What? No government shutdown threads?

[TerryMathews]

A detail of the law that's not commonly known. Yeah I guess that equates to "horribly uninformed/misinformed" in your world.

It's interesting that you fail to mention that it's still tax owed and will be taken from any refunds that might otherwise be due. I can't remember whether or not interest penalties apply...so I guess I'm "horribly uninformed" as well.

BTW...is this by chance 'National Hyperbole Day' on nobody told me?

They do.

 

[dank69]

A detail of the law that's not commonly known. Yeah I guess that equates to "horribly uninformed/misinformed" in your world.

Not commonly known by conservatives anyway. All of us brainwashed by the liberal MSM complex know it by heart.

It's interesting that you fail to mention that it's still tax owed and will be taken from any refunds that might otherwise be due. I can't remember whether or not interest penalties apply...so I guess I'm "horribly uninformed" as well.

BTW...is this by chance 'National Hyperbole Day' on nobody told me?

I "failed" to mention that because I was refuting a specific false claim about garnished wages. It's interesting that you fail to notice that.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Not commonly known by conservatives anyway. All of us brainwashed by the liberal MSM complex know it by heart.

I knew they couldn't garnish wages. I must be brainwashed by "MSM" as well. Just where did I read that? Huffington Post? Mother Jones?

I "failed" to mention that because I was refuting a specific false claim about garnished wages. It's interesting that you fail to notice that.

I fully understood what you were doing, is it really that hard for you to understand what I was doing?

 

[TerryMathews]

I knew they couldn't garnish wages. I must be brainwashed by "MSM" as well. Just where did I read that? Huffington Post? Mother Jones?


I fully understood what you were doing, is it really that hard for you to understand what I was doing?

I'll admit I didn't know. Considering the penalties accumulate, I doubt they'll barred from collecting forever.

 

[dank69]

I knew they couldn't garnish wages. I must be brainwashed by "MSM" as well. Just where did I read that? Huffington Post? Mother Jones?


I fully understood what you were doing, is it really that hard for you to understand what I was doing?

I understand perfectly. You were dishonestly pretending that my response was dishonest.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

I understand perfectly. You were dishonestly pretending that my response was dishonest.

If not dishonest...your answer was deceptive as well as arrogant and condescending. Congratulations...you win the dickhead trifecta!

 

[ivwshane]

If not dishonest...your answer was deceptive as well as arrogant and condescending. Congratulations...you win the dickhead trifecta!

Are you crying again about people attacking you?

 

[cubby1223]

Why do I get the strange feeling that people are interested in learning fine details about this law... for the primary intent of feeling superior on online forums?

 

[dank69]

If not dishonest...your answer was deceptive as well as arrogant and condescending. Congratulations...you win the dickhead trifecta!

Deceptive? He says IRS can garnish wages to collect the ACA penalty, I provide a link proving that is not the case, and you call it deceptive. But it's not dishonest, just deceptive. Not sure how that's even possible, but that's probably because I don't live in conservative lala land like you. Oop, there is me being arrogant and condescending again.

 

[dank69]

Why do I get the strange feeling that people are interested in learning fine details about this law... for the primary intent of feeling superior on online forums?

I'm sure being informed before posting seems like wizardry to you.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Why do I get the strange feeling that people are interested in learning fine details about this law... for the primary intent of feeling superior on online forums?

I'm thinking it's a perverse variety of little man complex.

 

[werepossum]

One is necessary for the law to operate, one is not. That's why delaying one is a larger deal than the other.

Your attempts to convince people that they are somehow equivalent is just piling more lies on top of the ones you already told. My only question is if you are simply genuinely trying to deceive others or if you're trying to convince yourself in order to justify your world view. Either way, it's been quite the blizzard of lies out of you recently.

The individual mandate, a very small fine which as Dank points out cannot even be gathered by garnishment, is necessary for the law to operate, yet the employer requirements (through which the vast majority of Americans get their health insurance) is not. Right.

On the plus side, you've almost mastered the "I know you are, but what am I?" defense. Soon you'll be ready to go out onto the school yard without a teacher. As long as you wear your helmet anyway. You are not however fooling anyone with it.

It will be interesting to see how many people actually sign up vs window shopping.

True.

 

[fskimospy]

The individual mandate, a very small fine which as Dank points out cannot even be gathered by garnishment, is necessary for the law to operate, yet the employer requirements (through which the vast majority of Americans get their health insurance) is not. Right.

Uhmmm yes. I'm not aware of any analyst that believes the employer mandate is necessary for the operation of the law but I am aware of large numbers that are quite certain the individual mandate is required. Feel free to post information to the contrary if you have it. You can also feel free to admit that you were being dishonest yet again. (I do not have high hopes of this)

 

[TerryMathews]

Uhmmm yes. I'm not aware of any analyst that believes the employer mandate is necessary for the operation of the law but I am aware of large numbers that are quite certain the individual mandate is required. Feel free to post information to the contrary if you have it. You can also feel free to admit that you were being dishonest yet again. (I do not have high hopes of this)

If it's so necessary, what are they going to do if people don't pay the penalty?

