HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Can someone please help d...

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 01:35 AM

 

Can someone please help debunk this? I tried but I can't understand the regulation.

Surely this can't possibly be the payment for the lowest coverage available for a family of 4 or 5. And yes I know the source site sucks. I'd like to debunk it where it was linked but I can't understand the regulation. The source linked this from the IRS

http://www.irs.gov/PUP/newsroom/REG-148500-12%20FR.pdf

Under Obamacare, Americans will be required to buy health insurance or pay a penalty to the IRS.

The IRS's assumption that the cheapest plan for a family will cost $20,000 per year is found in examples the IRS gives to help people understand how to calculate the penalty they will need to pay the government if they do not buy a mandated health plan.

The examples point to families of four and families of five, both of which the IRS expects in its assumptions to pay a minimum of $20,000 per year for a bronze plan.

ďThe annual national average bronze plan premium for a family of 5 (2 adults, 3 children) is $20,000,Ē the regulation says.

Bronze will be the lowest tier health-insurance plan available under Obamacare--after Silver, Gold, and Platinum. Under the law, the penalty for not buying health insurance is supposed to be capped at either the annual average Bronze premium, 2.5 percent of taxable income, or $2,085.00 per family in 2016.


http://cnsnews.com/news/article/irs-cheapest-obamacare-plan-will-be-20000-family

32 replies, 2996 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 32 replies Author Time Post
Reply Can someone please help debunk this? I tried but I can't understand the regulation. (Original post)
DogPawsBiscuitsNGrav Feb 2013 OP
bluestateguy Feb 2013 #1
DogPawsBiscuitsNGrav Feb 2013 #3
elleng Feb 2013 #7
HiPointDem Feb 2013 #11
Mojorabbit Feb 2013 #2
DogPawsBiscuitsNGrav Feb 2013 #4
Mojorabbit Feb 2013 #5
elleng Feb 2013 #6
The Straight Story Feb 2013 #8
elleng Feb 2013 #9
cthulu2016 Feb 2013 #10
elleng Feb 2013 #12
HiPointDem Feb 2013 #13
elleng Feb 2013 #14
HiPointDem Feb 2013 #17
elleng Feb 2013 #20
HiPointDem Feb 2013 #23
elleng Feb 2013 #24
HiPointDem Feb 2013 #27
green for victory Feb 2013 #22
DogPawsBiscuitsNGrav Feb 2013 #31
DogPawsBiscuitsNGrav Feb 2013 #29
DebJ Feb 2013 #15
elleng Feb 2013 #16
DebJ Feb 2013 #18
elleng Feb 2013 #19
The Straight Story Feb 2013 #21
DogPawsBiscuitsNGrav Feb 2013 #30
madville Feb 2013 #25
elleng Feb 2013 #26
HiPointDem Feb 2013 #28
mahilena Feb 2013 #32

Response to DogPawsBiscuitsNGrav (Original post)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 01:55 AM

1. The fine is small and pretty much toothless

I don't know the exact amount, but it is very small, I think in the 3 digits.

The law disallows the IRS from charging anybody with tax evasion if they don't pay the fine; all the IRS could do would be to deduct the fine from your refund. I don't know if they can assess a lien or not.

In any event, the Supreme Court has weighed in on the matter and upheld it, the people have voted and made their choice last November, so the time for debate and second guessing is over and done with.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bluestateguy (Reply #1)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 02:02 AM

3. I'm not trying to debate it. I'm trying to debunk the 20,000 for a family of 4 or 5 being the lowest

 

amount they'll pay for the lowest coverage. I can't believe that's true. it's good to know you can't be imprisoned if you cant afford to pay. This was also brought up in the comments on the link. So thank you, that's a start.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DogPawsBiscuitsNGrav (Reply #3)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 02:20 AM

7. The $20,000 is a hypothetical example of what a family of 4 might pay for insurance.

See my post below.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bluestateguy (Reply #1)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 02:40 AM

