• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Health care law's massive, hidden tax change

ludahai said:
Does this mean it will result in double taxation? After all, such sales will already be taxed as part of the profit of the corporation. If 1099s are also taxed, won't that result in double taxation?

i.e. -- Xerox sells a copier and the amount of that sale ends up on their bottom line, affecting their profit.

That copier is sold to a small business that now has to issue a 1099 to Xerox for that sale. Won't that mean the "income" from the 1099 will also be taxed, resulting in Xerox being taxed TWICE for the sale of said copier?

Or, is there something in this I am clearly missing?
Click to expand...

See post 47 above
 
ludahai said:
Isn't income taxed? I received 1099s (I did some independent contracting work in the US) and I was most certainly taxed on the income...
Click to expand...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Redress
A 1099 tracks income, it does not charge a tax, or figure taxes due.


A 1099 is a reporting form, it tells the IRS that money has been paid. Not that any tax is due, just that money has changed hands. At present 1099s are used for individuals, not corporations. The new law changes that.

An individual generally pays tax on the amount shown on a 1099 as income.
If you then apply the same principle to corporations, they will show the amount as supplies or subcontracting costs. Then what is left over is profit, which can be taxed. So there is no point to 1099ing a corp. because the amount is not representative of the income generated.

Why they now want to do this remains to be seen.

Can you see a VAT coming?
 
ludahai said:
No one knew what was in this bill when it was passed because:

1. It was not made available to the public before passage nor was it posted to the White House website before it was signed (contrary to one of President Barack Hussein Obama, Jr.'s promises)

2. The passed law is about as long as War and Peace and is taking a long time for any normal person to parce through the pages upon pages of Congressionalese...
Click to expand...

That still doesn't explain why people would argue for or against the bill if they didn't know what was in it.
 
pro-bipartisan said:
That still doesn't explain why people would argue for or against the bill if they didn't know what was in it.
Click to expand...

I would ALWAYS argue against a bill that the people voting on it didn't even know what was in it... Would YOU vote for something if you didn't know what was in it? I know I wouldn't.

In fact, when I was in the Student Senate was back when I was University, I threatened to filibuster (with some allies) the student budget unless the committee referred the details of that budget to the full student senate before voting -- a change from previous procedures where only the fee was disclosed before voting. We got our way, saw the entire budget, and voted on it. As far as I know, it has been done this way since.

Why would ANY legislator in ANY legislature from student legislators to the US Congress vote for ANYTHING they didn't know was in the bill/proposal/budget they were voting on?
 
because our gerry mandered system means that few of them actually have an incentive to govern well; as opposed to merely ideologically.
 
cpwill said:
because our gerry mandered system means that few of them actually have an incentive to govern well; as opposed to merely ideologically.
Click to expand...

Our system has resulted in almost 50% of Americans paying little or no Federal income tax. Thus almost 50% of Americans have incur no consequences over whatever taxes are imposed on the other 50%, and no reason to oppose increases on those 50%, most especially if it means they will continue to pay little or no Federal income tax.

However, the new changes in reporting etc., and other kinds of taxes that are scheduled to be imposed may affect them and then maybe we'll have that bottom 50% taking another look at this stuff.

Right now, as long as it pays them to support the current leadership, they will have little incentive to do anything else and they don't care what is in any legislation being passed.
 
Hi there Redress, thought I'd repost the following in hope of an answer:

Originally Posted by Redress View Post
Many righties have an exaggerated rhetoric problem which makes it impossible to have a reasoned conversation with them. They also have a problem with rational thought, thinking any one who disagrees with them is somehow out to hurt America.
Click to expand...
One word: Liberty.

You want to take it away.
That hurts everyone over the long haul.
We want to stop the damage.

For a little rational thought from you now:
Tell me, what other grand socialist schemes do you want to inflict upon us and when is the end of your escapades?

.
 
we know what's in the bill

thanks to the lady, wapo, politico, the hill, ap, cnn, msnbc, bloomberg...
 
I have also heard about that.Well I have not so much idea about that.United Capital Hill, not to mention health care reform, but as part of this major project, the Democrats are quietly shaping the tax system.
 
Seriously guys?

1099s are merely informational reporting. Like 1065s. (anyone afraid of partnership returns, aside from preparing them?)

If you actually understood the tax system, you should be shivering in your boots about the IRS's push for individual disclosures of uncertain tax positions, aka, FIN 48 for individuals.

THAT **** is scary.

Thanks guys for making me feel a whole lot smarter.

Who's afraid of informational returns? Not I. You guys are. Who's afraid of FIN 48 for individuals? Me. Not you.

All I need to feel smarter.
 
Last edited:
apdst said:
Right. A 1099 show income that hasn't been taxed and needs to have taxes paid on that income. New 1099's means new taxes on income.
Click to expand...

