I really hope stricter Income Verification is not included

[cthulu2016]

Last edited Wed Oct 16, 2013, 12:52 PM - Edit history (4)

Added on Edit: It appears from some replies that folks are so fired up against the people (many of them trolls) talking about problems with Obamacare that one cannot even speak against a concession to Republicans that is NOT part of ACA. The propossal in question is for STRICTER ENFORCEMENT THAN EXISTS IN ACA. Strict-er. A change. An increase in strictness. I am opposed to stricter enforcement. I think the ACA got it right, and in a perfect world ought not be changed... and surely not changed as ransom. The RW has claimed for some time that there is no income verification in the ACA. That was a LIE. So they fell back on there is not enough income verification and the Sneate deal has been widely described as featuring stricter enforcement as a sop to Republicans. And I am aganist it. It is just a way to fuck with poor people more... just adding anopther layer of liklihood that something will slow or hamper the ACA roll-out. Why anyone would defend it boggles the mind. It is anti-welfare queen bullshit aimed at RWers who think the big problem with America is low-income people getting all this money from the government.

As to whether it is worth a US default... did I say it was?

But I hope it isn't in there, and I cannot fathom why anyone here would hope that it IS in there, all things being equal.

Reid and Obama have done a stellar job here. Not knocking them.

But I hope theexpanded income verification thing will be removed or watered into actually meaning nothing whatsoever because the idea that the IRS will have to audit everyone who qualifies for an exchange subsidy (as opposed to using spot checking for enforcement the way the IRS does with taxes) is odious. (Any IRS verification you make as little as you claim to make is a form of audit, just not a full audit.)

Why should we have greater scrutiny of the taxes of the poorest people??? Mitt Romeny will not be seeking subsidies, y'know, and the IRS has better things to do than double-checking ALL low income people's tax returns.

It would be a powerful disincentive to seek insurance.

Almost nobody wants to do ANYTHING that is certain to trigger the IRS taking a second look at their taxes. People, even very honest and law-abiding people, are afraid of the IRS.

Does anyone doubt that there will be RW stuff aimed at the poor telling them their taxes will be audited if they seek health insurance? I'm guessing yes.

And it is not self-evident to me that someone who hasn't filed all their tax returns ought to not have health insurance because that amounts to using Health as a means of IRS Tax Enforcement... providing a pressing additional reason to file a tax return.

A lot of poor people do not file tax returns, even when required to do so. And nobody cares because their minimum wage job tax witholding covers it and the um in dis[pute would be trivial and who cares? But now, perhaps, it will suddenly matter. (A W-2 saying you made $9,000 at McDonalds does not mean you only made $9,000. It means you made at least $9,000. Only a tax return says what your claimed total income was. What if you made $9,000 at McD's and $7,000 cash doing roofing work on your own? Etc..)

Yes, people should pay their taxes. And people should return library books on time too, but do you want food-stamps tied to whether you have outstanding library fines?

I see this as the same as having police at polling places to checks people against a list of people with outstanding warrants. It certainly does not encourage participation.

October 16, 2013, 10:36 AM EDT

...The Senate deal lifts the debt ceiling through Feb. 7, re-opens the shuttered government through Jan. 15 and sets up bicameral budget conference tasked with sending policy recommendations by Dec. 13. It will include a provision to enforce a part of Obamacare where subsidy recipients have to verify their income eligibility first. It won't include a previously considered plan to delay a reinsurance tax under the health care law. Ultimately neither side will make big concessions...

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/gop-prepares-for-surrender-on-debt-ceiling-and-shutdown

[flamingdem]

1. I'd hold off worrying until we see what this means

Basically it's just a bone that was thrown and could be dismissed as unrealistic.

Plus, it's better to know if one is in compliance or the stories we'll hear will be about people having to pay back subsidies.

This is something that needs to be worked out for ACA to function.

[PBass]

2. It's already part of the law.

Income verification is already a part of the ACA. This is a concession that's not a concession, it's just political theater.

[grantcart]

10. it has access to your returns.

For people who don't file they use payroll information from credit agencies.

[PBass]

13. Probably in similar ways that they already do, when

signing up for financial aid at college, or when people apply for food stamps, etc.

Lets not get paranoid about the federal government snooping into your income - they already do: it's called your tax return.

[BlueCaliDem]

16. Bingo! eom

[BainsBane]

23. Anyone making 12k received Medicaid free of charge

So you're getting screwed over by having free healthcare. Yeah, ACA really sucks.

[BainsBane]

27. It's not welfare, it's medical coverage under ACA

You want to die of disease, that's your problem. Other people don't need to die because of ignorance and ideological nuttiness.

[BainsBane]

36. Medicaid is the subsidy portion of ACA

Welfare is a program for families with dependent children. Food stamps are different. Most people receiving food stamps work for a living. You are angry that you are going to have trouble continuing to evade the law by working under the table, which by the way costs you more than it saves you. I don't feel much sympathy for your not being used to having medical coverage. This isn't just about you. It's about millions of Americans without access to healthcare, 25,000 of which die every year as a result.

[duffyduff]

38. Until the ACA, many poor people couldn't get Medicaid.

Medicaid, especially for older people, is NOT "free" because of something called "estate recovery." The government will come after your money when you die, so forget about leaving a nickle to your kids or other relatives or to charity.

[durablend]

39. Medicaid isn't even available to many

States that didn't expand it plus many where you have to be practically broke to qualify (and if you're single, tough luck anyway)

[duffyduff]

40. And that is absolutely true if you are in one of those states.

You have to go without insurance since the "exchanges" are totally unaffordable.