11. The time for debate is never "over & done with" if people don't like a law. Regardless of the merit

 

or demerit of Obamacare, I just think your statement is anti-democratic.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DogPawsBiscuitsNGrav (Original post)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 01:56 AM

2. I think most of it is subsidized for lower income people so most will not pay this.n't

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Mojorabbit (Reply #2)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 02:05 AM

4. Do you know who will be considered low income in this case? I mean how much can you make and

 

still be considered low income?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Mojorabbit (Reply #2)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 02:06 AM

5. I found this

Third, many of those who do decide to buy an insurance policy under the law wonít pay full price. Of the 33 million previously uninsured who would gain coverage by 2022, according to the CBO, 17 million would join Medicaid or the Childrenís Health Insurance Program. Twenty-two million would buy coverage through the state-based exchanges, and only 5 million of those would do so without receiving any government subsidy. (Also, the CBO projects a net 3 million dropping employer coverage and another 3 million dropping individual coverage, which is how it gets a total net of 33 million gaining insurance.) Those earning under 400 percent of the federal poverty level would be eligible for subsidies, and the average subsidy per exchange enrollee would be $7,270 in 2022, the CBO estimates. Thatís an average, so the subsidy each individual receives could vary substantially.

Itís true that a health insurance policy purchased by a family on the state-based exchanges, or now on the individual market, could cost about $4,700 for the year, or substantially more. And the CBO estimated in a May 2011 report that some families would pay that much and more even with the help of federal subsidies. Under the CBOís hypothetical example for the first year of the subsidies (2014), a family at 150 percent of the poverty level would pay $1,200 for an insurance policy and a family at 350 percent of the poverty level would pay $6,700, with subsidies that exceed that amount.


CBO, May 2011: In the first year of the illustration, premiums for the reference plan for a family of four are assumed to be $15,000, and the federal poverty level is assumed to be $20,000. In this hypothetical example, a family with income equal to 150 percent of the FPL (or $30,000) will be required by the law to pay up to 4.0 percent of its income ($1,200) to enroll in the reference plan and thus will be entitled to a subsidy of $13,800 ($15,000 minus $1,200). Families with higher income will be required to pay a larger percentage of their income to enroll in the reference plan. Specifically, a family with income equal to 250 percent of the FPL will pay 8.1 percent of its income to enroll in the reference plan (about $4,000) and will receive a subsidy of about $11,000, and a family with income equal to 350 percent of the FPL will pay 9.5 percent of its income (about $6,700) and will receive a subsidy of about $8,400.
http://www.factcheck.org/2012/07/twisting-health-care-taxes/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DogPawsBiscuitsNGrav (Original post)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 02:17 AM

6. First, its a PROPOSED regulation;

public comments are due by May 2, 2013, and public hearing will be held on May 29, at IRS building, Washington, DC.

Second, many exemptions from the 'penalties' are discussed; many will not be required to pay a penalty for not having insurance.

Third, any regulations coming from this proposal would take effect after December, 2013.

(d) Examples. The following examples illustrate the provisions of this section. In
each example the taxpayerís taxable year is a calendar year and all members of the
taxpayerís shared responsibility family are ineligible for any of the exemptions described
in ß1.5000A-3 for a month.
Example 1. Unmarried taxpayer without minimum essential coverage. (i) In
2016 Taxpayer G is an unmarried individual with no dependents. G does not have
minimum essential coverage for any month in 2016. Gís household income is
$120,000. Gís applicable filing threshold is $12,000. The annual national average
bronze plan premium for G is $5,000.
(ii) For each month in 2016, under paragraph (b)(2)(ii) of this section, Gís
applicable dollar amount is $695. Under paragraph (b)(2) of this section, Gís flat dollar
amount is $695 (the lesser of $695 and $2,085 ($695 x 3)). Under paragraph (b)(3) of
this section, Gís excess income amount is $2,700 (($120,000 - $12,000) x 0.025).
Therefore, under paragraph (b)(1) of this section, the monthly penalty amount is $225
(the greater of $58 ($695/12) or $225 ($2,700/12)).
(iii) The sum of the monthly penalty amounts is $2,700 ($225 x 12). The sum of
the monthly national average bronze plan premiums is $5,000 ($5,000/12 x 12).