So you're saying that income that should have been reported regardless of whether or not you recieved a 1099 informational report of payments is now being taxed because you got a 1099?

Do you have any idea of what you talk about? Btw, not paying taxes on income is tax evasion. Maybe we should send an IRS agent over to your house.
 
obvious Child said:
Seriously guys?

1099s are merely informational reporting. Like 1065s. (anyone afraid of partnership returns, aside from preparing them?)

If you actually understood the tax system, you should be shivering in your boots about the IRS's push for individual disclosures of uncertain tax positions, aka, FIN 48 for individuals.

THAT **** is scary.

Thanks guys for making me feel a whole lot smarter.

Who's afraid of informational returns? Not I. You guys are. Who's afraid of FIN 48 for individuals? Me. Not you.

All I need to feel smarter.
Click to expand...


We are talking about the tax increases in the health care bill in case you were not following along. Trying to scare people/ change subject to something not remotley connected with the topic seems like a kind of avoidance strawman to me.
If you are trying to evade taxes, that is not our fault.

Tax EVASION, NOT tax avoidance, is a crime. Minimizing one's taxes (trying to avoid as much tax as possible) is legal. As explained by Judge Learned Hand over 75 years ago: “Any one may so arrange his affairs that his taxes shall be as low as possible; he is not bound to choose that pattern which will best pay the Treasury; there is not even a patriotic duty to increase one’s taxes.” Helvering v. Gregory, 69 F.2d 809, 810-811 (2d Cir. 1934), aff’d 293 U.S. 465 (1935).
 
cholla said:
We are talking about the tax increases in the health care bill in case you were not following along.
Click to expand...

Incorrect. You fools think you were talking about tax increases. Informational 1099 reporting doesn't change anything. All it does is report income that was suppose to be reported and taxed independent of the 1099's existence. The only person here who isn't exceedingly ignorant of what a 1099 actually is, besides myself is Redress. The rest of you people are going off about something you clearly don't understand. If you actually were afraid of tax increases, you wouldn't care about 1099 informational reporting.

Trying to scare people/ change subject to something not remotley connected with the topic seems like a kind of avoidance strawman to me.
If you are trying to evade taxes, that is not our fault.
Click to expand...

But attacking 1099s is exactly that. We see more then a few people arguing that 1099s is a new tax, despite it actually not being. Furthermore, not reporting the payments reported on a 1099 is tax evasion.

Tax EVASION, NOT tax avoidance, is a crime.
Click to expand...

And hiding payments that would have been reported on a 1099 is evasion.

Please, let those who actually understand this topic it discuss it.

I'm not going to wait for one of your fools to try to explain how reporting payments that were suppose to be reported regardless of the 1099 is a new tax because I realize all of you except Redress have no bloody idea what the hell you're talking about.

Hence why I feel smarter.
 
Couple of things:
1) To all the bills supporters saying "read the bill" you haven't, and neither did the original author of that "read the bill" statement Nancy Pelosi. I am an insurance professional, I am constantly working/studying/thinking about things as pertaining to the Life/Health insurance and retirement industry. I have contacts that you and the bloggers writing in favor of this bill do not have. Most of the objections raised by the right are solid, if the rhetoric is considered over the top, too bad. Such things the right got correct, including but not limited to:
a) horrible for health insurance companies in the long term, but even worse for consumers because of the individual mandates.
b) does increase taxes, anything with an FDA number is subject to tax.....even toothbrushes and dental floss have FDA numbers, as well as defibrillators, pacemakers, and pretty much anything in a hospital such as Tylenol, and staples/thread for closing wounds or post-op procedures.
c) Massive cuts to medicare and a board approved to determine "best practices" so think England's NICE board in about 10 years, have fun with that festering wound and no recourse.

2) I speak with compliance on a regular basis and they are describing this piece of **** as a nightmare, even the idiots who authored it don't know what's in it.

3) For people saying that taxes aren't going up because of the singular 1099 issue, you can drop that now. If you get a benefits package it is now considered income and subject to taxes, that YOU, not your employer pay, also, the mandate does not all of a sudden mean you can now write off your individual policy which would have been a far better benefit than anything in this rancid turd of a bill. This is if you can still get a benefits package as the tax write off has been eliminated to your employer converting it from an incentive to a hindurance.

Enjoy the future folks.
 
LaMidRighter said:
3) For people saying that taxes aren't going up because of the singular 1099 issue, you can drop that now. If you get a benefits package it is now considered income and subject to taxes, that YOU, not your employer pay, also, the mandate does not all of a sudden mean you can now write off your individual policy which would have been a far better benefit than anything in this rancid turd of a bill. This is if you can still get a benefits package as the tax write off has been eliminated to your employer converting it from an incentive to a hindurance.
Click to expand...

Except that the bill would have made them reportable period. The 1099 is merely the informational reporting. Saying that taxes are going up because of 1099s is pretty insane. Taxes are going up because the healthcare bill reclassified insurance as income. Complaining about the messenger is not intelligent when your beef is with the message.

