Wednesday, April 28, 2010
Just Spent $600? Must Tell IRS. It's a New "Health Care" Rule
From the Cato Institute:

Most people know about the individual mandate in the new health care bill, but the bill contained another mandate that could be far more costly.

A few wording changes to the tax code’s section 6041 regarding 1099 reporting were slipped into the 2000-page health legislation. The changes will force millions of businesses to issue hundreds of millions, perhaps billions, of additional IRS Form 1099s every year. It appears to be a costly, anti-business nightmare.

Basically, businesses will have to issue 1099s whenever they do more than $600 of business with another entity in a year. For the $14 trillion U.S. economy, that’s a hell of a lot of 1099s. When a business buys a $1,000 used car, it will have to gather information on the seller and mail 1099s to the seller and the IRS. When a small shop owner pays her rent, she will have to send a 1099 to the landlord and IRS. Recipients of the vast flood of these forms will have to match them with existing accounting records. There will be huge numbers of errors and mismatches, which will probably generate many costly battles with the IRS. [emphasis mine]

Tax CPA Chris Hesse of LeMaster Daniels tells me:

Under the health legislation, the IRS could be receiving billions of more documents. Under current law, businesses send Forms 1099 for payments of rent, interest, dividends, and non-employee services when such payments are to entities other than corporations. Under the new law, businesses will be required to send a 1099 to other businesses for virtually all purchases. And for the first time, 1099s are to be sent to corporations. This is a huge new imposition on American business, costing the private economy much more than any additional tax that the IRS might collect as a result.
There appears to have been little discussion before this damaging mandate was slipped into the health bill and rammed through Congress, but a few business groups did raise concerns. Here’s what the Air Conditioner Contractors of America said:

The House bill would extend the Form 1099 filing requirement to ALL vendors (including corporate) to which they pay more than $600 annually for services or property. Consider all the payments a small business makes in the course of business, paying for things such as computers, software, office supplies, and fuel to services, including janitorial services, coffee services, and package delivery services.
In order to file all these 1099s, you’ll need to collect the necessary information from all your service providers. In order to comply with the law, you would have to get a Taxpayer Information Number or TIN from the business. If the vendor does not supply you with a TIN, you are obligated to withhold on your payments.
The author of this Cato post, Chris Edwards, goes on to ask: "For what purpose? So the spendthrift Congress can shake a few extra bucks out of private industry?"

I think not.

Rules like this put so much booking pressure on Mom and Pop businesses that they'll be making even less income. Believe it or not, entrepreneurs do not go into business for love of paperwork, or even to give the IRS a chance to breathe down their necks quarterly--tempting as that might sound--but to perform the services to society that they are actually good at, have trained for, and like to do, like selling clothing, hardware, or toys; designing houses or technologies; raising roses, tomatoes, or dairy cows; or repairing cars or furnaces. Mountains of government-required paperwork severely cut into the time small business people can spend doing what they went into business to do in the first place, and leaves precious little time left for planning ways to improve the business for growth--or even to hire that unemployed person that Congress wants us to think they care about.

Taking Congress's actions at face value, there are few other conclusions to draw than that Congress wants to put small businesses out of business.

Too bad for Congress. They're going to miss small businesses when they're gone. 

Why is this part of the healthcare bill? 

Why is this part of the healthcare bill?

Cause healthcare coverage is going to be enforced by the IRS.

This is ridiculous. 

President Obama said he would create jobs. We failed to ask what type of jobs. How many new IRS jobs will this create? Many small businesses may need to hire another person or turn a part time job into a full time job to meet the demands of this legislation. Hopefully, they can make enough money to cover the expense. 

Hopefully, they can make enough money to cover the expense.

Are you not outraged? How will this help anyone make more money? 

Yes, I am outraged but it's passed so all I can do is hope for the best. It won't help anyone make more money. The cost of goods and services will increase because the cost of all the paperwork will be passed onto the consumer. 

