Scott Walker's Obamacare "Repeal and Replace" Plan Good for Taxpayers

Share on Facebook
Tweet this Story
Pin this Image

Posted by Ryan Ellis on Tuesday, August 18th, 2015, 8:51 AM PERMALINK


Wisconsin governor and 2016 GOP presidential hopeful Scott Walker is out today with his version of an Obamacare "repeal and replace" plan. No doubt all the serious candidates will have their own before primary season is over.

The most important part of the Walker plan is the first section, which completely repeals every jot and tittle of Obamacare. For taxpayers, that means repealing the 20 new or higher taxes in Obamacare. Right away, this plan is a large net tax cut as a result.

The plan also creates refundable tax credits for people on the individual health insurance market, uncapped by income but variable by age. The older you are, the bigger a tax credit you get. This reflects what health care actually costs for people as they age. The individual tax credit would be paid for by a very high cap on the tax-excluded value of employer-provided health insurance.

Walker's plan also creates a $1000 tax credit "bonus" for new people opening health savings accounts (HSAs), raises HSA contribution limits, and allows for greater HSA portability.

It makes sense that the insurance plan options these tax credits will apply toward will be cheaper than today, as Obamacare's costly restrictions and mandates are lifted.

Finally, the Walker plan begins to break down the barriers for people buying health insurance across state lines, allows consumers to pool together to purchase health insurance, gives states incentives to enact medical malpractice reform, and gives Medicaid a new mission by splitting it into several smaller goals for states to manage.

The Walker plan is a net tax cut, a net spending cut, and is intended to be budget neutral. It joins several other good Obamacare replacement plans out there, including the House Republican Study Committee plan, the plan advanced by Congressman Tom Price (R-Ga.), and the Burr-Hatch-Upton plan. No doubt more will join in the fun.

More from Americans for Tax Reform

Top Comments


The F-35 is a 'Big government' disaster in its worst form

Share on Facebook
Tweet this Story
Pin this Image

Posted by Danil Zelenkov on Monday, August 17th, 2015, 3:18 PM PERMALINK


Fiscal hawks are fighting to reform costly government spending programs and trim a bloated bureaucracy and the F-35 program is becoming an exorbitant Pentagon failure.  The most expensive military program in history is getting a free pass from otherwise fiscally responsible lawmakers.

The F-35 fighter jet program looks increasingly like a failure, and many politicians in Washington D.C. don’t want to admit it. The extravagant military program is hitting one obstacle after another in its development; from failing to meet testing benchmarks to ballooning costs. A report by Stars and Stripes reveals that although it is supposed to replace the F-15, F-16, and F-18, and the A-10 Warthog, the F-35 does not appear up to the task.

In its latest testing, the supposed zenith of military aviation was outmaneuvered by the very F-16 it is supposed to replace. The simulated dogfight resulted in numerous disappointing encounters with the older jet--the Lightning’s lack of energy maneuverability – a qualitative engineering method used to calculate an aircraft’s capabilities - being the most important shortcoming. The report goes on to state that “Even with the limited F-16 target configuration, the F-35A remained at a distinct energy disadvantage for every engagement.”

Not only does it prove inferior to older U.S. air crafts, but the F-35 is also under-performing in face-offs against foreign style jets, Russian or Chinese. It is noted in a report by military.com that “the 5th generation jet [F-35], will be outmaneuvered in dogfights with current Russian and Chinese jets as well as the U.S. aircraft it is slated to replace.” Such disappointing results point to a compromised national defense.

Construction costs stand at $400 billion at the moment, almost twice the initial estimate. In a time of budgetary restraints and cutting back, the federal government insists on sinking $1.45 trillion over the next 50 years on a plane that is proving itself to be a lemon. Considering the estimate was only at $1 trillion in 2011, the $450 billion increase in required funds indicates that the $1.45 trillion will likely increase further.

The U.S. atomic bomb Manhattan Project cost $26 billion in its entirety measured in today’s dollars. To put it in perspective, the F-35 program costs grew by “approximately one Manhattan Project every three weeks between 2011 and 2012.”

A Stars & Stripes report indicates that if the F-35 program continues this course, it “may needlessly gamble away a sizable margin of American air power at great expense and unnecessary risk to American lives.”

If conservative fiscal hawks and defense hawks want to regain their credibility of handling the nation’s finance, while securing for the national defense, they need to address government waste on all fronts, including Pentagon and the military.

