Let’s say the premium on your non-dependent kid is $100/month. The difference in FICA tax is then 7.65 (for your share) plus another 7.65 (for employer’s share that you don’t see on your pay stub anywhere). The difference to you in income tax varies based on your rate, but it would be 15.00 to 25.00 (15% or 25% tax bracket) for most middle-class families. So, when all taxes are added up to all parties, it’s a difference of 30-40% in taxes due to the federal government.
Of course, you also represent a fringe case that I’d have to research for the correct treatment. Most insurance plans don’t change the policy price for each additional kid; they just set one price for people with families. So if you do have dependent children covered already, then there’s no additional cost for the one who is not a dependent. Maybe in that particular case it won’t make a difference.
I retired in 2007 and receive insurance from where I worked. About 2 years ago I got a registered letter stating I had to prove my wife was really my wife and I had to send in her birth certificate, marriage certificate, and proof that she lived with me.
When I called in to the benefits department they did in fact tell me this had to do with the affordable Care Act. Whether it does or not is irrelevant. It is what they told me.
After I went through all that rigamarole then they got shitty with me about the 3 dependents who used to be on the policy. Where are they, why aren’t they on the plan any more, what plan are they on, yadda yadda yadda. Telling them all my kids are over 26 and none of them live at home anymore wasn’t good enough. They told me they’d suspend my coverage if I didn’t give documentation of where my former dependents had coverage. I had to go down personally and get in some peoples faces. I wasn’t alone. There were quite a few current and former employees there ready to bust some balls.
The law probably doesn’t require any of this. But all human relationships come down to power and when given some power some people really turn into assholes!
Wait a minute - you had to certify that those no longer on your plan had coverage elsewhere? I could see retroactively proving they had no coverage elsewhere when you were claiming them, but that is weird. Did they explain themselves?
I know people who enrolled their 20 something kids in Community College (very inexpensive) just to keep them covered. The kids never attended. I’m not sure if this qualifies as official fraud or not, but it is fraudish.
They insisted federal law required this as they needed to verify if I had qualifying dependents and seeing that I did but took them off they insisted I had to justify taking them off.:rolleyes:
I’m thinking they were just misguided over what the law requires. But they sure were shitty to everybody. :mad:
And after all, what legal right do I have to require my adult children to tell me who they have health insurance with? Was my former employer going to cut off my retirement benefits if my kids told me to pound sand?
Enough people must have bitched or someone who knew what they were doing took over or something. Because eventually everyone got letters saying that was no longer a requirement.