 

[fskimospy]

If it's so necessary, what are they going to do if people don't pay the penalty?

Probably increase it (as is already planned in the law) or alter enforcement. From the (very early) results for the exchanges it appears this may not be an issue.

 

[Fern]

Uhmmm yes. I'm not aware of any analyst that believes the employer mandate is necessary for the operation of the law but I am aware of large numbers that are quite certain the individual mandate is required. Feel free to post information to the contrary if you have it. You can also feel free to admit that you were being dishonest yet again. (I do not have high hopes of this)

If true it suggests where this burden falls the heaviest.

Fern

 

[Fern]

Deceptive? He says IRS can garnish wages to collect the ACA penalty, I provide a link proving that is not the case, and you call it deceptive. But it's not dishonest, just deceptive. Not sure how that's even possible, but that's probably because I don't live in conservative lala land like you. Oop, there is me being arrogant and condescending again.

As a tax CPA I've been well aware of the provision preventing garnishment etc.

However, as a tax CPA I think anyone believing that the govt won't eventually take steps to collect the tax/penalty by whatever means necessary is living in "lala land".

I've never seen such an anti-collection provision before and understand that it was passed to make Obamacare more politically palatable. I do not expect it to survive once its anti-FUD purpose expires.

Fern

 

[ivwshane]

As a tax CPA I've been well aware of the provision preventing garnishment etc.

However, as a tax CPA I think anyone believing that the govt won't eventually take steps to collect the tax/penalty by whatever means necessary is living in "lala land".

I've never seen such an anti-collection provision before and understand that it was passed to make Obamacare more politically palatable. I do not expect it to survive once its anti-FUD purpose expires.

Fern

So your thinking rests solely on a gut feeling?

Btw I thought the dems didn't offer any compromise on the ACA when they rammed it through legislation via a majority through the house and a super majority in the senate?

I wonder if you are even capable of self analyzing your positions for logic errors.

 

[Fern]

So your thinking rests solely on a gut feeling?

Btw I thought the dems didn't offer any compromise on the ACA when they rammed it through legislation via a majority through the house and a super majority in the senate?

I wonder if you are even capable of self analyzing your positions for logic errors.

No, +30 years of experience. Tax law is, and has been for a long time, systematically adjusted in the govt's favor.

What compromise do you refer to? If you're claiming the non-garnishment aspect is some concession to Repubs you'll need to demonstrate it. I think a better assumption is that the Dems put it in so it couldn't be spun by opponents (as it was with Hillarycare years earlier).

It's regrettable that you are burdened by worry about my capabilities. I, OTHO, am unburdened by any wonder of your's.

Fern

 

[fskimospy]

If true it suggests where this burden falls the heaviest.

Fern

Not really, it just prevents people from gaming the system. Without an individual mandate you would be a fool to ever purchase insurance no matter what combination of age and health; you would just phone the company from the hospital.

 

[TerryMathews]

So your thinking rests solely on a gut feeling?

Btw I thought the dems didn't offer any compromise on the ACA when they rammed it through legislation via a majority through the house and a super majority in the senate?

I wonder if you are even capable of self analyzing your positions for logic errors.

If they made a compromise, why did not one Republican vote yea on it?

Not one.

Senate or House.

 

[ivwshane]

No, +30 years of experience. Tax law is, and has been for a long time, systematically adjusted in the govt's favor.

What compromise do you refer to? If you're claiming the non-garnishment aspect is some concession to Repubs you'll need to demonstrate it. I think a better assumption is that the Dems put it in so it couldn't be spun by opponents (as it was with Hillarycare years earlier).

It's regrettable that you are burdened by worry about my capabilities. I, OTHO, am unburdened by any wonder of your's.

Fern

What compromise?

I've never seen such an anti-collection provision before and understand that it was passed to make Obamacare more politically palatable.

Why would something need to be more palatable unless it's done as a concession to get votes?


Careful I wouldnt want you to sprain a brain muscle with the mental gymnastics you are about to do to explain yourself

And yeah I do worry about you as your job directly affects people. Really I'm more concerned with the well being of the people you work for than you. I feel sorry for them actually.

 

[dank69]

If they made a compromise, why did not one Republican vote yea on it?

Not one.

Senate or House.

I think it is more important for you to tell us why Republicans didn't vote for a healthcare bill that originated in one of their own think tanks, because you won't like my answer.

 

[ivwshane]

If they made a compromise, why did not one Republican vote yea on it?

Not one.

Senate or House.

Really? Your small brain can't even fathom for one second why none of them voted for it? Nothing comes to mind?

 

[TerryMathews]

I think it is more important for you to tell us why Republicans didn't vote for a healthcare bill that originated in one of their own think tanks, because you won't like my answer.

No, you have my full attention. Enlighten us.

Really? Your small brain can't even fathom for one second why non of them voted for it? Nothing comes to mind?

I know exactly why none of them voted for it: none of them were consulted, they didn't agree with the law, and none of their votes were needed for passage.