0
bodypilot90

Senate to vote on health care bill unconstitutionality!

Recommended Posts

Quote

I believe this is in place for a reason - granted a packer probably doesn't make the minimum to qualify . . . http://www.irs.gov/compliance/article/0,,id=180171,00.html

. . . and this > http://www.irs.gov/businesses/small/article/0,,id=99921,00.html should answer your legality questions.



You need to be more specific than just posting a bunch of links to IRS web site. How this is "whistleblower" link relevant with the things you suggested, which were "fines and penalties to the DZ for allowing "? And how many packers did you personally whistleblowed to IRS - or you suggest that it's others who should "do the right thing", and not you?
* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

No, the question is how many of them get $10k in work done. You're presupposing a lot of work for an undefined 'injury' here.



Not me. I'm just following Turtle's hypothetic situation.



His hypothetical presupposed that all of this would be covered. That could be true in the future, it's not true now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote


His hypothetical presupposed that all of this would be covered. That could be true in the future, it's not true now.



Same as now, someone who works for cash and claim to be poor, can obtain state-sponsored health insurance, and get 10k service as well.
* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

I believe this is in place for a reason - granted a packer probably doesn't make the minimum to qualify . . . http://www.irs.gov/compliance/article/0,,id=180171,00.html

. . . and this > http://www.irs.gov/businesses/small/article/0,,id=99921,00.html should answer your legality questions.



You need to be more specific than just posting a bunch of links to IRS web site. How this is "whistleblower" link relevant with the things you suggested, which were "fines and penalties to the DZ for allowing "? And how many packers did you personally whistleblowed to IRS - or you suggest that it's others who should "do the right thing", and not you?


Can't research on your own, eh? OK - hold my hand and I'll walk you through it -

First off - if you read the "whistle blowing" document, you would see there is a 200K minimum on individuals for whistle blowing - but the procedure is there for a reason - you asked when it was illegal to receive cash compensation and I am showing you there are penalties and compensation for helping to abide by the law. Obviously you got that part or you wouldn't have made the comment in quotes "do the right thing" hopefully you really do think that it would be the right thing to do and are not just being aloof.

Second - http://www.irs.gov/businesses/small/article/0,,id=99921,00.html

What is Self-Employment Tax?

Self-employment tax (SE tax) is a social security and Medicare tax primarily for individuals who work for themselves. It is similar to the social security and Medicare taxes withheld from the pay of most wage earners.

You figure SE tax yourself using Schedule SE (Form 1040). Social security and Medicare taxes of most wage earners are figured by their employers. Also you can deduct half of your SE tax in figuring your adjusted gross income. Wage earners cannot deduct social security and Medicare taxes.

SE tax rate. The self-employment tax rate is 15.3%. The rate consists of two parts: 12.4% for social security (old-age, survivors, and disability insurance) and 2.9% for Medicare (hospital insurance).

Maximum earnings subject to SE tax. Only the first $102,000 of your combined wages, tips, and net earnings in 2008 is subject to any combination of the 12.4% social security part of SE tax, social security tax, or railroad retirement (tier 1) tax.

All your combined wages, tips, and net earnings in 2008 are subject to any combination of the 2.9% Medicare part of SE tax, social security tax, or railroad retirement (tier 1) tax.

Let me know if it is necessary to guide you through the rest.:)
I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote


Federal Law - specifically, HIPAA.



This is not reference. Exact article, please.



Click
Google doesn't work on your machine? You aren't related to Lucky, are you?

This has been discussed before - if you had insurance with no lapse, they can't do an exclusion. If you weren't treated for the 6 months preceding the enrollment, they can't do an exclusion. If you *didn't* have insurance, the longest they can exclude treatment is 12-18 months.

