Crank Posted June 2, 2018 Report Share Posted June 2, 2018 https://www.dailysignal.com/2018/06/01/new-jersey-imposes-state-obamacare-style-individual-mandate/ Sheesh. Now the states are getting into the act. I believe Mass. has done the same thing. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Possi Posted June 2, 2018 Report Share Posted June 2, 2018 It would be a wonderful thing if we could get compensated for being the gatekeepers, wouldn't it? Just think of it. ChaChing! 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edsel Posted June 4, 2018 Report Share Posted June 4, 2018 Crank, do you have any information as to whether the NJ additional revenue will be used to shore up or perhaps subsidize medical insurance? The Federal tax penalty (plus the additional Investment and Compensation taxes that came with the ACA) went into the general fund. Absolutely nothing to help provide subsidize insurance to those whom they desperately claimed needed to buy it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Abby Normal Posted June 4, 2018 Report Share Posted June 4, 2018 I would hope the state calc of the penalty would be simpler than the federal one, but having prepared a few NJ returns, I'm not betting on it. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jklcpa Posted June 4, 2018 Report Share Posted June 4, 2018 Edsel and Abby Normal, here are some of the answers. I took the highlights below from a Politico article and pruned it down to try to eliminate the politics without changing facts. Quote New Jersey’s mandate is scheduled to take effect Jan. 1, 2019. In New Jersey, 92 percent of residents were insured in 2016, according to the U.S. Census. Massachusetts mandate took effect in 2006,and served as a model for the ACA. More than 97 percent of its residents were insured in 2016, the lowest percentage of people without health insurance in the country. Vermont's governor signed a bill last month that would establish an individual mandate with details to be determined during the 2019 legislative session and won’t go into effect until Jan. 1, 2020. New Jersey’s mandate mirrors the former federal requirement, includes an annual penalty of 2.5 percent of a household‘s income or a per-person charge — whichever is higher. The maximum penalty based on household income will be the average yearly premium of a bronze plan. If it’s based on a per-person charge, the maximum household penalty will be $2,085. A “hardship exception” for individuals who cannot afford coverage would be determined by state Treasurer Elizabeth Muoio. The state expects funds collected from penalties to fund a reinsurance program, which New Jersey's governor also signed into law. The cost estimate is based on amounts collected by the Internal Revenue Service from New Jersey residents who paid the penalty under the federal mandate. The reinsurance legislation, NJ S1878 (18R), will establish a program to help insurers cover the cost of the most expensive Obamacare patients. The state is counting on the federal government to cover around half the cost of the program. States can apply for what's known as a 1332 waiver to reallocate federal funds that otherwise would have gone toward Obamacare subsidies. The reinsurance program is supposed to reduce the average premium increase by 10 percent to 20 percent. Reinsurance efforts are underway in several states, including Minnesota, Alaska and Oregon, whose 1332 waivers were approved last year. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edsel Posted June 4, 2018 Report Share Posted June 4, 2018 Thanks Judy - interesting to know that the leadership in more states other than NJ believe the individual mandate is so wonderful that they will impose it after the Feds let people off the hook in 2019. The ACA is so politically explosive, it's hard to discuss it without getting into partisan politics. From your information above, however, I am amazed that it has been successful in covering 97% of people in Massachusetts with some kind of insurance, and wonder what differences exist such that the Federal version failed to do so. For what it's worth, I believe the Fortune 500 companies had a lot to do with the Federal law. Hard to discuss without getting political. Delete what you wish. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Catherine Posted June 4, 2018 Report Share Posted June 4, 2018 57 minutes ago, Edsel said: I am amazed that it has been successful in covering 97% of people in Massachusetts with some kind of insurance Simple. State-paid insurance for nearly anyone who applies. And vicious penalties for not having insurance pushing people to apply. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crank Posted June 5, 2018 Author Report Share Posted June 5, 2018 On 6/4/2018 at 9:58 AM, Abby Normal said: I would hope the state calc of the penalty would be simpler than the federal one, but having prepared a few NJ returns, I'm not betting on it. Exactly. If its anything like the federal a lot of people arent going to be very happy with the cost to prepare just their NJ state return not to mention the addition of a large penalty. If this catches on it would really add to the cost of a lot of states tax prep. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Catherine Posted June 5, 2018 Report Share Posted June 5, 2018 In MA, the state penalty interacts with the federal - that is, they subtract the federal penalty from the state and you pay whatever is left. Plus, unlike the aca, the MA state law is written that they CAN go after you for unpaid penalty (unlike the feds, who can just send letters but not lien or levy). Watch for those complications, too. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crank Posted June 6, 2018 Author Report Share Posted June 6, 2018 However, with the federal penalty gone as of 2019 the necessary calculations will need to be handled on the state return. Seems like it could be a lot more work for the state return. Also, could be possible that a lot of people wont realize that it will impact them on the state level thinking its been repealed. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TAXMAN Posted June 6, 2018 Report Share Posted June 6, 2018 Yes, you know that a lot of TP only hear what they want and a lot only read the first 8 words. I for see a problem with cash strapped states to follow. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.