The companies I have worked for have been doing this for at least 20 years. Not sure how this is new. 

The companies I have worked for have been doing this for at least 20 years. Not sure how this is new.

I have never had anyone ask for my info because I spent $600.00 in a year at their store nor have I ever gotten a 1099 because I spent $600.00 at anyone store in a given year. So, How can this be the same as before? I would have gotten a 1099 from Kroger, HEB, Randles, Academy, Hobby Lobby, the elctric com, gas com, Phone com., Verizon, Chevron, Shell, and many more. 

Thank an Obama voter. 

Quiettype,

The existing regulation has been for contractors, not for every single thing they spend money on. Are you saying that they send a 1099 to Office Depot for all of the supplies they bought in a year?

If this is true, it is insanity. Not only does it increase the cost of doing business, but it will also change how people get business. They will be much less likely to switch vendors if they know they are going to have the added cost and burden of additional paperwork to do so. 

The 1099 si if you sold something to the store - income for you. This law is basically an attack on the gold coin and bullion sales. Coin stores do thousands of these transactions a month - it will be a nightmare for them.

I am quite sure there will be more surprises from the "healthcare bill". When you have a POTUS with virtually no real life job experience these things will happen. 

Fancy Pants,

If what you are saying is true, it is the other way around. You would be the one sending Verizon, Chevron, HEB, etc., a 1099 for doing business with THEM. That is, if you were a business. 

We've been filling those out for our customers for years. 

Are you against everyone paying taxes?
Should one business( individual) making money pay no income tax on earnings and the competition, following the law, actually report income and pay taxes?

What's the difference to the debt if you illegally skip taxes on 10,000 or take 2,000 in govt assistance?




Both of these changes are effective for payments made after December 31, 2011.

The objective of including these changes in Health Care Reform clearly is revenue raising. It has been reported that Senate Finance Committee staffers have defended these changes as a means of helping close the "Tax Gap," i.e., the amount of unreported (or under reported) income. The Joint Committee on Taxation estimates that this provision will raise $17 billion from 2012 through 2019. Although the Taxpayer Advocate Service (which operates independently within the IRS) has acknowledged prior support to extend information reporting to corporation service providers, it recently reported that neither it nor the Treasury Department had recommended legislation that would extend reporting to vendors of goods. 

Are you against everyone paying taxes?
Should one business( individual) making money pay no income tax on earnings and the competition, following the law, actually report income and pay taxes?

This is not the issue, so either you are trying to switch what is being discussed because even you can't defend it, or you are incredibly obtuse.

There is already an income reporting requirement. Businesses (and individuals) have to report all income that they make.

All this does is make it more noxious to do business WITH someone, it places the reporting burden on the consumer of the goods. If the goal is to put more of a damper on business spending, they're doing a great job. 

[i] it places the reporting burden on the consumer of the goods.


[/iIRS regulations also made it clear that payments for "merchandise" were not subject to this reporting requirement.] 

This crap will be repealed - or vastly reworked once common sense republicans take over the reins.

On a side note, rumor has it cap & screw has died. 

This crap will be repealed - or vastly reworked once common sense republicans take over the reins.

On a side note, rumor has it cap & screw has died.


It will be reworked to make sense and all the hidden crap taken out such as tax increases. 

You mean the sneaky stuff the Dems slipped in. 

It is funny to see people get enraged about something they do not understand. Please understand the issue before getting enraged. I also like the automatic response by the sheep on here that the republicans will come in and make it all better. The Republicans signed the biggest medical entitlement ever with the prescription drug bill. Morons, please put away your computers in fear you may spill water on them and accidentaly electrocute yourself and then blame government for not having reacted fast enough.
I will not suffer fools and you on here are fools. 

Oh yea....and I am surprised we have not heard a Palin "Death Panel" discussion here. I can see the discussion from my house. I say again...Morons 

Thank an Obama voter.

You don't have to but you're welcome and all sights point to me and my family doing it again. 