Quote

Under HIPAA, a plan is allowed to look back only 6 months for a condition that was present before the start of coverage in a group health plan. Specifically, the law says that a preexisting condition exclusion can be imposed on a condition only if medical advice, diagnosis, care, or treatment was recommended or received during the 6 months prior to your enrollment date in the plan. As an example, you may have had arthritis for many years before you came to your current job. If you did not have medical advice, diagnosis, care, or treatment – recommended or received – in the 6 months before you enrolled in the plan, then the prior condition cannot be subject to a preexisting condition exclusion. If you did receive medical advice, diagnosis, care, or treatment within the past 6 months, then the plan may impose a preexisting condition exclusion for that condition (arthritis). In addition, HIPAA prohibits plans from applying a preexisting condition exclusion to pregnancy, genetic information, and certain children.

If you have a preexisting condition that can be excluded from your plan coverage, then there is a limit to the preexisting condition exclusion period that can be applied. HIPAA limits the preexisting condition exclusion period for most people to 12 months (18 months if you enroll late), although some plans may have a shorter time period or none at all. In addition, some people with a history of prior health coverage will be able to reduce the exclusion period even further using “creditable coverage.” Remember, a preexisting condition exclusion relates only to benefits for your (and your family’s) preexisting conditions. If you enroll, you will receive coverage for the plan’s other benefits during that time.



So - your "permanently uninsurable" person is a myth.
Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote


Can't research on your own, eh? OK - hold my hand and I'll walk you through it -
First off - if you read the "whistle blowing" document, you would see there is a 200K minimum on individuals for whistle blowing - but the procedure is there for a reason - you asked when it was illegal to receive cash compensation and I am showing you there are penalties and compensation for helping to abide by the law.



Does it mean that you obviously see the difference between what I asked (when it was illegal to receive cash compensation) and what you showed (there are penalties and compensation for helping to abide by the law)? Are you going to address it somehow?

Quote


Obviously you got that part or you wouldn't have made the comment in quotes "do the right thing"



It says that 200k is minimum for getting a reward, not for IRS taking care of the case. So you would only consider turning in someone when you can get a reward for it? So much for "the right thing".

Quote


Second - What is Self-Employment Tax?



You forgot to explain how is it relevant here. You do know that it is individual responsibility to pay this tax, don't you?
* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote


Google doesn't work on your machine? You aren't related to Lucky, are you?



If you claim to provide a reference, do it. I'm not going to search Internet to find something and guess whether it is what you talked about, or something different.

Quote


Under HIPAA, a plan is allowed to look back only 6 months for a condition that was present before the start of coverage in a group health plan.



Oh, so you're talking only about group health plans? You should have been more specific then.
* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You are deflecting.

I qualified that it is NOT illegal to accept cash compensation.

Previously you asked how I would fix a problem, and I offered a partial solution and you asked for specifics. Evidently you didn't like the solution because you went off on another deflection.

It is simple - if the 10-99'ers or self employed independent contractors do not pay their taxes, then the business that hires them or allows their work to be done on their premises should be liable to compensate for it.
I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote


Google doesn't work on your machine? You aren't related to Lucky, are you?



If you claim to provide a reference, do it. I'm not going to search Internet to find something and guess whether it is what you talked about, or something different.



Well, that explains why you thought that garden-variety criminals get their guns from the likes of Yuri Orlov.

Quote

Quote


Under HIPAA, a plan is allowed to look back only 6 months for a condition that was present before the start of coverage in a group health plan.



Oh, so you're talking only about group health plans? You should have been more specific then.



Why? You weren't.

Regardless, you should've read down to the end of the page:
Quote

How does HIPAA apply when changing from group health coverage to an individual insurance policy?
HIPAA also protects those who are otherwise unable to get group health insurance.

The law guarantees access to individual insurance policies and state high-risk pools for eligible individuals. They must meet all of the following criteria:

Had coverage for at least 18 months, most recently in a group health plan, without a significant break;

Lost group coverage but not because of fraud or nonpayment of premiums;

Are not eligible for COBRA coverage; or if COBRA coverage was offered under Federal or state law, elected and exhausted it; and

Are not eligible for coverage under another group health plan, Medicare, or Medicaid; or have any other health insurance coverage.

The opportunity to buy an individual policy is the same whether a person quits a job, was fired, or was laid off.


Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote


I qualified that it is NOT illegal to accept cash compensation.
Previously you asked how I would fix a problem, and I offered a partial solution and you asked for specifics. Evidently you didn't like the solution because you went off on another deflection.



No, this is a lie. To be specific:

1. You suggested that a solution for the problem you described (a packer working on a DZ for cash and getting free services) is spot checks.

2. I asked how exactly spot check would prevent this kind of problem; i.e. an IRS agent visits a DZ and sees a packer working for cash, what should happen next?

3. You replied: "Fines and penalties to the DZ for allowing it."

4. I asked why would they be fined for allowing a packer working for cash? Since when it is illegal to work for cash?

5. You said "It is not illegal to receive cash compensation - it's illegal to not report it.", and provided a reference to whistleblower and self-employment laws.

6. Neither of your statement explained any of your previous statements, i.e. why the DZ should be fined for allowing a packer working for cash, so I asked for further explanation. I also asked how many did you turn in, just to see if you're a "do what I say, not what I do" kind of person we see so often here.

7. You provided a misguided explanation that " there is a 200K minimum on individuals for whistle blowing". You either didn't see or hoped I wouldn't see that this limit applies to reward only - i.e. generally no reward for turning in someone with less than 200K - and does not mean IRS would not investigate anyone with less than 200K AGI (which would be extremely ridiculous statement from an IRS). Your "do the right thing" comment might also be read as you wouldn't turn in anyone with less than 200K as there is no reward for that :)

8. You also provided a reference to self-employment tax, apparently having little knowledge how it works.

9. Once I pointed out that 200K limit only applies to reward, you skipped everything said on that matter and only said "I'm deflecting", which probably means you have nothing to say on that matter.

So WHO is deflecting?

Quote


It is simple - if the 10-99'ers or self employed independent contractors do not pay their taxes, then the business that hires them or allows their work to be done on their premises should be liable to compensate for it.



You do understand that this is NOT how the tax law works now, so what is the rationale for such a change? Why should a business be liable for someone else who is not paying taxes? Should you also be liable when you call a plumber to fix a leak in your house if a plumber cheats on taxes? Or this is yet another "everyone but me should do it" thing?
* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote


Well, that explains why you thought that garden-variety criminals get their guns from the likes of Yuri Orlov.



Indeed - this is because those who claim differently didn't provide any references to support their claim. Expecting me to spend two hours researching something you spent five seconds to write is kinda naive.

Quote


Why? You weren't.



You should have asked about the examples I mentioned (or try to find them yourself).

Quote


How does HIPAA apply when changing from group health coverage to an individual insurance policy?



The guy did not have prior coverage, so he was not changing from group health coverage. And being a contractor he's unlikely to have group plan.
* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
>Hypothetically - I can be a packer for a DZ making cash money - not
>paying any taxes because on paper I don't work. In the process of
>packing I get hurt. I go to the doctor and get a bill for 10000. I have
>contributed nothing in the way of taxes. BUT you are now stuck with
> my bill and it is now everyone else's duty and responsibility to pay
>for my injury.

You're right - this is both unfair and the way it works now. What's your proposal to change this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote


Well, that explains why you thought that garden-variety criminals get their guns from the likes of Yuri Orlov.



Indeed - this is because those who claim differently didn't provide any references to support their claim. Expecting me to spend two hours researching something you spent five seconds to write is kinda naive.



And if you had spent 5 seconds searching instead of trying to pass off your opinion as fact, you would have found the corroborating info. There were plenty of examples given and google is only a click away.


Quote


How does HIPAA apply when changing from group health coverage to an individual insurance policy?



The guy did not have prior coverage, so he was not changing from group health coverage. And being a contractor he's unlikely to have group plan.



Did you even READ the part you snipped out?
Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

>Hypothetically - I can be a packer for a DZ making cash money - not
>paying any taxes because on paper I don't work. In the process of
>packing I get hurt. I go to the doctor and get a bill for 10000. I have
>contributed nothing in the way of taxes. BUT you are now stuck with
> my bill and it is now everyone else's duty and responsibility to pay
>for my injury.