[displacedtexan]

22. AFAIK, the IRS was supposed to verify your income next April, anyway.

However, in their zeal to "limit spending," republicans have now authorized the IRS to do it now, which means adding to government spending, growing the number of federal workers to handle the new responsibilities, and keeping people who already have insurance from lying in order to get something for nothing.

Idiots.

[maddezmom]

29. Right...it was always going to be in there

[PBass]

6. Also, the IRS is already overloaded with work.

This is not going to unleash an army of auditors.

[cthulu2016]

14. Your true statement is operatively false

"Income verification is already a part of the ACA."

That statement is literally true, and completely side-ways to the question.

We are talking about income verification in addition to what currently exists in law.

Do you consider placing automatic red-light cameras to be mere political theater because it was already illegal to run red lights?

The OP is pretty easy to understand if you wish to, referring to the breadth of verification... verification of all versus enforcement by spot-checking.

[PBass]

30. It's a meaningless difference IMO, and your original post is full of baloney:

You said:

"Why should we have greater scrutiny of the taxes of the poorest people??? Mitt Romeny will not be seeking subsidies, y'know, and the IRS has better things to do than double-checking ALL low income people's tax returns."

That's some overheated rhetoric right there...

"double-checking" - No, not twice, just regular checking... once.

"greater scrutiny" - there are no varying levels of "scrutiny" - either they are checking you, or they aren't. Partial scrutiny doesn't exist.

"IRS has better things to do" - no, I would say this is appropriate. Play by the rules.

"low income people's tax returns" - I'm not low income, and I can't wait to sign up!

[magical thyme]

3. I just send a copy of my tax return to maintain my income-based student loan repayment

It's an extra copy and extra piece of mail on my part. Not a big deal, except that my income was so paltry that after one look at my return, they slashed my already slashed student loan payment to purely symbolic.

There are a number of ways income can be verified.

[TheDebbieDee]

5. Without Income Verification, applicants may get susidies to which

they are not entitled to. The IRS is too understaffed to go looking through people's returns.

Also, most returns are electronic and are processed by computer....

[Demo_Chris]

7. Nicely said, and very true. nt

[Pretzel_Warrior]

8. They are already doing income verification

This was a virtually meaningless demand.

[cthulu2016]

15. See #14

[JPZenger]

9. There is income verification for college financial aid that is not too burdensome

The system works well for federal college financial aid. They make everyone submit forms, and then want you to automatically link your IRS tax form with the financial aid form. If something doesn't seem right, they make you provide a second set of forms and information. It is much less burdensome then a full audit.

[BluegrassStateBlues]

11. Not a big deal and not worth a default.

Already part of the law.

Already have to do it for everything else.

[BluegrassStateBlues]

37. Glad to hear it created some jobs at the IRS...

There's probably a lot of unemployed Americans out there that could use the work.

[grantcart]

12. There is zero change.

Before they give you a subsidy they automatically check your tax return.


This is a meaningless step because FOX and other right wing groups have been alleging that you can game the system.


You can't.


It is nothing.

[BlueCaliDem]

21. The OP appears to believe

Fox "News" Channel and other right-wing groups' lies. Interesting.

*edited to remove poster's name.

[cthulu2016]

25. Take down that scurrilous attack, and go tell Chris Hedges what an idiot he is

Unlike yourself, I have no idea what Fox is saying.

I do, however, watch Chris Hayes and Rachel Maddow.

[BlueCaliDem]

28. I won't remove it, but I have edited it.

I stand by my post, but it is my opinion. Sorry if that bothers you.

[WilliamPitt]

17. It wa already in the law.

Just not implemented yet.

[pinboy3niner]

19. CNN reported that Senate Democrats put it in the bill

I guess that way it can be said that doesn't count as giving a concession to the GOP.

[ecstatic]

20. I understand your point, but I think income is automatically verified anyway

If a company submits a w2 or 1099 with your SSN, and the ACA submits something with your SSN and there is a major discrepancy (I don't think they bother with a couple hundred dollar differences), then their computers will likely generate some sort of flag.

One year I was completely out of it and submitted a return that left off several sources of income. A year later, I received an audit by mail, with estimated taxes due. It was scary, but I faced my fears and called them---and was actually shocked at how nice and helpful the IRS people were. They told me exactly what I had to do, and I had a CPA do an amended return. They accepted my updated 1040 and Schedule C with no further questions or taxes due.

[BainsBane]

24. I don't see how the program was ever going to go without income verification

since it is the IRS that monitors compliance.

[cthulu2016]

31. The question is the level of enforcement

On taxes the IRS uses spot checking to ensure compliance.

The proposal, as described by either Chris Hedges (or Rachel Maddow's Chris Hedges look-alike fill-in last night) is that rather than the spot-checking for compliance in current law, that all subsidy applications must be income verified by the IRS, rather than spot-checked for compliance.

And it introduces a higher level of enforcement for exchange subsidies than for income taxes owed by people too well off to be involved with subsidies... which makes little sense except in the Republican fantasy world where it is poor people ripping off the government.

And increased IRS enforcement of poverty programs, in specific, is odious to me. It's like drug-testing food stamp recipients. It is a mal-intended way to hassle poor people.

Key Question: Why else would it be considered a concession to Republicans?

[BainsBane]

32. Good points

Though it had also occurred to me it was something that sounded good they could tell their constituents, since facts are irrelevant to the Tea Party. But the Chis Hedges look-alike is probably right.

[HockeyMom]

33. I didn't have to verify Income for Medicare Part B

Is your total household income over $170,000? Nope. End of story. If the government has your SS number, they can verify your income from your tax returns. I just got my first 3 month bill and it is at the lower rate.

Edit. I applied online from the Medicare Site in August, got my card in September, and bill this week.