Example 3. Family without minimum essential coverage. (i) In 2016, Taxpayers
H and J are married and file a joint return. H and J have three children: K, age 21, L,
age 15, and M, age 10. No member of the family has minimum essential coverage for
any month in 2016. H and Jís household income is $120,000. H and Jís applicable
filing threshold is $24,000. The annual national average bronze plan premium for a
family of 5 (2 adults, 3 children) is $20,000.

These are HYPOTHETICAL examples.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DogPawsBiscuitsNGrav (Original post)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 02:21 AM

8. Or...we could just let other peoples' rates increase to cover those without insurance

Which seems to be, for some weird reason, what those on the right are wanting to do (ie, tax those with jobs and the ability to have insurance for those who do not).

I think others have addressed the OP so I won't bother to (have before some months ago on the same question that was riding around FB).

Note also in the PDF you linked it is a notice of a hearing about regulation to take place in May 2013.

Note in there (guessing you read the whole thing and others did not) the word 'exempt' (for religious, don't have a health care plan you could purchase and choose not to, etc and so on) - some will not note that (read rw idiots) because they are not able to sell their BS so easily (folks on the right won't actually read such things, they want someone to tell them what it means in a way that bolsters their ideas. Reading might ruin their fantasies).

I am on page 10 and they are still discussing exemptions and income, etc....

Lastly - if folks on the right are so upset over this why are they NOT explaining to people that there is to be a hearing about that and they are looking for public input? Shows how right there in the PDF....maybe because sowing fear to stupid people gets more bites than actual information.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Straight Story (Reply #8)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 02:34 AM

9. Right. Public hearing May 29, at IRS Building, Washington, DC.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DogPawsBiscuitsNGrav (Original post)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 02:36 AM

10. I think I can explain this.

The "annual national average bronze plan premium" is a figure used in calculating penalties. It is, in fact, the national average of what real insurance companies are charging for real bronze plans.

There are no real bronze plans today so there is no real national average of bronze plan premiums. The statement the article quotes, ďThe annual national average bronze plan premium for a family of 5 (2 adults, 3 children) is $20,000,Ē is not a statement of fact.

The examples are examples of how to do the calculations in the proposed regulation.

The bronze average in that quote is a (round) number provided because there couldn't be an example of the calculations without some number to plug into that variable.

They could have used any number there.

So the article appears to be the standard thing of somebody mouthing off after misreading a government document.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cthulu2016 (Reply #10)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 02:41 AM

12. Good work; thanks.

As I've said elsewhere, the $20,000 is a hypothetical example.

Its easy enough to 'misread' this Notice of proposed rulemaking, and easy to take advantage of its confusing attributes to scare people.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cthulu2016 (Reply #10)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 02:44 AM

13. I'm confused. The # is an average of what insurance companies are charging for a plan that

 

doesn't exist? What?

Here's my first complaint: You shouldn't have to have a PhD in legalese to understand the terms & costs of this kind of law.

And if they just pulled the $20K out of their butts as the hypothetical cost for the lowest tier plan for a family of five, why that particular number? Why not $12K, or $5K?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HiPointDem (Reply #13)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 02:51 AM

14. This is a legal NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING.

If you want to understand it, you SHOULD have a 'PhD in legalese,' or a Juris Doctor degree. It is not a LAW, it is a proposed regulation, and if you would like to comment on it officially, you can follow the directions to do so, and you may attend the public hearing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to elleng (Reply #14)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 02:58 AM

17. If you want to comment on it, you apparently DO have to have a PhD in legalese, because one

 

is required to understand the texts to be commented on.