And frankly, that's still nothing compared to individual Fin 48. If you're scared of tax increases, fight that **** with all of your power.
 
obvious Child said:
Except that the bill would have made them reportable period. The 1099 is merely the informational reporting. Saying that taxes are going up because of 1099s is pretty insane. Taxes are going up because the healthcare bill reclassified insurance as income.
Click to expand...
Incorrect, the bill reclassified benefits as income, group insurance is not insurance, it is a benefit. The contract owner does not have to pay it as income, the contract user does. If you have a group plan you do not have insurance, you have a benefit.
Complaining about the messenger is not intelligent when your beef is with the message.
Click to expand...
Except that the messenger in this case is also trying to play advocate and is not qualified. The fact is the I.R.S is going to be given more power with this bill when they already have too much, the fact is taxes are going up, and the fact is the 1099 is a part of that.
And frankly, that's still nothing compared to individual Fin 48. If you're scared of tax increases, fight that **** with all of your power.
Click to expand...
Off topic. The fact is that this bill will drastically increase taxes past what people are accustomed to with the current I.R.S. and it's abusive powers.
 
But under the new rules, if a freelance designer buys a new iMac from the Apple Store, they'll have to send Apple a 1099. A laundromat that buys soap each week from a local distributor will have to send the supplier a 1099 at the end of the year tallying up their purchases.
Click to expand...

She called me up on the telephone and told me this:
fakesmile.jpg

I guess this is one of those thing, eh!

At least she's not a liar!
 
American healthcare.. is a complete mess, It's a privatised disaster.. Someday America will realise that healthcare for profit is an exercise in idiocy.

Total Per Capita > Health Care Funding statistics - countries compared - NationMaster

# 1 United States: $4,631.00 per capita
# 2 Switzerland: $3,222.00 per capita
# 3 Germany: $2,748.00 per capita
# 4 Iceland: $2,608.00 per capita
# 5 Canada: $2,535.00 per capita
# 6 Denmark: $2,420.00 per capita
# 7 France: $2,349.00 per capita
= 8 Belgium: $2,268.00 per capita
= 8 Norway: $2,268.00 per capita
# 10 Netherlands: $2,246.00 per capita

International_Comparison_-_Healthcare_spending_as_%25_GDP.png
 
Last edited:
1000px-Health_care_cost_rise.svg.png
 
I'm grasping straws when I try to understand how GDP and healthcare costs - which a lot of isn't even related to "product-purchases" but rather services - are connected.

Why is it a better or worse thing that Portugal spends less than the US?
 
Aunt Spiker said:
I'm grasping straws when I try to understand how GDP and healthcare costs - which a lot of isn't even related to "product-purchases" but rather services - are connected.

Why is it a better or worse thing that Portugal spends less than the US?
Click to expand...

hrm.. well you complain about taxation. But healthcare for profit is costing you more then it would if the government provided the service to everyone at cost. America needs to get healthcare for profit out of your pockets.

Seems to me though if you just want to hold onto the worst healthcare system in the world all you have to do is nothing and complain about taxation.

EDIT: Look it is a knee-jerk response to jack threads when Americans complain about taxation and the cost of healthcare. America just needs to stop with the idiocy.
 
Last edited:
Gabriel said:
American healthcare.. is a complete mess, It's a privatised disaster.. Someday America will realise that healthcare for profit is an exercise in idiocy.

Total Per Capita > Health Care Funding statistics - countries compared - NationMaster

# 1 United States: $4,631.00 per capita
# 2 Switzerland: $3,222.00 per capita
# 3 Germany: $2,748.00 per capita
# 4 Iceland: $2,608.00 per capita
# 5 Canada: $2,535.00 per capita
# 6 Denmark: $2,420.00 per capita
# 7 France: $2,349.00 per capita
= 8 Belgium: $2,268.00 per capita
= 8 Norway: $2,268.00 per capita
# 10 Netherlands: $2,246.00 per capita

International_Comparison_-_Healthcare_spending_as_%25_GDP.png
Click to expand...

Gabriel said:
1000px-Health_care_cost_rise.svg.png
Click to expand...
This is nothing more than advocating for cheap healthcare, not to be confused with value priced. Cheap is the key word, for all the savings UHC countries may realize the consumers suffer waiting lists, the maximum denials of critical and pain management services, later access to improved meds, and a deterioration of care quality, this is not to be confused with a value. While it's true that American citizens....not the U.S. overspends on care it is not due to the private market, rather, an overregulated one thanks to improper and overextended government interference, as well, insurance pays more because the companies can, prices reflect the difference from not only tort abuses, but overregulation, and emergency room freeloaders. But hey, keep advocating for cheap, as of right now it's not our problem in the U.S. and no one else's business.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom