an income tax.”
It was unclear which Congressional Budget Office estimate Carney was referring to. Despite being pressed on the issue, though, the spokesman would not relent.
It didn’t even take 24 hours for the games and backtracking by the White House to begin. Don’t forget, they insisted to the American people — in order to get the bill passed — that it was not a tax. Clearly, they are worried about the tax narrative shaping the rest of the election season rhetoric.
by | ARTICLES, CONSTITUTION, HYPOCRISY, OBAMACARE, POLITICS, TAXES
The WSJ editorial this morning, The Roberts Rules, was excellent — as it dissects the inconsistencies within the ObamaCare decision. Read it through, but here are some highlights:
The remarkable decision upholding the Affordable Care Act is shot through with confusion—the mandate that’s really a tax, except when it isn’t, and the government whose powers are limited and enumerated, except when they aren’t.
and this:
The Chief Justice ruled that ObamaCare’s mandate violated the Commerce Clause, joined by the Court’s conservative bloc, but he also said that the mandate fell within Congress’s power to tax, joined by the Court’s liberal bloc. In practice this is a restraint on federal power without real restraint—and, worse, the Chief Justice had to rewrite the statute Congress passed in order to salvage it. The ruling will stand as one of the great what-might-have-beens of American constitutional law.
more:
According to Chief Justice Roberts, the penalty is merely a tax on not owning health insurance, no different from “buying gasoline or earning income,” and it thus complies with the Constitution. This a large loophole.
and this:
But if the mandate is really a tax, why doesn’t the law known as the Anti-Injunction Act apply, which says that taxes can’t be challenged legally until they’ve been collected? The Chief Justice actually rules that the mandate is a tax under the Constitution and a mandate for the purposes of tax law.
Additionally, the WSJ lent some more credence to the assertion that Chief Justice Roberts was actually in agreement with Scalia, Thomas, Kennedy, and Alito (giving a 5-4 strikedown), but at the last minute changed his mind. “One telling note is that the dissent refers repeatedly to “Justice Ginsburg’s dissent” and “the dissent” on the mandate, but of course they should be referring to Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s concurrence. This wording and other sources suggest that there was originally a 5-4 majority striking down at least part of ObamaCare, but then the Chief Justice changed his mind”. This theory was floated yesterday first by Paul Campos and Brad Delong who noticed language confusion and tone changes in the opinion. Their ideas are examined more in depth here.
Now that we have a both a scrutiny of the dissonance and a peek at some silver linings, where do we go from here? It is clear that November must be our top priority — both at the Presidential level and Congress, especially the Senate. And then, we’ll see whether American can be preserved.
Update #1:…and the White House (Jay Carney) is already insisting today that it is NOT A TAX
by | FREEDOM, OBAMACARE, POLITICS, TAXES
There are a few good aspects of the Supreme Court ruling, which upheld the ObamaCare mandate as a tax. Among them are 1) the deception by which Obama’s administration passed ObamaCare in Congress; 2) the preservation of the Commerce Clause; 3) the ease at which ObamaCare can now be repealed and 4) the invalidation of the Medicaid expansion, which upheld State’s rights and may ultimately undermine the entire efficacy of ObamaCare.
For the first time in history, a major piece of legislation passed Congress as an intentional deception of the American electorate. The only way this law was passed in March 2010 was the result of a clear and patent lie by the Obama Administration. ObamaCare supporters, including the President himself, repeatedly and emphatically denied that ObamaCare was a tax, and instead pointed to the Commerce Clause to validate its existence. Then, in front of the Supreme Court, the Obama Administration argued that ObamaCare was a tax. “Taxation Without Representation?”. This bait-and-switch tactic must be relentlessly hammered home between now and November. Between Obama’s aggressive use of the Executive Order and now this clear example of deceit, the American citizens must be continuously reminded that Obama will use any tactic to get what he wants — and is a tax-raiser too.
That being said, the Supreme Court opinion gave us five clear votes that this law would not have passed muster under the Commerce Clause. Thus this ruling clarified, strengthened and protected the Commerce Clause while establishing a precedent from further Congressional usurpations. The Supreme Court has now firmly stated Congress does not have the power of commerce coersion. It also upheld the separation of the three branches of government – that it was not the Supreme Court’s job to prevent Congress from passing a bad law (and thus a check against overt judicial activism); rather its function was solely to interpret the constitutionality of said law. ObamaCare however, is still bad law.
Furthermore, ruling that ObamaCare is a tax creates the opportunity for a simpler repeal than if it was considered valid under the Commerce Clause. Here’s how: the ObamaCare mandate is now a constitutionally established tax to be levied. It becomes revenue provision of a budget, and therefore can be subject to the Budget Act’s reconciliation process. During such a process, the number of votes necessary to appeal it is a simple majority: 51 votes. Ironically, this reconciliation process was the same procedure that the Democrats used to pass the bill in Congress. Ultimately then, an ObamaCare repeal would not be subject to the filibuster process.
Finally, the Medicaid provision may be the lynchpin for undermining ObamaCare’s efficacy. Remember, the reason so many states sued the Administration was because the Medicaid expansion program would have caused severe fiscal distress to the states while simultaneously creating expansive and coercive Federal spending power over States Rights. Thankfully, the Supreme Court ruled that the such an act was unconstitutional. Therefore, this established that not only can the federal government not compel the states to participate in expanding Medicaid, it also cannot withhold existing funding for it as a punishment. States can now decline to participate. So, what happens if enough states do just that?
Even though ObamaCare was not struck down in its entirety, the rulings on various parts of the law had some positivity. It preserved the integrity of the Commerce Clause while simultaneous restricting the federal government’s ability to coerce spending onto states. Firmly establishing ObamaCare as a tax greatly enhances its probability for successful repeal, and also stamps Obama and its Congressional and political supporters as tax hikers for the November election. All in all, not an entirely bad outcome for a very bad piece of legislation.
Update: Here’s a take on the dissonance in the ObamaCare Ruling
Update x2: Jay Cost over at the Weekly Standard has a good analysis as well.
by | ARTICLES, OBAMACARE, TAXES
21 New Tax Increases
My View From Inside the Court room – More Good than Bad in the Obamacare Decision
Stocks Tumble After Ruling
I am Not Down on John Roberts
Cantor: House Will Vote on Repeal on July 11
VA Attorney General Cuccinelli: “Dark Day for American Liberty”
Is Roberts Outfoxing Us All? Roberts Steals A Move From John Marshall’s Playbook
Weekly Standard: Marshalling Precedent: With Nod to Predecessor, Roberts Affirms Mandate
Limbaugh: ObamaCare is the Largest Tax Increase in the History of the World
Fornier: Roberts Labels Obama a Tax Raiser
NRO: Chief Justice Robert’s Folly
George Will: Conservative’s Consolation Prize
Breitbart: Did Justice Roberts Give in to Bullying?
