16,500 more IRS agents needed to enforce Obamacare

New tax mandates and penalties included in Obamacare will cause the greatest expansion of the Internal Revenue Service since World War II, according to a release from Rep. Kevin Brady, R-Texas.

A new analysis by the Joint Economic Committee and the House Ways & Means Committee minority staff estimates up to 16,500 new IRS personnel will be needed to collect, examine and audit new tax information mandated on families and small businesses in the ‘reconciliation’ bill being taken up by the U.S. House of Representatives this weekend. ...

Scores of new federal mandates and fifteen different tax increases totaling $400 billion are imposed under the Democratic House bill. In addition to more complicated tax returns, families and small businesses will be forced to reveal further tax information to the IRS, provide proof of ‘government approved’ health care and submit detailed sales information to comply with new excise taxes.

Washington Examiner



Change you can believe in!

NO NEW TAXES.......

Just on this health care circus a 2.5% of gross income tax penalty unless you get government approved health care and a $750 annual penalty. I guess they are going to have to build plenty of new federal jails to house all the new criminals also.

16,500 new IRS employees...ha. That sure is a lot of new employees to deal with no new taxes.



[edit on 19-3-2010 by timewalker]

Originally posted by timewalker
16,500 new IRS employees...ha. That sure is a lot of new employees to deal with no new taxes.

Well, Obama did say that he was going to create new jobs.......



[edit on 19-3-2010 by jerico65]

On the other hand, Obama can claim the creation of 16,500 GREEN jobs.

IMO, they should have worked on the tax issue instead of healthcare. The IRS and all its regulations are a big joke.







[edit on 19-3-2010 by jam321]

If America doesn't revolt over this sh*t, then America is completely castrated and sedated.

Moving to a 3rd world country is lookin better and better.

reply to post by Romans 10:9


Revolt Because of healthcare?

You know, I may be against it, but there are many who are for it.

Why should Americans revolt over a split issue?

I don't even like the way Congress is trying to pass this bill. But even then, I give them the benefit of the doubt they are doing it legally. If not, then I expect a court to decide.

But I don't see why this issue should cause a revolt.

Originally posted by jam321
reply to post by Romans 10:9

 

Revolt

Because of healthcare?

You know, I may be against it, but there are many who are for it.

Why should Americans revolt over a split issue?

I don't even like the way Congress is trying to pass this bill. But even then, I give them the benefit of the doubt they are doing it legally. If not, then I expect a court to decide.

But I don't see why this issue should cause a revolt.

Hooah! Always loyal, huh?

reply to post by jam321


It's not so split when you ask whether or not people want the reform that's being presented currently. Most everyone wants some kind of reform, it's just the current plan that isn't very well-received.

One thing I can't really understand is why, after considering reconciliation and the deem and pass rule, lawmakers are still trying for this specific bill. It's obvious nobody wants to vote yes, because they'll likely be voted out if they do, so they're playing with the rules trying to find a way to do it anyway, when they could just... do something the people wanted, and stay in office while doing so.

reply to post by EsSeeEye

It's not so split when you ask whether or not people want the reform that's being presented currently. Most everyone wants some kind of reform, it's just the current plan that isn't very well-received.

I agree with the above. I am one of those. But I also know many people who are saying no, no, no but at the same time whispering yes, yes, yes.

One thing I can't really understand is why, after considering reconciliation and the deem and pass rule, lawmakers are still trying for this specific bill.

IMO, it is time. In a few months, many will be in reelection mode and don't want to deal with any controversial bill. They figure the public will forgive them on this one, just like the stimulus, once some months have passed by.

If they wait till after the elections, Congress won't have the same makeup. The dems are going to get hit because the economy is still in the dump.

My understanding of the bill is that as of now no will will pay more than 2% of their earned income on health insurance...if it's more than that it will be subsidized. There is no mandate for employers who employ 30 or less people.

The so called Cadillac health insurance tax is for individuals who policies cost more than (now revised to $ 10,200) and $27,500 dollars a year for families. It's not a large tax but I think they ought to drop this.

The latest revisions have been very good, IMO, and there have been many in just the past few weeks and below I'll include a link to an easy to read and understand latest version of the bill. I bet you a lot of ATS readers are going to be subsidized and some of you may get health care for the first time in years. Salud.

No one should have to be put in the category of "subsidized" but a lot of you and your employers will be subsidized for the time being. Eventually I hope we get Medicare for all.

On a personal note, nothing is going to change much for me except that I won't be seeing friends die anymore of treatable illnesses, and yes, I have personally seen this happen twice, both were successful entrepreneurs, in their sixties but who got sick, became uninsurable and had not yet reached the golden age of 65.