I am surprised we have not heard a Palin "Death Panel" discussion here.

You look new to this group but the "Death Panels" were discussed with such conviction at the time Palin made that wrong assumption. 

You don't have to but you're welcome and all sights point to me and my family doing it again.

This time BO will have a track record to run on - actually done something. Problem is - everything he has done sucks. So, it looks to be a little tougher on him this go round. 

It depends on who the GOP put up to run against him. I got really nervous when they introduced Palin for the first time and I heard her first speech. That was until I saw her Katie Couric interview. oooops. 

That was until I saw her Katie Couric interview. oooops.

Thats why BO always uses a teleprompter - even for elementary school children. 

There is a difference between speeches and an interview. No Teleprompters during Q & A. 

I got really nervous when they introduced Palin for the first time and I heard her first speech. That was until I saw her Katie Couric interview. oooops.




Strange, the real truth is coming out now how the left leaning media set out to destroy Palin cause they knew Bo couldn't win if they didn't. Now that is Chicago politics at work so I hope everyone is happy getting screwed over by BO. 

You don't have to but you're welcome and all sights point to me and my family doing it again.


No surprise there willy 

"What magazines do you read?"
"Do you agree with the Bush doctrine?"
"Why does being Alaska's Gov. give you foreign policy experience?"

Those are not legit questions? 

No Teleprompters during Q & A.

..... but it helps when you know the "Q" ahead of time. 

keep reaching 

No need to reach. I already know what's coming in November. 

Wednesday, April 28, 2010
Just Spent $600? Must Tell IRS. It's a New "Health Care" Rule
From the Cato Institute:
 
This propaganda piece was already widely debunked long before Congress passed the bill. It passed a month later despite these lies.   Fortunately, people in Congress ignored bullcrap pieces like this.
 
  

No need to reach. I already know what's coming in November.


They're SO afraid they're gonna be held accountable for their OWN health care when BO loses.

Oh the horror 

WAIT WAIT WAIT.... The new taxes on tanning salons wasn't enough ?!?!?!?!?!?

I'M SHOCKED LOLOL 

July 12, 2010
Health Care Rationing Obama Believes In
By Nat Hentoff

As a reporter, I do not use euphemisms - such as calling murderous terrorists "militants" or "activists." And as an American, I can exercise my First Amendment right to say plainly that President Obama is a liar with regard to our new health-care law, often referred to as Obamacare.

When a number of critics of Obamacare, including myself, warned that it would bring the rationing of treatments, medications and research into new procedures, the president said to the American Medical Association (June 15, 2009) that this rationing charge was a "fear tactic."

Receive news alerts
Sign Up
Nat Hentoff RealClearPolitics
Obama administration Health care

The next month, he said flat out: "I don't believe that government can or should run health care" (firstthings.com, May 31, 2010).

But in May of this year, the president nominated Dr. Donald Berwick, a professor at Harvard Medical School, to head Health and Human Services' Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) - the most powerful health-care position. As Hal Scherz underlines (RealClearPolitics.com, May 26): "CMS covers over 100 million Americans, has an annual $800 billion budget that is larger than the Defense Department's and is the second-largest insurance company in the world."

Unlike Obama, Berwick is enthusiastically, openly candid in his support of Britain's socialistic National Health Service. In a 2008 speech to British physicians, our new health czar said: "I am romantic about National Health Service. I love it (because it is) 'generous, hopeful, confident, joyous and just.'"

That "just" National Health Care Service decides which care can be too costly for the government to pay. Its real-time decider of life-or-death outcomes is the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE). Here is how "nicely" it works, described by Michael Tanner, senior fellow and health-care expert at the Cato Institute (where I, too, am a senior fellow):

"It acts as a comparative-effectiveness tool for the National Health Care Service, comparing various treatments and determining whether the benefits the patients receives - SUCH AS PROLONGED LIFE - are cost-efficient for the government" (lifenews.com, May 27).