Which effectively removes the opportunity for most citizens to comment.

Which is actually the reason all these notices are in legalese. The point IS to limit discussion to 'experts'.

Then the "expert class" turns around & berates ordinary people because they don't participate, had the opportunity to comment, etc.

It's just bullshit. The government doesn't WANT input from the general public. It doesn't WANT people to understand. If it actually did, it'd make stuff like this accessible to the general public.

It's rather sickening to see people berated for not understanding what's going on. That is the fault of the ruling establishment, not the people.

Personally, I don't believe they just pulled that number out of their butts; it's likely a ballpark for the kind of plan they're talking about.

Which means a large chunk of the population, not just "the poor," will be priced out.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HiPointDem (Reply #17)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 03:11 AM

20. Look at post #15, for an idea about where the number came from.

I am a retired Federal attorney, and writing rules and rulemakings was, imo, a hated task. We tried, and I'm sure they still try, to make these things as easy to read as possible, but its still difficult, especially in situations like the ACA, clearly extremely complex.

Wherever the number came from, it is a hypothetical.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to elleng (Reply #20)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 03:21 AM

23. and yet i have no trouble at all understanding the legislation that created social security. you

 

know why?

because the funding mechanism is transparent.

i'm reading the aca link now, & though i have a masters in english and some pre-law background, it is like wading through mud. For example, here's a miracle of missing referents rendering a text near-opaque:

The monthly penalty amount for a month is equal to 1/12 of the greater of the
following amounts: (1) the flat dollar amount or (2) the percentage of income. The flat
dollar amount is the lesser of the following amounts: (a) the sum of the applicable dollar
amounts for all nonexempt individuals without minimum essential coverage for whom
the taxpayer is liable or (b) 300 percent of the applicable dollar amount. The applicable
dollar amount is $95 for 2014, $325 for 2015, and $695 for 2016, and will be increased
for calendar years beginning after 2016 by a cost-of-living adjustment. If a nonexempt
individual has not attained the age of 18 as of the beginning of a month, the applicable
dollar amount for that individual is one-half of the regular applicable dollar amount.


no ordinary member of the public is expected to be able to understand this crap. ergo, ordinary members of the public are walled out.

so don't slam the public for not getting it. they don't get it because the system wants it that way.

and post 15 tells me *nothing* about where the $20K figure came from. post 15 tells me what one specific individual & spouse pay (or employer pays) for their "good" insurance plan.

But your suggestion that the number is based on prevailing costs = they didn't just pull it out of their butts.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HiPointDem (Reply #23)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 03:52 AM

24. My family, husband a federal employee

this coming year, we will pay $200 bi-weekly, for Standard Option, self+family, Blue Cross/Shield. Gov't pays $424.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to elleng (Reply #24)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 04:20 AM

27. So what? US median household income = $50K.

 

According to the U.S. Census Bureau, real median household income fell for the second year in a row in 2011 - two years after the official end of the Great Recession - to $50,054. That's an 8.1 percent drop from 2007, just before the recession's onslaught.

According to the Pew Research Center, 32 percent of Americans now consider themselves lower middle or lower class, compared with 25 percent in 2008. Those joining the lower ranks in significantly greater numbers include whites, Latinos, adults under 30, college graduates, Republicans and self-described conservatives - 32 percent of whom call themselves lower class, compared with 19 percent in 2008.

http://www.sfgate.com/business/bottomline/article/Median-household-income-falls-again-3875894.php

Median family income for a family of 4 ranges from $55K in Arkansas to $106K in (where else?) Maryland, with the average of the median looking to be somewhere in the high 60s-low 70s.

http://www.justice.gov/ust/eo/bapcpa/20121101/bci_data/median_income_table.htm

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HiPointDem (Reply #17)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 03:16 AM

22. brilliant. a post that nails it exactly.

