Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: What if the Government told you that for safety's sake, you must purchase a gun? [View all]Zalatix
(8,994 posts)262. No, you just pay a penalty if you don't. Think I'm wrong? Then READ THE ACTUAL LAW.
Please, tell us that Cornell University is wrong. Please. The word PENALTY is listed seven times just in this part alone:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/5000A
26 USC 5000A (b) Shared responsibility payment
(1) In general
If a taxpayer who is an applicable individual, or an applicable individual for whom the taxpayer is liable under paragraph (3), fails to meet the requirement of subsection (a) for 1 or more months, then, except as provided in subsection (e), there is hereby imposed on the taxpayer a penalty with respect to such failures in the amount determined under subsection (c).
(2) Inclusion with return
Any penalty imposed by this section with respect to any month shall be included with a taxpayers return under chapter 1 for the taxable year which includes such month.
(3) Payment of penalty
If an individual with respect to whom a penalty is imposed by this section for any month
(A) is a dependent (as defined in section 152) of another taxpayer for the other taxpayers taxable year including such month, such other taxpayer shall be liable for such penalty, or
(B) files a joint return for the taxable year including such month, such individual and the spouse of such individual shall be jointly liable for such penalty.
(c) Amount of penalty ...
(1) In general
If a taxpayer who is an applicable individual, or an applicable individual for whom the taxpayer is liable under paragraph (3), fails to meet the requirement of subsection (a) for 1 or more months, then, except as provided in subsection (e), there is hereby imposed on the taxpayer a penalty with respect to such failures in the amount determined under subsection (c).
(2) Inclusion with return
Any penalty imposed by this section with respect to any month shall be included with a taxpayers return under chapter 1 for the taxable year which includes such month.
(3) Payment of penalty
If an individual with respect to whom a penalty is imposed by this section for any month
(A) is a dependent (as defined in section 152) of another taxpayer for the other taxpayers taxable year including such month, such other taxpayer shall be liable for such penalty, or
(B) files a joint return for the taxable year including such month, such individual and the spouse of such individual shall be jointly liable for such penalty.
(c) Amount of penalty ...
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
309 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
What if the Government told you that for safety's sake, you must purchase a gun? [View all]
Zalatix
Jun 2012
OP
No, you just pay a penalty if you don't. Think I'm wrong? Then READ THE ACTUAL LAW.
Zalatix
Jun 2012
#262
And that's the FIRST time ANYONE has EVER paid taxes on supporting something they don't get.
TheWraith
Jun 2012
#278
In this case, SCOTUS = Bader Ginsburg, Sotomayor, Kagan, Breyer, and the Chief Justice
frazzled
Jun 2012
#115
People are too caught up in the victory to consider the consequences
IndyPragmatist123
Jun 2012
#120
You're aware that the Canadian and UK systems have far more egregious mandates, right?
TheWraith
Jun 2012
#276
The folks making these kinds of arguments need to go to a libertarian or Republican board?
Zalatix
Jun 2012
#75
So opposing the individual mandate, which was conceived of by the Heritage Foundation
Zalatix
Jun 2012
#281
I am arguing based on facts. I cited my facts. You have no cites. Your logic is laughable.
Zalatix
Jun 2012
#287
You of course realize that the US did NOT use the Canadian or British model
nadinbrzezinski
Jun 2012
#289
And I can cut and paste my post, which unlike your incoherent ranting, has actual facts.
Zalatix
Jun 2012
#247
LOL YOU'RE the one who is taking a Supreme Court justice's decision as WORD OF GOD.
Zalatix
Jun 2012
#257
Well, we're all forced to buy road repairs--why aren't people crying about that?
MADem
Jun 2012
#228
It's not a dead horse. And I'm going to keep at it forever, until this law goes away.
Zalatix
Jun 2012
#42
Ah, the posts-per-day lame childish attack. Because you've got nothing productive to add.
Zalatix
Jun 2012
#143
Yes it is lame. Because you've got nothing productive to add. I should be ashamed, because WHY?
Zalatix
Jun 2012
#153
Backed into a corner, now you have to resolve to childish name calling. Way to go!
Zalatix
Jun 2012
#290
Right Wing trolls are the ones who are defending the Heritage Foundation's brainchild.
Zalatix
Jun 2012
#223
Democrats tore into Mitt Robbedme over passing a mandatory purchase law in Mass.
Zalatix
Jun 2012
#237
Edit: You don't have any logical argument so you resort to a childish attack on post counts.
Zalatix
Jun 2012
#238
Have you thought of this? X-ray technicians, medical insurance call centers...
Zalatix
Jun 2012
#110
I hope nursing schools open up, because they haven't had enough new openings up to now.
Zalatix
Jun 2012
#129
This ruling rained on my day, so yeah, I am making use of my right to express an opinion.
Zalatix
Jun 2012
#65
is hand-wringing a pre-existing condition? Seems to be a virus here on DU sometimes. n/t
progressivebydesign
Jun 2012
#70
Well said, treestar. If a problem affects others and not me then it shouldn't rain on my day.
Zalatix
Jun 2012
#95
Then why are you against other people joining in the pool and having insurance
treestar
Jun 2012
#128
unless you're willing to buy insurance for everyone in America, you could at least...
CreekDog
Jun 2012
#205
Ha! Really so you'd rather go back to the days of Bush where there was no hope?
LaurenG
Jun 2012
#309
I wasn't expecting you to celebrate the fulfillment of a Heritage Foundation dream.
Zalatix
Jun 2012
#191
Sorry you won't have a chance to vote for Rep. Bachmann for president this year
TroglodyteScholar
Jun 2012
#196
Why bother when the Heritage Foundation and RomneyCare 2.0 already conquered America?
Zalatix
Jun 2012
#197
If it happened in the past, it could happen in the future, regardless of today's events.
JoePhilly
Jun 2012
#155
I don't think you're the enemy. Mandatory purchases of private company goods is the enemy.
Zalatix
Jun 2012
#241
Do you think congress would be willing to levy taxes for this type of protection. nt
NCTraveler
Jun 2012
#20
Because if you do not have health insurance you make other people foot your medical bills.
Arkana
Jun 2012
#118
The tax for people who opt out of buying a gun would be less than the cost of a gun
slackmaster
Jun 2012
#23
There was a time when the fedeal government mandated every male of age own a gun.
GarroHorus
Jun 2012
#29
How about this, the government has already determined that you should save for retirement
hughee99
Jun 2012
#31
Some people keep saying the individual mandate is not all that easy to enforce.
Zalatix
Jun 2012
#283
Yeah, like when "the Government" told me "for safety's sake" we had to invade Iraq
KansDem
Jun 2012
#39
I would do my damndest to support the election of a Congress that would repeal such a law
onenote
Jun 2012
#40
Perhaps your post should have been "How can we get rid of insurance corporations?"
progressivebydesign
Jun 2012
#77
You do realize that mandatory purchases of health insurance is a RW dream, right?
Zalatix
Jun 2012
#187
Then why did DUers previously use mandatory gun purchase laws to justify this law?
Zalatix
Jun 2012
#84
But the funny part is that the very mandate they were citing, mandated GUN OWNERSHIP
Zalatix
Jun 2012
#98
In the beginning of the Spanish Civil War, that is practically what the Second Republic did
Taverner
Jun 2012
#94
Zalatix, get over it. You'll have another chance when Congress votes on it. nt
gateley
Jun 2012
#104
Exactly what does the Government make you purchase, just because you are breathing?
Zalatix
Jun 2012
#124
You do realize that mandatory purchases of health insurance is a RW dream, right?
Zalatix
Jun 2012
#190
Sure as long as I can buy guns of my choice from current military inventory at Government cost
KatChatter
Jun 2012
#119
To be more true to the analogy, if I were forced to buy a gun or pay a tax for police services....
Tommy_Carcetti
Jun 2012
#137
It's been done before. Kennesaw, GA passed a law requiring gun ownership while I lived there.
auburngrad82
Jun 2012
#156
A law signed by George Washington in 1792 did exactly that for all adult males.
ET Awful
Jun 2012
#176
No, it's a slippery slope argument that the ACA ruling will lead to it happening again
Hippo_Tron
Jun 2012
#212
I already have a gun, so I'm set. As for you, as long as I don't have to pay for your funeral or
Honeycombe8
Jun 2012
#182
Which I would also like to add that with this decision was mentioned something about the precedent
Zanzoobar
Jun 2012
#199
Or, the goverment could allow ER rooms to kick out sick and dying poor uninsured people.
Warren DeMontague
Jun 2012
#216
The government forces us all to buy guns and lots of other military paraphenalia
JDPriestly
Jun 2012
#227
What if the Government told you that for safety's sake, you must purchase a 50,000 BTU flamethrower?
baldguy
Jun 2012
#255
What if the government told you that you could buy 20 semi-automatic weapons every day?
kentuck
Jun 2012
#285
Your road to the day you will regret this individual mandate has already been paved.
Zalatix
Jun 2012
#301
I can't afford a gun, so the government should provide me with one for free
slackmaster
Jun 2012
#306