So listen to our very own decider of how the Obama administration will lower our national debt by cutting inefficient health-care costs. After declaring his ardent romantic attachment to the British system, Berwick said: "All I need to do to rediscover the romance is to look at health care in my own country." He will, of course, be too busy to attend the funerals of the sacrificial Americans whose lives - not only those of the elderly - may thereby be cut short.

Tanner makes a grim point as Berwick rediscovers the romance of government cost-effectiveness: "Recent reports suggest that the recently passed health-care bill will be far more expensive than originally projected. As it becomes apparent that Obamacare is unsustainable, the calls for controlling its costs through rationing will grow louder. With Donald Berwick running the government's health-care efforts, those voices have a ready ear" (dailycaller.com, May 27).

By then, Berwick will be involved in the government-controlled health of more than 100 million Americans and - notes Michael Tanner - "Maybe those worries about death panels weren't so crazy after all."

Keep in mind that already, in May, "the Congressional Budget Office updated its cost projections (of Obamacare). It found that the new health legislation would cost $115 billion more than estimated when it was enacted ("ObamaCare's Ever-Rising Price Tag," Wall Street Journal, June 3).

How soon will the romantic rhythms of health rationing follow?

Wesley Smith, an invaluable investigative reporter on the dangers of government-controlled health care, describes the consequences if Obamacare is not repealed by the next Congress after the midterm elections:

"Once the centralized planning of medical delivery is complete - with cost-containment boards controlling the standards of care and the extent of coverage for both the private and public sectors - insurance companies, HMOs and the government will be able to legally discriminate against the sickest, most disabled and most elderly in our country. In other words, those whose care is most expensive."

For what to watch for during the reign of Berwick, whom Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sibelius recently glorified as "absolutely the right leader for this time" (CNSNews.com, May 26), I bring back Michael Tanner:

In the British Health Service Berwick loves, "750,000 patients are awaiting admission to NHS hospitals. ...The latest estimates suggest that for most specialties, only 30 to 50 percent of patients are treated within 18 weeks. For trauma and orthopedic patients, the figure is only 20 percent. ... Every year. 50,000 surgeries are canceled because patients become too sick on the waiting list to proceed."

And, again unlike the president, Berwick tells it like it frighteningly is in a June 2009 interview for the magazine, Biotechnology Healthcare:

"It's not a question of whether we will ration health care. It is whether we will ration with our eyes open."

There are many reasons why it is vital for Americans to vote in the midterm elections - and, of course, in 2012, to prevent a second term for the most dangerous and incompetent president we have ever had - but for many Americans, it is particularly important this year to vote against supporters of Obamacare. The question for many voters should be whether, in the years ahead, they will be in condition to vote if they are on waiting lists for government-controlled health care.

More of us are learning that during the Obama administration, it is essential to continually keep our eyes open on all it does. 

What is the big suprise? this is what happens when you pass a bill WITHOUT READING it and "saying" you will fix what is wrong with it later.....stupid...stupid...stupid..... 

I Am Finally Scared of a White House Administration
By Nat Hentoff

I was not intimidated during J. Edgar Hoover's FBI hunt for reporters like me who criticized him. I railed against the Bush-Cheney war on the Bill of Rights without blinking. But now I am finally scared of a White House administration. President Obama's desired health care reform intends that a federal board (similar to the British model) - as in the Center for Health Outcomes Research and Evaluation in a current Democratic bill - decides whether your quality of life, regardless of your political party, merits government-controlled funds to keep you alive. Watch for that life-decider in the final bill. It's already in the stimulus bill signed into law.

The members of that ultimate federal board will themselves not have examined or seen the patient in question. For another example of the growing, tumultuous resistance to "Dr. Obama," particularly among seniors, there is a July 29 Washington Times editorial citing a line from a report written by a key adviser to Obama on cost-efficient health care, prominent bioethicist Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel (brother of White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel).

