I think the intent is generally to add to the numbers of companies making large profits and not paying taxes.
The entire reason for the existence of the individual mandate is that there are individuals that would choose to forego coverage. By penalizing them for doing so, the hope is to provide some disincentive for foregoing health insurance and force them into the market.
I do not contend that it’s “most people”, but it is some non-zero number. I believe the number was 6.5 million in 2015.
Given: Uninsured people’s treatment is paid for by people who do have insurance.
Do you believe that it’s right that people who choose not to support their own health care should be able to make everyone else pay for it?
To use Velocity’s tactic of strawmanning others’ arguments…
Of course it’s unfair to attempt to create penalties for free riders. It is a slippery slope from the modest step from removing the health insurance mandate to the disastrous and radical policies of, say, making corporations pay any taxes at all.
But you know, for as many times as we have heard various conservatives argue for a flat tax in the name of fairness and efficiency, why hasn’t anyone suggested that corporate taxes move to a flat system? We could surely just pick a much reduced rate – I don’t know, maybe 10% would do it – and eliminate all those loopholes. Corporations could free themselves of lots of manpower needed to file complex returns. Everyone would win.
How is this proposal not a thing, I ask naively?
“Eat their babies!” said Tom, swiftly.
Yes, that makes the point much better!
This is an apples to oranges comparison. The reason most of those companies didn’t pay federal income taxes is because they had various prior year loss carryforwards and in some cases, valuation allowances that they were able to consume. Looking just at HP because it was mentioned a couple times for the 6 years between 2011 and 2016, the 2015 year you picked is the only year where they didn’t pay federal income taxes.. On cursory glance, it looks like the 2015 year exhausted their deferred tax assets so unless there are future losses, this wouldn’t really happen again.
This is different than when Intel paid no federal income taxes due to the treatment of non-cash compensation in the form of options. After FASB 123(r) was promulgated this curtailed that practice of deducting from income the value of stock even though no cash was paid. Those seem to be much more subject to abuse than a loss carryforward.
Well, I sure hoped there was a reason why $18 billion in profits shouldn’t be subject to a cent of taxes! Boy, do I have egg on my face!
ETA: but I think you could shorten that rationale to: “Corporations can pay for lobbyists to write loopholes into tax laws, and the little guy can’t.” We’d end up at the same place.
No, you are incorrect. Money will be taken from the middle class and given to the rich.
What this is doing is giving a small cut to the middle class- for a short time- which will have to be rapid by higher taxes on the middle class.
Say you and your Rich Uncle Bob both take out a credit advance on your credict cards, except his advance will be billed to you, for you to pay back.
This “Tax cut” is borrowed.
Only if you characterize things you don’t like as loopholes and things you do like as just and fair.
Loss carryforwards are in no way related to in kind wages or whatever else you’re trying to compare them too. That’s the point. You’ve also simplified the issue to an emotional one, and cherrypicked the year as well, but those are tangential to the idea that the issues you are comparing are not related beyond that they involve taxation.
Are you under the impression that I think it is fair that Donald Trump allegedly paid nothing in taxes for several years, just because the law provided him the means to do so?
Interesting to see considering something “just and fair” be dismissed as merely “liking” it. Is there no such thing as “just and fair”, then?
I don’t know what you think is fair and it’s not relevant to the point I’m making. The point I’m making is that comparing corporate taxation and specifically loss carryforwrads to the income tax paid by those earning less than $30K/year is an apples to oranges comparison. Whether loss carryforwards are a good or bad thing is independent of the amount of taxation on those earning less than $30K/year.
Let’s not be too hasty. For example, when we criticize countries for barbaric laws like cutting the hands off of thieves, but letting husbands murder cheating wives; we must pause to consider that these are apples-to-orange comparisons of different crimes.
nm wrong thread.
I’m deploring the implication that there really is no such thing as justice or fairness, that it’s merely what more people than another “like”.
I’m deploring the implication that there really is no such thing as justice or fairness, that it’s merely what more people than another happen to “like”. Maybe that’s an unfair understanding, but, given the juxtaposition, maybe it isn’t.
And here I thought whataboutism wasn’t a viable strategy. I see it’s applicability is wider than I previously thought.
I’d caveat that by saying the the healthy poor are better off without the mandate, as long as they can stay healthy.
The poor that are sick, or develop prexisting conditions during a lapse of coverage, are harmed when the mandate is removed - the mandate forces the young&healthy into the system to subsidize those with preexisting conditions. I don’t think its possible to cover pre-existing conditions on the individual market at a reasonable cost without a mandate of some form.
It’s not just the poor. The middle class and everyone else who has insurance are harmed by the policies set forth by people who think like HurricaneDitka. The poor and middle class who can no longer afford health insurance because of higher rates have their health care paid for by people who still have insurance – who now have to pay higher rates to cover the people who lost their insurance or decided a new quadrunner would be more fun than having a safety net.
It amazes me that so many people WANT to pay more money to pay for the health care of other people in the most inefficient way possible.