You're right - this is both unfair and the way it works now. What's your proposal to change this?



Congress has spoken - we're all going to pay for him to get a policy that he won't be able to pay the deductibles on, either.

So...net change for him? Zero.

Net change for us? Less money in our paychecks.
Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote


And if you had spent 5 seconds searching instead of trying to pass off your opinion as fact, you would have found the corroborating info. There were plenty of examples given and google is only a click away.



Probably some of you guys need a disclaimer at the top of each post, which would state something like "unless claimed otherwise, everything written by me in this post is my opinion". Why is it so hard to get?

(and with reference to gun thread - people tend to vote according to their opinions - not your or Ron's - so it indeed matters in such cases)

Quote


Did you even READ the part you snipped out?



Did you? That part required meeting all following criteria, and the first of them was "had coverage for at least 18 months".
* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
>Net change for us? Less money in our paychecks.

More money taken out of our paychecks and less money taken our of healthcare fees. Instead of paying for his healthcare through lawyer's fees, we'll be paying for him via taxes. All in all, an improvement IMO; at least we only have to pay once.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote


And if you had spent 5 seconds searching instead of trying to pass off your opinion as fact, you would have found the corroborating info. There were plenty of examples given and google is only a click away.



Probably some of you guys need a disclaimer at the top of each post, which would state something like "unless claimed otherwise, everything written by me in this post is my opinion". Why is it so hard to get?



The point is that what we were writing WASN'T just our opinions, which you would have found out had you done the most rudimentary of searches.


Quote

Quote


Did you even READ the part you snipped out?



Did you? That part required meeting all following criteria, and the first of them was "had coverage for at least 18 months".



Sure did - what's your point? Did the hypothetical packer exist in a vacuum before suddenly materializing at the DZ or something?
Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

All in all, an improvement IMO; at least we only have to pay once.



Uh huh - so what makes you think that hypothetical man is going to pay the deductibles and copays, if he couldn't/wouldn't make payment arrangements on the original scenario?
Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote


The point is that what we were writing WASN'T just our opinions, which you would have found out had you done the most rudimentary of searches.



So what is you writing, my opinion? SC opinion? Truth in the last instance?

Quote


Sure did - what's your point? Did the hypothetical packer exist in a vacuum before suddenly materializing at the DZ or something?



No, a guy I was referring to was young and apparently thought he wouldn't need insurance.
* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote


Sure did - what's your point? Did the hypothetical packer exist in a vacuum before suddenly materializing at the DZ or something?



No, a guy I was referring to was young and apparently thought he wouldn't need insurance.



Depending on HOW young, he would have been covered on parent's insurance, and it's still possible for Mr. Invincible to get individual insurance.
Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
condensed version - Fix = Make the business owners liable for the taxes and there will be less fraud and more tax income to the country. Then they are more likely to self police themselves under fear of fines.

I would LOVE to be able to do that - and watch all the companies around my area have to do things legally for once.
I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote


condensed version - Fix = Make the business owners liable for the taxes and there will be less fraud and more tax income to the country.



A business owner, like everyone else, is liable for THEIR taxes. What you were offering a post ago was making a business owner liable for the taxes paid by the OTHERS, who they paid to, or (like in case of packers) who they didn't even pay. Just to make it clear, is that what you are offering as a realistic solution?

And why you conveniently excluded yourself out of picture, as the plumber or pizza delivery guy serving you may also cheat on taxes, so using the same logic you should be liable for their taxes?
* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

>Red herring - there is no special "non-homeowner tax".

I'm afraid there is. Here's the link to the IRS page:

http://www.irs.gov/newsroom/article/0,,id=204671,00.html



What you linked to is a tax credit towards your owed taxes.

"Homebuyer Credit Expanded and Extended"
"The Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008 established a tax credit"
"The credit is claimed using"

What you are implying is that the government is passing bills requiring us to buy homes and penalizing us if we don't. One could suppose from your argument that the taxes you pay should go to buy me a home instead.



-(-1) = +1

-(-tax) = +tax
...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

0