Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Archimedes, again? Really? (Score 1) 795

by thing12 (#33939624) Attached to: President Obama To Appear On Mythbusters

Law: Congress is given taxing authority by the Constitution, therefore Congress can tax your income any way choose.

But, a more clear cut method would have been to raise taxes by $750 and then give tax credits to those who choose to purchase health insurance. Then it would be a choice that the libertarians could have just ignored.

Don't forget, it's the health insurance companies who wanted this law. The cartel is the sole beneficiary in a system where buyers are mandated to purchase a product.

Comment: If it walks like a duck... (Score 1) 21

by thing12 (#31788012) Attached to: Debbie Wasserman Schultz: Lying or Ignorant?
Yes, it says it's required. But the law prohibits the government from taking you to criminal or civil court for failure to comply. Without a hearing or a trial, you can't be found guilty or be ordered by a judge to do anything. So for all intents and purposes, there is no requirement to have health coverage.

Sure, they could change all of this later, but her point that this is choice in how you file your taxes is valid -- you choose to have insurance or (optionally) pay the penalty.

Comment: Re:Can't we figure out a way to do both? (Score 1) 38

by thing12 (#31741698) Attached to: Another Liberal Hates the Rule of Law
Gotcha. Subtitle F of the IRS code "establishes the rules governing both how taxpayers are required to report information to the IRS and pay their taxes as well as their rights. It also establishes the duties and authority of the IRS to enforce the Code, including civil and criminal penalties."

That's all the IRS does: send letters, garnish wages, lien property, and seize it if the lien fails. And of course they can change the law later -- and I really have no doubt that they will eventually give the IRS teeth in this matter.

Comment: Re:Can't we figure out a way to do both? (Score 1) 38

by thing12 (#31739160) Attached to: Another Liberal Hates the Rule of Law

Oh, and I forgot to mention it also violates equal protection and perhaps the establishment clause by exempting the Amish, but not allowing me to be exempted for my religious beliefs.

It actually exempts anyone classified under 1402(g)(1). So, yes the Amish are included since they are the most well known. But if you want to file the paperwork and go through the process of getting your religious beliefs recognized, you too can be exempted from paying into Social Security, Medicare, or paying a penalty for not proving that you carry health insurance.

Comment: Re:Can't we figure out a way to do both? (Score 1) 38

by thing12 (#31738610) Attached to: Another Liberal Hates the Rule of Law

Oh I'm right :-) The Tax Foundation has this excerpt from the JCT's technical summary of the new law:

The penalty applies to any period the individual does not maintain minimum essential coverage and is determined monthly. The penalty is assessed through the Code and accounted for as an additional amount of Federal tax owed. However, it is not subject to the enforcement provisions of subtitle F of the Code. The use of liens and seizures otherwise authorized for collection of taxes does not apply to the collection of this penalty. Non-compliance with the personal responsibility requirement to have health coverage is not subject to criminal or civil penalties under the Code and interest does not accrue for failure to pay such assessments in a timely manner.

Basically, it'll show up on your 1040 as part of your total tax due, and the IRS isn't going to give you a refund on the amount you "overpaid" if you would otherwise choose not to pay that portion of your taxes. But if you owe money on April 15th, you can safely knock that fee right off the top.

They only thing that really seems mandatory is telling the government whether or not you had health insurance.

Comment: Re:Can't we figure out a way to do both? (Score 1) 38

by thing12 (#31737736) Attached to: Another Liberal Hates the Rule of Law

If an individual chooses not to get insurance, he'll receive a letter from the IRS telling him that he owes a penalty. If he ignores that letter, they'll send him another. There is no criminal penalty and the IRS is not allowed to garnish wages or lien property or charge any additional fees if the fee in any given tax year is not paid.

I'd love to be "FORCED" to pay all of my taxes this way.

Image

Amazon Reviewers Take on the Classics 272

Posted by samzenpus
from the eye-of-the-beholder dept.
Not everyone is a fan of great literature. In particular, reviewers on Amazon can be quite critical of some of the best loved classics. Jeanette DeMain takes a look at some of the most hated famous books according to some short tempered reviewers. One of my favorites is the review of Charlotte's Web which reads in part, "Absolutely pointless book to read. I felt no feelings towards any of the characters. I really didn't care that Wilbur won first prize. And how in the world does a pig and a spider become friends? It's beyond me. The back of a cereal box has more excitement than this book. I was forced to read it at least five times and have found it grueling. Even as a child I found the plot very far-fetched. It is because of this horrid book that I eat sausage every morning and tell my dad to kill every spider I see ..."
Idle

Want a Body Piercing With That Server? 19

Posted by samzenpus
from the this-will-only-hurt-for-a-little-while dept.
1sockchuck writes "The web hosting business is known for promotional gimmicks. But here's an unusual one: ServerBeach UK is offering a free body piercing with every new server ordered on April 1st. 'We were tired of the typical boring giveaways that have been done to death' said ServerBeach's Dominic Monkhouse. The stunt revives memories of earlier guerrilla marketing efforts by web hosts, like the 'human billboard' who was paid $7,000 to tattoo a hosting company's logo on the back of his head."
Role Playing (Games)

+ - WoW Addiction Results in Death of Toddler

Submitted by Henry V .009
Henry V .009 (518000) writes "The Albuquerque Journal reports that Federal authorities have just charged Rebecca Wulf for allowing her 3-year-old daughter to starve to death, surrounded by "cat feces, moldy food and unwashed dishes" while Rebecca played World of Warcraft. I thought Slashdoters might want an early heads up on what is likely to become a big news story. Having worked with abused children in the past, I can say that the stories I hear of WoW addiction cases are on the level of hard drug addiction stories — in my opinion at least, this can no longer be dismissed as a 'you can be addicted to anything' issue anymore."

The opposite of a correct statement is a false statement. But the opposite of a profound truth may well be another profound truth. -- Niels Bohr

Working...