Americans for Tax Reform supports a strong national defense and a strong military, but that should not allow careless waste of U.S. tax payer money.

Photo Credit: 
Samuel King Jr https://www.flickr.com/photos/49840571@N02/

More from Americans for Tax Reform

Top Comments


Failed Obamacare State Exchanges May Cost Taxpayers Millions More

Share on Facebook
Tweet this Story
Pin this Image

Posted by Alexander Hendrie on Monday, August 17th, 2015, 2:00 PM PERMALINK


In the coming months and years, several states are expected to abandon their Obamacare exchanges and move to the federal system. Oregon and Nevada have already done so and Hawaii is in the process of doing so. These states have wasted millions of dollars constructing failed exchanges and transitioning back to the federal system could end with millions more down the drain. Given this possibility, it is clear that stronger oversight is needed over the use of taxpayer dollars. State and federal bureaucrats must be held accountable.

When Obamacare was implemented, about 15 states decided to develop the infrastructure for their own healthcare marketplace. State exchanges were financed almost entirely through federal grant money from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS). In all, CMS distributed $5.4 billion in grant money. Unfortunately, most state exchanges have failed, or are on the brink of failure.

Hawaii, the latest failed Obamacare exchange, is currently transitioning enrollees to the federal system. The state received $205 million in federal grants but was unable to become financially viable and the system was abandoned by state officials who balked at the cost of upkeep--which ran in the tens of millions a year.

Now that the transition period is well underway, Hawaii is expected to receive new federal funds in order to move to Healthcare.gov. Reports on the cost vary, with estimates as low as $2 million and as high as $20 million. It is expected that the state will receive new federal funds, with CMS picking up as much as 90 percent of the cost to transfer.

From the perspective of federal taxpayers, this transition represent an opportunity to end the abysmal oversight over federal funds even amid the possibility that millions more will be wasted. Given taxpayers will now shell out millions more to bail out states that mismanaged the construction of their exchanges, what conditions and guidelines is CMS setting for a state to return? Will any funds be paid back from the hundreds of millions that was wasted on defunct state exchanges?

There is already precedent for the waste of taxpayer dollars amidst an environment of zero accountability. According to a report by the Wall Street Journal, Oregon received $41 million in mostly federal funds to transition to Healthcare.gov. This money was in addition to the $305 million that Oregon received to construct its abandoned exchange.

As Hawaii continues its transition to the federal system, the same story of bureaucratic incompetence and millions in wasted dollars that has permeated the implementation of Obamacare cannot be allowed to repeat itself. If the federal government finances state exchanges, it must also hold states accountable when funds are wasted or lost.

 

Photo Credit: 
Bahari Adoyo, https://www.flickr.com/photos/dreammaker182/

More from Americans for Tax Reform

Top Comments

Richard Parisse

Nauseating. Government officials are incompetent and arrogant


Obamacare Insurance Agent Pockets $9000 a Month From Fraudulent Applications

Share on Facebook
Tweet this Story
Pin this Image

Posted by Nate D'Amico on Monday, August 17th, 2015, 12:58 PM PERMALINK


In yet another Obamacare scandal, a North Carolina insurance agent is being investigated by state officials for illegally signing up over 600 individuals in North and South Carolina for insurance through the Healthcare.gov marketplace. This likely fraud allowed the agent to pocket almost $9,000 a month on commissions.

In order to qualify for federal health insurance subsidies, which covers most or all of premiums for low-income people, one must have at least $11,700 in expected income over a year. According to a report by CNBC, the agent was reportedly instructing low-income individuals to apply for the subsidies with projected income generated from panhandling, selling drugs, and even prostitution.

This unusual activity was brought to the attention of North Carolina officials after an insurance software company in California noticed a high volume of applications with addresses at homeless shelters and expected income listed at the threshold of $11,700. Once brought to light, healthcare company Aetna immediately ceased their relationship with the agent and will investigate the matter fully, as does the administrator of Obamacare and the Healthcare.gov exchange, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.

The agent justified his actions as legal and claims he was simply trying to educate low-income people about eligibility under the new Affordable Care Act laws. However, had the enrollments not been called into question and subject to an investigation, he would have made about $9,000 per month in commissions, or almost $110,000 over the year from these 600 enrollments alone. This curious case calls into question other enrollments facilitated by this agent, but also whether this practice is occurring throughout the rest of the country.