Emanuel writes about rationing health care for older Americans that "allocation (of medical care) by age is not invidious discrimination." (The Lancet, January 2009) He calls this form of rationing - which is fundamental to Obamacare goals - "the complete lives system." You see, at 65 or older, you've had more life years than a 25-year-old. As such, the latter can be more deserving of cost-efficient health care than older folks.

No matter what Congress does when it returns from its recess, rationing is a basic part of Obama's eventual master health care plan. Here is what Obama said in an April 28 New York Times interview (quoted in Washington Times July 9 editorial) in which he describes a government end-of-life services guide for the citizenry as we get to a certain age, or are in a certain grave condition. Our government will undertake, he says, a "very difficult democratic conversation" about how "the chronically ill and those toward the end of their lives are accounting for potentially 80 percent of the total health care" costs.

This end-of-life consultation has been stripped from the Senate Finance Committee bill because of democracy-in-action town-hall outcries but remains in three House bills.

A specific end-of-life proposal is in draft Section 1233 of H.R. 3200, a House Democratic health care bill that is echoed in two others that also call for versions of "advance care planning consultation" every five years - or sooner if the patient is diagnosed with a progressive or terminal illness.

As the Washington Post's Charles Lane penetratingly explains (Undue influence," Aug. 8): the government would pay doctors to discuss with Medicare patients explanations of "living wills and durable powers of attorney ... and (provide) a list of national and state-specific resources to assist consumers and their families" on making advance-care planning (read end-of-life) decisions.

Significantly, Lane adds that, "The doctor 'shall' (that's an order) explain that Medicare pays for hospice care (hint, hint)."

But the Obama administration claims these fateful consultations are "purely voluntary." In response, Lane - who learned a lot about reading between the lines while the Washington Post's Supreme Court reporter - advises us:

"To me, 'purely voluntary' means 'not unless the patient requests one.'"

But Obamas' doctors will initiate these chats. "Patients," notes Lane, "may refuse without penalty, but many will bow to white-coated authority."

And who will these doctors be? What criteria will such Obama advisers as Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel set for conductors of end-of-life services?

I was alerted to Lanes' crucial cautionary advice - for those of use who may be influenced to attend the Obamacare twilight consultations - by Wesley J. Smith, a continually invaluable reporter and analyst of, as he calls his most recent book, the "Culture of Death: The Assault on Medical Ethics in America" (Encounter Books).

As more Americans became increasingly troubled by this and other fearful elements of Dr. Obama's cost-efficient health care regimen, Smith adds this vital advice, no matter what legislation Obama finally signs into law:

"Remember that legislation itself is only half the problem with Obamacare. Whatever bill passes, hundreds of bureaucrats in the federal agencies will have years to promulgate scores of regulations to govern the details of the law.

"This is where the real mischief could be done because most regulatory actions are effectuated beneath the public radar. It is thus essential, as just one example, that any end-of-life counseling provision in the final bill be specified to be purely voluntary ... and that the counseling be required by law to be neutral as to outcome. Otherwise, even if the legislation doesn't push in a specific direction - for instance, THE GOVERNMENT REFUSING TREATMENT - the regulations could." (Emphasis added.)

Who'll let us know what's really being decided about our lives - and what is set into law? To begin with, Charles Lane, Wesley Smith and others whom I'll cite and add to as this chilling climax of the Obama presidency comes closer.

Condemning the furor at town-hall meetings around the country as "un-American," Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi are blind to truly participatory democracy - as many individual Americans believe they are fighting, quite literally, for their lives.

I wonder whether Obama would be so willing to promote such health care initiatives if, say, it were 60 years from now, when his children will - as some of the current bills seem to imply - have lived their fill of life years, and the health care resources will then be going to the younger Americans? 

Hey Just Plain Funny, can you do a Cliff Notes version or is that way far beyond your intellectual capabilities. I know it might really tax you, but please show us that you are capable of doing this simple task.

Looking forward to reviewing your performance.