The "downside" of our current healthcare system

archer wrote: Where is this threat of prison Fred? Do you have a credible source for that, or is that just something you heard. My understanding is there is NO threat of jail/prison for failure to comply.

Don't pay the penalty to the IRS that's a direct result of non-comnpliance and it can result in jail time.

Nobody that matters wrote:

archer wrote: Where is this threat of prison Fred? Do you have a credible source for that, or is that just something you heard. My understanding is there is NO threat of jail/prison for failure to comply.

Don't pay the penalty to the IRS that's a direct result of non-comnpliance and it can result in jail time.

I would need to see some source for the statement that it would result in jail time, I believe that there is no threat of jail in this, only that the IRS can withhold the amount owed from any refund....but there is no penalty for non compliance beyond that.

archer wrote:

Nobody that matters wrote:

archer wrote: Where is this threat of prison Fred? Do you have a credible source for that, or is that just something you heard. My understanding is there is NO threat of jail/prison for failure to comply.

Don't pay the penalty to the IRS that's a direct result of non-comnpliance and it can result in jail time.

I would need to see some source for the statement that it would result in jail time, I believe that there is no threat of jail in this, only that the IRS can withhold the amount owed from any refund....but there is no penalty for non compliance beyond that.

You're right. I thought it was a real penalty. Turns out that it's more of a suggestion rather than a mandate.

So, it's a stupid idea written in an ineffective and purposely unenforceable manner. Wow. that's showing some real decisive leadership. I said before that I want leadership for our country that will do nothing and stay the heck out of our way - I pretty much got my wish on that one, except there's too many words used to say "We're just writing this up to buy votes, it won't really make anything happen."

I, personally, would like to see every employer find a way to qualify all of their employees as independent contractors and thus self-employed and required to pay the entire 15.3% of their income in taxes. Were the citizens of the States required to write a check for 15.3% of their income to the IRS to pay for Social Security and Medicare every month, on top of the amount they are required to pay for their anticipated income taxes, I don't believe that they would be quite so eager to allow them to continue along their current lines as they are when the tax, and only half of the entire tax at that, is withheld from their pay before they even see a single penny of compensation for their labors.

The next best thing would be for the employer not to withhold the 7.65% from the check they pay their employees with and then write a separate check to the employee for the 7.65% that they are required to contribute and then have the employee write out a check for the entire 15.3% that goes to the IRS every month.

Just how long do you think these programs would remain popular among the populace once they, and not their employers, were the ones writing checks for 15.3% of their income to support the programs? Not very would be my answer.

So you are advocating that employers commit fraud? An employee by very definition can not be an independent contractor.

There is only "one" downside to the US healthcare model? I can think of dozens, and most aren't fixed by Obamacare.

Being an independent contractor should be a decision left to the individual not the IRS. Been doing it for decades, and I pay more, not less in taxes. And saving and writing a quarterly tax check is a very useful exercise compared to automatic withholding.

Did you not read the entire post Dog? I know "progressives" love to pull something out of context and focus in on that aspect of it, but that doesn't mean that I must allow them to do so without calling them on it.

Address the issue Dog. How long do you think the populace would continue to be supportive of the Social Security and MediCare programs when they were individually writing out checks that represented 15.3% tax on their income that the government is appropriating from them to fund those programs?

PrintSmith wrote: Did you not read the entire post Dog? I know "progressives" love to pull something out of context and focus in on that aspect of it, but that doesn't mean that I must allow them to do so without calling them on it.

Address the issue Dog. How long do you think the populace would continue to be supportive of the Social Security and MediCare programs when they were individually writing out checks that represented 15.3% tax on their income that the government is appropriating from them to fund those programs?

By definition your post is nonsense, as employees can not be independent contractors. However, I will answer your second remark. Since the employer would be paying the employee an additional amount based on the amount that they are currently paying in payroll taxes, it is a zero sum. The employer considers the total compensation when hiring employees, so it would not matter.

Something the Dog Said wrote: By definition your post is nonsense, as employees can not be independent contractors. However, I will answer your second remark. Since the employer would be paying the employee an additional amount based on the amount that they are currently paying in payroll taxes, it is a zero sum. The employer considers the total compensation when hiring employees, so it would not matter.

I think Printsmith is not trying to indicate there would be a change in the financial picture, but that there would be a change in the employee's awareness of the full extent of the financial picture. They employee would then be aware of the additional money the employer pays to the federal government just for the privilege of having an employee.

You don't believe that support for the programs would wane if the individual was the one writing the check out of the compensation that they received for their labor directly? I disagree. While true that the employee wouldn't have any more or less money to pay their bills with after writing out that check to the IRS provided the current scheme of prepayment of taxes was maintained, the actual exercise of having to write out that check and mail it in every month would be a game changer in my opinion.

We can, if you wish, will leave aside the argument that the tax withholding scheme used by the federal government is in practice a means by which they are then able to collect the taxes ahead of the time that they are due to be payed. Income taxes are not actually due until April 15th of the year following the one in which they were accrued. By appropriating the money ahead of when it is due, the federal government is actually taking a benefit for itself that the taxpayer should have. In point of fact, prior to the changing of the law in 1943 to collect income taxes ahead of when they were due through the withholding scheme, a taxpayer could actually purchase a tax bond which represented the amount of tax they were likely to owe for less than face value, thereby lowering the actual amount of money that came out of their pocket to satisfy the tax. This, of course, is no longer allowed as the government, not the taxpayer, has been deemed to be more deserving of that benefit.