This new case of Obamacare fraud should not be surprising. Last week, the Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General (HHS OIG) warned that the federal system was failing to verify key information of applicants including Social Security numbers, citizenship, and household income before granting tax credits.

Just last month, the Government Accountability Office put out a report detailing how 11 of 12 fake applications submitted to Healthcare.gov in 2014 were enrolled and received federal subsidies. Of the dozen, three were submitted with no documentation but even this didn’t stop the federal government from paying $30,000 in insurance credits to the 11 successful fakes, which were automatically re-enrolled for 2015.

States are faring little better under Obamacare. Back in 2011, federal officials decided that the Massachusetts “Romneycare” exchange needed to be updated to meet Obamacare exchange standards. What followed can only be described as an abject failure as the “upgraded” exchange managed to meet just 5% of its enrollment target at the cost of a meager $224 million in federal funds.

Photo Credit: 
EpicSlowMo - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Ep_h8vxgEU

More from Americans for Tax Reform

Top Comments

Uncle Sam

Tar and Feathers are greatly needed today.


Hillary’s “Free College” Plan Will Raise Income Taxes on 23,000 New Hampshire Families

Share on Facebook
Tweet this Story
Pin this Image

Posted by Alexander Hendrie on Friday, August 14th, 2015, 5:00 AM PERMALINK


This week, Hillary Clinton unveiled her “New College Compact” promising Americans “free” community college and lower student debt. Buried deep in the plan was how she would pay for this new spending program – a $350 billion income tax hike on American families. In New Hampshire alone, this plan will increase income taxes on over 23,000 households.

“If this is a ‘free’ plan then why is Hillary raising income taxes on 23,000 New Hampshire families to pay for it?” asked Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform.

The Clinton plan reduces the full income tax deductibility of countless deductions including charitable donations, mortgage interest, high medical bills, and state and local taxes for New Hampshire families in the 33-percent, 35-percent, or 39.6 -percent brackets, limiting their value to 28 percent. Nationwide, this tax increase raises an additional $350 billion in income tax payments to the IRS.

Hillary’s latest tax grab echoes her 2004 promise: “We’re going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good.” This remark was made during a speech to her financial backers and was overheard and reported by the Associated Press. Unaware there was a reporter present, then-Senator Clinton felt free to spell out her true tax worldview.

According to IRS Statistics of Income Data for 2012 (the most recent year available), the new Hillary tax hike will hit about 23,000 New Hampshire households, based on the number of families who earned over $200,000 and itemized their deductions.

Earlier this year, Clinton spokesman Brian Fallon warned of upcoming “revenue enhancements” – which are also known as “taxes” in the real world. Hillary’s latest tax increase follows her July proposal for the most complicated capital gains tax scheme in U.S. history.

Photo Credit: 
Karen Murphy, https://www.flickr.com/photos/14372925@N02/

More from Americans for Tax Reform

Top Comments

JD

Im not saying her plan is good but Grover's a tool for advocating for the rich again and again and again...must suck to get paid that way, i feel for you Grover...And the capital gains tax should be really high...these people do ZERO to earn it

Huma

What Difference, At This Point, Does It Make?


The Grover Norquist Show: Hillary’s Proposals to Increase Taxes

Share on Facebook
Tweet this Story
Pin this Image

Posted by Hal Smith on Thursday, August 13th, 2015, 4:06 PM PERMALINK


In the latest edition of the Grover Norquist show, ATR president Grover Norquist discusses Hillary’s proposed $350 Billion student loan debt tax hike and her plan to create the most complicated capital gains tax in US history.

In the podcast, Norquist illuminates how the $350 billion tax hike is simply another Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) for millions of American families. Norquist also discusses Hillary’s plan to create a more complex capital gains tax, her questionable history with the death tax, and her opposition to any tax cuts. Throughout the discussion, it is clear that Hillary has no problem raising taxes for all Americans, except for herself. See the podcast here.

 

More from Americans for Tax Reform

Top Comments

Neill

So Hillary is proposing capping itemized deductions at 28%. Obama already put back in place the Pease limitation that reduces itemized deductions by up to 80% for incomes over ~$250k/300k (single/married). That would suggest there isn't much money there since it's been taken except for those below the Pease start. Maybe she is going after all deductions like 401k contributions etc as well? That would a nightmare of complexity with pre-tax 401k contributions creating basis in the 401k because they were partially taxed.