 



Personally, I don't believe they just pulled that number out of their butts; it's likely a ballpark for the kind of plan they're talking about.Which means a large chunk of the population, not just "the poor," will be priced out.


Everyone even remotely involved with the "Health Insurance Reform" scam knew exactly what they were doing phasing it in directly after the 2012 elections. They laugh at the proles at every chance they get. Why not? The proles keep bending over and over and over again.

A few trillion for the 1%? No problem Sir!
A few trillion for wars that last 12 years going on 20? No problem SIR

Hey how about a Drug War! Whooo Hoo USA USA USA

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HiPointDem (Reply #17)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 11:46 AM

31. + 100 It

 

certainly made it impossible for me to add anything to the discussion. The people who were commenting were apparently not understanding it either. The government tells us they put it out it there for the public, yet most of the public can't even read the garbage. Isn't it convenient that our public education doesn't get us anywhere near what's needed to actively participate in these issues. We're left to the mercy of our politicians who're all rich and have no mercy for us at all.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cthulu2016 (Reply #10)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 11:23 AM

29. Thank you very much. "not a statement of fact" This is what I was looking for. It appears we still

 

don't have any facts to base anything on and these people are just making guess's. I thought (and was hoping) that number was pretty high, especially when one of the comments was about a family of 4 only making 80 thousand a year and having to pay 20 thousand for insurance and on top of that their yearly taxes would leave them working for not very much. They were basing this off the OP being a fact.

I appreciate your help.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DogPawsBiscuitsNGrav (Original post)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 02:52 AM

15. My husband and I will be paying

$18500 for health care this year, but it is one of the better plans, so I guess that isn't
'bronze'. But it IS just for two of us. He retired as of Jan 25 and this is the plan his
school district has for retirees. So I could see paying AT LEAST $20,000 for a plan
for a family of four or five.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DebJ (Reply #15)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 02:56 AM

16. Thanks for shedding light, for those who are unaware.

I don't know what we pay; premiums come out of my husband's pay, and I haven't checked lately. We have Blue Cross/Shield Federal 'family' plan, and premiums don't vary depending on how many in the family. We are 3.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to elleng (Reply #16)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 03:03 AM

18. Ours is Highmark Blue Shield PPO

we aren't restricted in our choice of doctors or specialists. Hubby retired at age 62 (pre Medicare)
because of chronic kidney disease (stage 4), heart disease (prior heart attack and inoperable blockages)
and diabetes. (He also had skin cancer surgically removed twice in the last 6 years). With all
these issues and the complications, we don't want to be told we must see Dr X; his life is on the
line.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DebJ (Reply #18)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 03:07 AM

19. We've got BC PPO also,

Last edited Fri Feb 1, 2013, 04:00 AM - Edit history (2)

but middle-grade, as I recall. We've liked their plans, and husband also has had problems and doesn't want to be restricted, doctor-wise.

Just checked. This year, we will pay $200 bi-weekly, for Standard Option, self+family. Gov't pays $424.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DogPawsBiscuitsNGrav (Original post)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 03:15 AM

21. In the very pdf linked and example: make 120k year, pay 2,700 a year

in penalties if you don't get your own insurance.

Example 3:

Example 3. Family without minimum essential coverage. (i) In 2016, Taxpayers
H and J are married and file a joint return. H and J have three children: K, age 21, L,
age 15, and M, age 10. No member of the family has minimum essential coverage for
any month in 2016. H and Jís household income is $120,000. H and Jís applicable
filing threshold is $24,000. The annual national average bronze plan premium for a
family of 5 (2 adults, 3 children) is $20,000.


(ii) For each month in 2016, under paragraphs (b)(2)(ii) and (b)(2)(iii) of this
section, the applicable dollar amount is $2,780 (($695 x 3 adults) + (($695/2) x 2
children)). Under paragraph (b)(2)(i) of this section, the flat dollar amount is $2,085 (the
lesser of $2,780 and $2,085 ($695 x 3)). Under paragraph (b)(3) of this section, the
excess income amount is $2,400 (($120,000 - $24,000) x 0.025). Therefore, under
paragraph (b)(1) of this section, the monthly penalty amount is $200 (the greater of
$173.75 ($2,085/12) or $200 ($2,400/12)).

(iii) The sum of the monthly penalty amounts is $2,400 ($200 x 12). The sum of
the monthly national average bronze plan premiums is $20,000 ($20,000/12 x 12).
Therefore, under paragraph (a) of this section, the shared responsibility payment
imposed on H and J for 2016 is $2,400 (the lesser of $2,400 or $20,000).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Straight Story (Reply #21)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 11:33 AM

30. Another good point

 

make 120k year, pay 2,700 a year

There's a big difference between 120,000 per year and what a lot of these people were claiming to make, which seemed to be in the 50 to 80 thousand range. It sounds like it'll be a lot less for them.

Thank you for reading the PDF. I read through once, scanned through a second time and still didn't "get it." My English I think is pretty good now but I still have a very difficult time reading things like this.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DogPawsBiscuitsNGrav (Original post)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 03:52 AM

25. Those numbers aren't unrealistic

My plan that covers my son and I is about $900 a month, I pay $200 of that and my employer pays the other $700. It's the standard plan, the premium plan which pretty much offers a much better prescription benefit would be about $14,000 a year.

Crazy expensive, if my employer didn't pay the bulk of it I would probably just go without and try to get my son his own individual plan.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to madville (Reply #25)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 03:58 AM

26. Right, not unrealistic.

This year, we will pay $200 bi-weekly, for Standard Option, self+family. Gov't pays $424.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to elleng (Reply #26)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 04:24 AM

28. "crazy expensive" & only affordable because her employer pays it.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DogPawsBiscuitsNGrav (Original post)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 09:02 PM

32. IRS BRONZE PLAN OF 20,000 is not an OBAMACARE PLAN it is an Estimate of PRIVATE INSURANCE BRONZE PLN

What a bunch of Conservative Crap , serves them well the conservtives are showing how poorly they analyze things

....before you fall for this fringe media posting which is what cnsnews is, all deceptive posts please study the material....

what the IRS says is that its using for its calculation of the Shared Penalty the Average National Bronze coverage plan that can be found in Private Insurance which is ESTIMATED to be $20,000 a year for a Family Plan of 5...THIS IS NOT THE OBAMACARE BRONZE PLAN it is AN ESTIMATE OF THE PRIVATE INSURANCE BRONZE PLAN...currently in the Health Care Markets there are variously rated plans for all carriers OBAMACARE is using this plan estimate TO CALCULATE WHAT YOU WOULD PAY IF YOU DECIDE NOT TO HAVE THE COVERAGE...and guess what this is what you would pay:

A taxpayer must pay the shared responsibility payment for each month that the taxpayer or the taxpayerís dependents lacked minimum essential coverage and did not qualify for an exemption.

The amount of the tax is the lesser of the applicable national average bronze plan premium or the sum of the monthly payment amounts.

The monthly payment amount equals one twelfth of the greater of
.
the fixed dollar amounts ($95 for 2014, $325 for 2015, and $695 for 2016) times the number of adults in the household and one half the specified amount times the number of children in the household, up to a maximum of three times the flat amount, or
the amount of the taxpayerís household income in excess of the tax filing threshold times 1 percent for taxable years beginning in 2013 and 2014, 2 percent for taxable years beginning in 2014, and 2.5 percent for years thereafter.

This penalty payment is NOWHERE NEAR ANY $20,000 which is what the DECEPTION IS trying to get you to think

The tax is due when taxes are otherwise due and is assessed and collected like any other tax, except that taxpayers who fail to pay the tax are subject neither to criminal penalties nor to liens and levies.
http://healthaffairs.org/blog/2013/01/31/implementing-health-reform-shared-responsibility-tax-exemptions-and-family-coverage-affordability/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread