Mostly because it’s not about space policy: End the 1099 tyranny.
There are doubtless a lot of other horrific things in the health-care deform that we couldn’t find out about until (as Queen Nancy said) we passed it, but this is so far the most egregious, if one ignores the mandate itself on a constitutional basis. It’s not unconstitutional, thanks to the odious Sixteenth Amendment, but it’s economically devastating.
“The power to tax is the power to destroy.” I forgot who said that. Here the destruction is going nuclear. This will result in another Waco Texas type raid somewhere or something equally odious.
Even worse, some technology may make it feasible.
Zubrin has some of his facts wrong. The requirement does not apply to every purchase of $600 or more; credit card purchases are exempt. I doubt that Zubrin’s company pays every “hotel, gas station, airline” by check.
He is also wrong when he says that This bill will not bring the federal government any tax revenue. In fact, it’s estimated that it will bring in $17 billion.
Nearly every Democrat in the House and Senate voted for this law. You need to crucify them for it.
On September 14 Ben Nelson introduced a bill to raise the 1099 cutoff to $5,000, which would eliminate 90% of the reporting. He offset the projected loss of revenue by cutting oil and gas subsidies. Every Republican in the Senate voted against it. I suppose we should crucify them too?
it’s estimated that it will bring in $17 billion
By people like you Jim, that have demonstrated a profound ignorance of the relationship between tax rate and tax revenue.
Of course, this case falls under the burdensome regulations category. Only a person that has never operated a real business would think this is a good idea.
I will have to hire a person for $50,000 per year to do nothing but try to obtain and verify the information of such forms. That will cost the federal government $12,000 in lost taxes.
He gave specifics. Can you refute it?
knock, knock, knockin’ on stupid’s door
cut the effin spending idiot
@ken anthony: Robert Heinlein’s character Prof says it in _The Moon is a Harsh Mistress_. I don’t know if that is the source or if he is in turn quoting somebody else.
According to BrainyQuote, this is attributed to Daniel Webster:
“An unlimited power to tax involves, necessarily, the power to destroy. “
“Every Republican in the Senate voted against it.”
Right, moron. The Republicans instead supported Sen. Mike Johanns (R-Neb) amendment to repeal the 1099 requirement altogether.
the projected loss of revenue
Jeeezzz….. Like the projected loss of revenue when Ronald Reagan slashed taxes? Those projected losses, that resulted in tax revenues collected in 1988 being double what was collected in 1980?
But please, don’t let a little thing like historical fact get in the way of your leftist dogma.
My wife and I own a small rental house. Will we have to issue a 1099 for our property manager? How about to the mortgage company? We also pay property tax and insurance on that house. Will we have to issue 1099s to the local government and insurance company, too? We just replaced the carpet. If we did that when this stupid law takes effect, we’d have to issue a 1099 to the carpet company. The roof was damaged in a hailstorm this summer and we’re going to have the shingles replaced. We’d better hurry to get the job done this year or that’s another 1099.
They claim this new law will bring in an additional $17 billion in tax revenues but I suspect they pulled that number out of their ass. What they’re neglecting to account for is the compliance costs as Zubrin describes. That will likely overwhelm the additional revenue (if any) brought in by this 1099 monstrocity.
The Republicans instead supported Sen. Mike Johanns (R-Neb) amendment to repeal the 1099 requirement altogether.
And cut $17 billion from preventative health services for the poor.
To summarize: the Dems would rather keep preventative health services for the poor than get rid of the 1099 requirement. The GOP would rather keep oil and gas subsidies than get rid of the 1099 requirement. Both parties say they want to get rid of the 1099 requirement, they just can’t agree on something to give up in exchange.
Those projected losses, that resulted in tax revenues collected in 1988 being double what was collected in 1980?
Real, per-capita revenue only went up 19% over 8 years under Reagan. By comparison, in the 8 years before Reagan real per-capita revenue increased 24%, and under Clinton (who raised income tax rates rather than cutting them), it went up 41%.
In other words: Reagan cut tax rates, and his 8 years showed lower revenue growth than periods before and after him. But at least he did better than George W. Bush, who also cut tax rates and saw no real per-capita revenue growth.
JIm,
The reason that ‘real, per-capita revenues went up ‘only’ 19% over 8 years under Reagan’ largely because you ignore the 1981-1982 recession (a direct result of Volcker’s decision to wring inflation out of the system with a VERY tight money policy…necessary, but very painful) when you calculate overall growth. A similar distortion occurs when you look at GWB’s terms, and ignore that depressed growth (a result of the dot-com bust and 9/11) had macroeconomic impact outside of anything that Bush’s tax policies could have done. To suggest that Reagan’s economic policies (which resulted in wildly exuberant growth in the period from 1983-1987, with moderated but still quite pleasing growth in 1988) were anything other than far more successful than what came before (stagflation anyone?) is simply disingenous at best…
If the facts as stated by Zubrin are actually true, it is a horrible law, and I would favor candidates who opposed the law in the voting booth and with my campaign donations. It would certainly push me toward voting for Republicans. But I don’t see this is a Democrat vs Republican thing – I see this as common sense vs insanity, and as such I would hope this could get straightened out in the Democratic primaries.
When would the law take effect?
I will not respond to the troll …
I will not respond to the troll …
“The requirement does not apply to every purchase of $600 or more; credit card purchases are exempt. I doubt that Zubrin’s company pays every “hotel, gas station, airline” by check.”
Rand’s spam filter ate my longer comment although Jim’s stuff seems to make it through.
I think this only applies to purchasing on a “corporate” card, and if you have a small business, you may need to get one instead of paying out-of-pocket and saving-the-receipts-in-a-shoebox. So we may be overreacting to Jim, much as Jim could share his insight by saying, “Hey guys, the 1099 requirement may not be as big a deal as you think” rather than starting off by calling us “ignorant wingnuts” over every insight offered.
I have ignorant questions: Are corporate credit/debit card purchases exempt because the credit card companies will share their info with the IRS? Why are credit card companies different than the banks that handle checks? Why can’t a check be handled like a credit card purchase? In any case, this is a big deal for me — many of my suppliers won’t take credit cards.
Dag nabit, Rand, I can’t post on this topic without the stupid spam filter cutting me out!
Bob-1, I think that when both the buyer and seller are using the right kind of card, the issuer acts as a kind of transparent clearing house for the 1099 info.
You betcha that your (small) suppliers don’t take cards — there is a tithe that you need to pay, and it is adverse to small volume business.
Checks, on the other hand, can be written and cashed by anyone, without having to register your tax ID (I guess you do with the bank, but maybe the gummint isn’t prepared to handle the volume of all check transactions as defacto 1099’s).
Real, per-capita revenue only went up 19% over 8 years under Reagan.
Spin all you want Jim. You’ve just admitted that revenue went up went rates went down. Thanks for playing.
When would the law take effect?
Tax year 2012 (the 1099s will have to be filed by February 1, 2013). Unless 60 Senators can agree on another source of $17 billion before then.
You’ve just admitted that revenue went up went rates went down.
And when rates went up, or stayed steady, revenue went up much more. Rate cuts aren’t free.
Is there a severability clause in the Health Care Reform bill?
That is, if/when the individual mandate is found to be unconstitutional, will all of these other earmarks and unrelated pointless pork cheeks be spared, or will the entire law be null and void?
No, but it likely won’t matter. Earlier this year in Free Enterprise Fund v. Public Company Accounting Oversight Board the SCOTUS invalidated a provision of Sarbanes-Oxley without voiding the entire law. This means that the unconstitutional parts of Obamacare (individual mandate, no-doctor owned hospitals, violations of equal protection, etc.) can be struck down and the balance of the bill—spending and rationing—could remain in place.
Real, per-capita revenue only went up 19% over 8 years under Reagan.
So even though revenue receipts doubled, you’re pissed that people were left with more of their own money?
And when rates went up, or stayed steady, revenue went up much more. Rate cuts aren’t free.
The revenue went up in the 90’s in spite of the tax rate hikes, not because of. Clinton was LUCKY that the dot.com boom happened on his watch, unless you really think Al Gore invented the internet and Clinton deserves credit via osmosis. In which case you’re an even bigger idiot than I’ve previously thought.
So even though revenue receipts doubled, you’re pissed that people were left with more of their own money?
Change in revenue, and change in what people are left with, are not the inverses of each other. Under Clinton revenue grew dramatically, but people were left with more than before, because personal income grew even faster than revenue.
Under Clinton revenue grew dramatically
Again, not because of his tax policies but in spite of.
Rate cuts aren’t free
Like many unqualified absolute statements, this one is pure stupid. Try a thought experiment…
Taxes are 100%. They are cut to 10%. Does revenue go up or down?
“Communists read Lenin and Marx. Capitalists understand Lenin and Marx.”
Taxes are 100%. They are cut to 10%. Does revenue go up or down?
That would be an interesting question if taxes were 100%.
if taxes were 100%.
The ultimate leftist fantasy huh Jim?
That would be an interesting question if I knew how to spin a thought experiment with lying statistics by introducing outside variables.
FIFY.