TBT: Reagan Changes the Course of Federal Taxation


Posted by Caroline Anderegg on Thursday, August 13th, 2015, 1:17 PM PERMALINK


On August 13, President Ronald Reagan signed the Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981 (ERTA).  This multifaceted tax reform package is regarded as a watershed moment in the history federal taxation.

During his presidential campaign Reagan argued that providing incentives for individuals and businesses was the best way to revitalize and grow the economy. Signing the ERTA in his first year in office made good on that promise. 

The focal point of the original legislation proposed by the Administration was a 30 percent reduction in individual taxes over three years. The final piece of legislation, however, resulted in an across-the-board rate reduction and much more. The top tax rate was reduced to 50 percent on all income, and all income tax rates were reduced by approximately 25 percent over a three-year period. The ERTA also introduced the idea of indexing individual tax brackets to end the “bracket creep”; created a new cost recovery system for depreciating business assets; reduced the estate and gift taxes; and allowed a credit for incremental research and development expenses.  

According to a contemporary Tax Foundation memo, the annual cut was estimated to jump from $38 billion in fiscal year 1982, to $268 billion in fiscal year 1986.  The cumulative reduction was estimated to save taxpayers $749 billion in nominal terms.

From its inception, Reagan’s tax-cutting legacy was revolutionary and transformative. In just two years after the ERTA was passed it was referred to by tax analysts as the “most important piece of tax legislation of last quarter century,” and today is still recognized for its lasting impact on the Internal Revenue Code. The ERTA set the tone for his overall economic policy and created momentum that lead to economic growth carrying through his entire presidency. 

Top Comments

JD

To bad 90% went to the top 1% Grover, just stop lieing, tell people the truth or rename your site to Grover say's anything to help the rich.com


USPS Post Half a Billion in Losses Despite Billions in Subsidies

Share on Facebook
Tweet this Story
Pin this Image

Posted by Justin Sykes on Thursday, August 13th, 2015, 10:28 AM PERMALINK


While government bureaucrats are notoriously inefficient at their core missions, such as the EPA polluting the Animus River, the one thing they are consistently efficient at is losing taxpayer dollars. In addition to the EPA’s recent bungles, the U.S. Postal Service this week continued its long tradition of hemorrhaging money.

This week the Postal Service reported a net loss of $586 million for the third quarter of fiscal 2015. The USPS’s ability to lose over half a billion dollars in just three months would almost be impressive if it wasn’t a detriment to American taxpayers. The fact is the USPS receives roughly $18 billion in taxpayer-backed subsidies annually yet is still failing.   

Despite this massive multi-billion dollar subsidies crutch, the Postal Service continues to prove incapable of financial accountability. The third quarter losses this week are not only a massive bureaucratic failure but also mean the Postal Service has now posted revenue losses 25 out of the last 27 quarters.

Given the $1.5 billion dollar losses posted in the previous quarter, 2015 could be the 9th consecutive year USPS has suffered multi-billion dollar losses. The Postal Service is now averaging about $5.5 billion in annual losses and within the last decade the Post Office endured over $47 billion in losses, a number that is only slated to grow.

As troubling as such massive losses are, the more troubling fact is the USPS machine is able to push on despite the overwhelming lack of fiscal accountability. Alternatively, if the Post Office were a private company it would have been bankrupt decades ago and a more efficient service would have taken its place.

Sadly, there is little motivation for efficiency or accountability when government bureaucrats know they have an $18 billion dollar taxpayer-sewn safety net to catch them. The truth is as long as billions keep flowing from the government losses will continue, and American taxpayers will be expected to keep footing the bill for these bureaucratic boondoggles.     

 

Photo Credit: MoneyBlogNewz

More from Americans for Tax Reform

Top Comments

Sally Davidow

ATR’s latest salvo against the public Postal Service is based on a myth propagated by Postal Service’s chief rival, United Parcel Service (UPS). The suggestion that the Postal Service receives taxpayer subsidies is preposterous. The Postal Service funds its operations solely on the revenue it receives from the sale of postage and services.

The primary cause of the Postal Service’s “losses” that ATR cites is the congressional mandate, implemented in 2006, that requires the Postal Service to pre-fund healthcare benefits for future retirees – 75 years
in advance – at a cost of approximately $5.5 billion per year. This is a burden no other government agency or private company bears.

If not for that requirement, the Postal Service would have done quite well financially over the past few years: Based on its operations, the Postal Service has earned a surplus of $1.2 billion so far this fiscal year; it had a surplus of $1.4 billion in fiscal year 2014, and $600 million in fiscal year 2013.