This is so easy to read and current. If you haven't looked at the latest in this bill yet, you will note quite a few changes including that they are pushing the numbers up on that Cadillac insurance tax and will provide more subsidies to small businesses to help get everyone insured.

www.reuters.com...

Originally posted by timewalker
NO NEW TAXES.......

The campaign promise was no tax increases for those making under 200k a year. This bill increases income taxes on high earners by a couple points.

reply to post by jam321

I agree with the above. I am one of those. But I also know many people who are saying no, no, no but at the same time whispering yes, yes, yes.

Jam...you nailed it in that statement. People want to say no....but so many need help.

Peeps want help....yet all you will hear from "certain" networks is how people should suffer.

We need to fight for the middle class that once was. That's you jam. That's me. That's most everyone else on ATS who is seeing their livelyhood slip away.

Originally posted by Romans 10:9
If America doesn't revolt over this sh*t, then America is completely castrated and sedated.

Moving to a 3rd world country is lookin better and better.

Yalls sound like a godamned libral socialist in 2003, over the wars and the like...
But then again this is worse than war and will cause dead peoples and cost a trillion

reply to post by Schaden

Unless you don't do what they say and buy the insurance. If not you get 2.5% tax penalty and fined $750 on top. Last I checked last week. They change it every day.

Just tax me 2.5% and give us all or nothing.

Originally posted by jam321
IMO, it is time. In a few months, many will be in reelection mode and don't want to deal with any controversial bill. They figure the public will forgive them on this one, just like the stimulus, once some months have passed by.

Good point, I always forget that it's usually about staying in power rather than helping the country, heh.

I'm just curious about the nightmare that is likely to come out of this.

-What about companies who pay 100% of health insurance costs for their employee's? I know this is a rare thing to find anymore, but my husbands boss is considering this right now. Will we be forced to pay the penality for having a good boss? If not, how in the world are we going to report on tax forms that he is providing full family coverage at no cost to us?

-How in the world is the IRS not going to become overwhelmed by ensuring that companies have less than, or more than the 30 employee's? Will independant contractors or temp employee's count in this magic number? Who will be in charge of this bean counting?

Won't this push smaller businesses into keeping their number below 30, thus, making for a situation where jobs that may have been created, might not happen to keep their employee number below the 30 mark?(IMO, not good when unemployment is so high)

-What about families that are partially insured? I know of a couple of families where children and one parent are covered, while the other parent is uninsured. How can the government determine that the money spent on coverage from a family covers all of the family members?

Basically, I think this bill is so bloated with "What ifs" that it is going to turn into a nightmare filled with confusion, loopholes and a ton of abuse.

reply to post by lynn112
From what I understand, again it might have been changed now, but there is supposed to be a penalty fine for not providing insurance for employees and it is very much cheaper than the cost of the insurance to begin with.

In turn the companies will gladly pay the cheaper penalty and dump the insurance plan. Forcing all the employees to purchase the state insurance.
They know this will happen.

Like Pelosi said, they need to pass health care so the public can find out what's in it.

why revolt? why not?

if you keep letting people push you around they will never stop thats why.

there are alot more people agianst obama care than is being let on.

the protests did absolutely did nothing today.

congress and obama still think they are are god-which they are not.

any sane person can see where this will lead to..

if you want to be told how to think,what to eat you have too much others dont have enough.

this road leads down a path that is far from what this country use to be.

insurance is the biggest legalized ripoff in this country.
wether it be automotive or health


i know alot of people who go decades without ever needed meanwhile they pay pay pay.

Originally posted by timewalker
Unless you don't do what they say and buy the insurance. If not you get 2.5% tax penalty and fined $750 on top. Last I checked last week. They change it every day.

That's different from what I heard. Michelle Bachman was on Michael Savage's radio program and claimed it's 2.something percent on your first 100k income or a $2200 fine, whichever is higher.

You can say, it's my right not to buy it, I don't want it, but society still treats your illnesses and injuries regardless of your ability to pay if you lack insurance. You might not be sick, but what if you get in a car accident and rack up a 50k hospital bill. If you don't have insurance, you're getting a free ride. They would never let people "opt out", let the ER staff watch you bleed to death because you don't have insurance to pay the bill.

The idea is, if you don't have insurance they levy an extra fine on your income taxes to help defer the costs of people like you without insurance who will still use services and cost the medical industry money. It acts as an incentive for you to get health insurance. After the law passes they want people to think, why not just buy a $2000 annual health insurance policy rather than give the gubmint the money ?

reply to post by timewalker

Like Pelosi said, they need to pass health care so the public can find out what's in it.

Did Pelosi seriously say that? What a dolt.

reply to post by Someone336

Yes she did. 3/09/10 - Tell us Pelosi get us out of the fog.



If you noticed she was not looking at the teleprompter when she said that. You see what happens when they actually go off script.

[edit on 21-3-2010 by timewalker]