ATR advocates eliminating the Postal Service – which is mandated by the U.S. Constitution – in favor of a private mail system, although it offers no support for its assertion that a “more efficient service” would replace it. Would FedEx and UPS serve rural areas and low-volume neighborhoods?
Probably not. They would serve only those areas where they could make a profit.

By contrast, the Postal Service isn’t in business to make a profit. Its purpose is to serve the American people – a goal ATR and every
American should support.

JB

No, it doesn't. Operating costs all come from mailing revenues. In instances where a USPS branch is in a federal building the space is leased from GSA.

Janet Jamison

The Postal Service receives NO government subsidies and makes all its money from postage, shipping and postal products sold. This article is written by those who wish to tap into (and ultimately privatize) the rich motherlode known as USPS. The Postal Service is also hamstrung by the requirements of The Postal Reform Act of 2006 which requires the set aside of 5.5 billion dollars per year for 10 years so as "to prefund benefits for employees" who have not yet been born...and there's little doubt that those dollars are held in the same safe place where Social Security funds are kept...The major threat faced by the USPS is toxic stories like this one which perverts the truth and attempts to poison the public perception as to the worthiness of the Postal Service. If you talk trash and lies long enough about anything, you can justify destruction of anything. It's obvious to me that ATR will write or say anything to achieve their objectives.


Chris Christie Signs Taxpayer Protection Pledge to the American People

Share on Facebook
Tweet this Story
Pin this Image

Posted by ATR on Wednesday, August 12th, 2015, 5:00 AM PERMALINK


Governor Chris Christie (R-N.J.), a candidate for the presidency of the United States, has signed the Taxpayer Protection Pledge to the American people. The pledge is a written commitment to the American people to “oppose and veto any and all efforts to increase taxes.”

Governor Christie has consistently vetoed $1.6 billion in annual tax hikes passed by the Democrat-run legislature. Their attempt to create a new top tax bracket of 10.75 percent has been included in each of the five budgets sent to Christie. Democrats also sought to impose a 15 percent corporate tax surcharge in each of the last two budgets. Each time, the Governor's veto pen has been the only thing standing in the way of those taxes passing in the Garden State. 

“Governor Chris Christie has vetoed more tax hikes than any other Governor in modern American history,” said Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform. “And he made those vetoes stick. Without the Christie governorship, New Jersey would be somewhere between Detroit and Greece.”

Though the 2016 nomination contest is just getting underway, most of the GOP candidates have already made a written commitment to the American people that they will oppose and veto any tax increase in the event they are elected to the White House. These candidates include Marco Rubio, Rand Paul, Ted Cruz, Rick Perry, Carly Fiorina, Rick Santorum, Dr. Ben Carson, and Mike Huckabee.

“By signing the Taxpayer Protection Pledge to the American people, Governor Christie continues his commitment to protect American taxpayers,” said Norquist. “Governor Christie understands that government should be reformed so that it takes and spends less of the taxpayers’ money, and will oppose tax increases that paper over and continue the failures of the past."

ATR has shared the Pledge with all candidates for federal office since 1986. In the 114th Congress, 49 U.S. Senators and 218 members of the U.S. House of Representatives have signed the Pledge. Pledge signers include Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, House Speaker John Boehner, House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy, House Majority Whip Steve Scalise, and GOP Conference Chair Cathy McMorris Rodgers. Senate Finance Committee Chairman Orrin Hatch and House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Paul Ryan are also pledge signers. On the state level, 13 incumbent governors and approximately 1,000 incumbent state legislators have signed the Pledge.

In 2012, all candidates for the Republican nomination for president signed the Taxpayer Protection Pledge, with the lone exception of former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman. Huntsman finished seventh in Iowa and third in New Hampshire before dropping out of the race.

 

Photo Credit: 
Gage Skidmore, https://www.flickr.com/photos/gageskidmore/

More from Americans for Tax Reform

Top Comments

Uncle Sam

A fat man who chose Surgery over Self-Control????? Really??? This is a clear window into this man.

HILLARY FOR PRISON 2016


Tax Experts Agree: We Need Tax Reform

Share on Facebook
Tweet this Story
Pin this Image

Posted by Emma Boone on Tuesday, August 11th, 2015, 5:18 PM PERMALINK


Today’s tax system is far too complex and drastically limits opportunities for hardworking Americans. The Tax Council (TTC) recently surveyed 84 business tax professionals on tax reform found only 41 percent believe there will be some type of a tax reform in or before 2017. This is down from 52 percent in January. Recognizing the dramatic need for tax reform to jump our economy, The Heritage Foundation recently hosted a panel on the current, flawed tax system and opened the discussion for means to fix the damaged system.

Daniel Mitchell, PhD., a senior fellow at Cato Institute, sat on the panel and opened with the simple statement, “tax rates matter.” Mitchell explained that anyone who disputes this message is likely to be the product of ill-advisement and ignorance. People work for themselves, not for the government. Taxpayers are more than welcome to write fat, charitable checks to the government after their taxes have been accounted for, yet very few households choose to do so- and for good reason.

Mitchell continued by describing the two ways Americans are likely to consume their income after taxes. One either consumes their income right away, resulting in little federal government interference and additional taxes or they save and invest some of their leftover income. By doing the latter, the federal government may tax these returns as interest, dividends, capital gains, or non-corporate business profits. Furthermore, this saved or invested money may also face the corporate tax, estate tax, and the list goes on.

Also sitting in on the panel was Stephen Entin, a senior fellow from the Tax Foundation. Entin explained that a good tax system is one where multiple levels of taxation cease to exist, leaving Americans with more money in their pockets. 

The Hall-Rubashka flat tax, new flat tax, a national sales tax and a business transfer tax are all popular examples of tax reform plans among conservatives. All four of these plans are economically comparable and would have identical economic effects. These plans aim for reform and a simplification of the tax code. Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky, who announced his presidential bid in the late spring, pushes for a flat tax in his outline for tax reform.

Presidential hopeful Sen. Marco Rubio created a “pro-growth, pro-family tax reform plan” that would simplify the current tax code in many ways. For starters, the plan would implement a simple two-bracket tax system and reduce the tax rate on capital gains and dividends to zero percent. This reform plan has brought attention to a new string of conservative reform policies promoted by Conservative Reform Network.

As pointed out by politicians, economists and tax policy experts alike the current tax system is dragging down the economy. It's time to simplify the tax code.

More from Americans for Tax Reform

Top Comments

phil cali

Grover, where can I contact you on your website? I do not see any method. Unless I'm mistaken on how to contact you personally, I'll state my case below on "income" taxes and your public involvement as such...

Your 'pledge' is frankly, incomplete at best. Asking Congress not to raise taxes is akin to not fixing a faucet leak that someone else intentionally caused, but you still let it continue to leak because it's not devastating your life. You should already know that the Federal and State "income" tax has little foundation when it comes to common American workers because there is no law passed by Congress that ties your labor to the IRC (Internal Revenue Code). Are you not aware of this fact? Most individuals working in the private sector are not liable for the tax.

You should already know the following:
The liability to the IRC and "income" tax in most cases arises thru the coercive and collusive implementation by the Govt and the private sector in making you sign a W-4 Form upon being hired by a private company. This instantly makes you a statutory "employee" who will then earn statutory "wages" of which can then be withheld by your now statutory "employer" of whom you are now engaged with in statutory "employment" (all these statutory stipulations based upon your COERCED consent via signing the W-4 Form).

In most cases it is that simple. In my field of work I have noticed there are very few jobs available as a 1099 independent contractor where just 5 years ago this was not the case. Would you fancy a guess as to why that is? The 1099 Form means you are NOT a statutory "employee" and not subject to those statutory terms, and thus not subject to withholding. Therefore, where is the tie between your labor and the IRC (tax code)? In that instance there are no "wages", no "employee", no "employer", no "employment". Do you understand the liability nature behind the difference? The Govt/IRS burden is MUCH greater for a 1099 worker as to whether a 1099 individual actually has "income" (defined by the SC and Congress as a gain or profit from a privileged activity or profession, or from events such as rental property that bears fruit from the property itself).

It's pretty simple, Grover. You should at least be telling the real truth about the 'tax' on blogs and other tax-honesty websites. I can't expect you to admit this on network TV because you'd never get on TV again (even on Stossel). You'd get the Glenn Beck treatment for being the whistle-blower. And I understand that the Govt might prosecute you for telling the truth, so I get it. However, you are still semi-misleading people into thinking the Federal Govt has an unequivocal right to tax your labor without your consent. And by consent, I mean NOT thru the coercion and fear of signing a W-4 Form. I think you are doing great work but you are coming up short in some respects.

Good day to you.
Chris


hidden
×