Chile Forum

Thanks the new health care bill, everyone receiving more than $600 needs to be given a 1099 form. In other words, if I go to Walmart and spend more than $600, I need to give them a 1099. If I sell a coin dealer more than $600 worth of coins, he's required to give me a 1099.

I know this sounds far fetched and our baord's doubting Thomas is going to call me out on this. No problem, check out :

http://money.cnn.com/2010/05/05/smallbu ... ax_change/

An all-but-overlooked provision of the health reform law is threatening to swamp U.S. businesses with a flood of new tax paperwork.

Section 9006 of the health care bill -- just a few lines buried in the 2,409-page document -- mandates that beginning in 2012 all companies will have to issue 1099 tax forms not just to contract workers but to any individual or corporation from which they buy more than $600 in goods or services in a tax year.

....

Bring it on bebe.

Can't wait for the system to self-destruct via it's own regs.

Ripsigg wrote:Thanks the new health care bill, everyone receiving more than $600 needs to be given a 1099 form. In other words, if I go to Walmart and spend more than $600, I need to give them a 1099. If I sell a coin dealer more than $600 worth of coins, he's required to give me a 1099.

I know this sounds far fetched and our baord's doubting Thomas is going to call me out on this. No problem, check out :

http://money.cnn.com/2010/05/05/smallbu ... ax_change/

An all-but-overlooked provision of the health reform law is threatening to swamp U.S. businesses with a flood of new tax paperwork.

Section 9006 of the health care bill -- just a few lines buried in the 2,409-page document -- mandates that beginning in 2012 all companies will have to issue 1099 tax forms not just to contract workers but to any individual or corporation from which they buy more than $600 in goods or services in a tax year.

....

Can you spell "kakistocracy"?

Rhymes with "idiocracy."

Yeah, at this rate it won't be long before we have to stamp every receipt with some kind of tax number.

Some pretty influential small-business organizations (eg NFIB, etc) are lobbying hard to get rid of this very important part of your government health care reform. Expect zero action until January, after the elections.

John Hyre

JHyre wrote:Some pretty influential small-business organizations (eg NFIB, etc) are lobbying hard to get rid of this very important part of your government health care reform. Expect zero action until January, after the elections.

John Hyre

Your self-control whilst swimming in a sea of sarcasm never ceases to amaze. Nor does the foolishness of the US government ever fail to discover new depths of idiocy and counterproductive measures.

patagoniax wrote:Your self-control whilst swimming in a sea of sarcasm never ceases to amaze. Nor does the foolishness of the US government ever fail to discover new depths of idiocy and counterproductive measures.

Yeah, otherwise I'd go nuts. Or nutser-er. As to government......who is the poster here who ends his posts with that old Mencken quote: Democracy is the proposition that the people should get what they want, good and hard. Pretty much sums it up....greed (take from others), laziness (let govt do the taking) and naivete (and this will not F up the whole world or have any negative impact on me). The toys change (from Phalanx to Nukes), but the monkey behind it all is the same, unchanging monkey. Too bad nobody reads history anymore.

End of rant. Have a nice day with your penguin friends.

John Hyre, Loves the Penguins from Madagascar

GJJIM wrote:Yeah, at this rate it won't be long before we have to stamp every receipt with some kind of tax number.

That is exactly what I was thinking. It's a gateway to have every single transaction reported to the IRS. It's also a gateway to a VAT.

Best "tax break" in America is a small business.

Ripsigg wrote:

GJJIM wrote:Yeah, at this rate it won't be long before we have to stamp every receipt with some kind of tax number.

That is exactly what I was thinking. It's a gateway to have every single transaction reported to the IRS. It's also a gateway to a VAT.

That's true, but I was also thinking that it's ironic for people living in Chile to complain about tax paperwork when the act of buying a 250 peso empanada gets you a written receipt stamped with the vendor's RUT.

GJJIM wrote:

Ripsigg wrote:

GJJIM wrote:Yeah, at this rate it won't be long before we have to stamp every receipt with some kind of tax number.

That is exactly what I was thinking. It's a gateway to have every single transaction reported to the IRS. It's also a gateway to a VAT.

That's true, but I was also thinking that it's ironic for people living in Chile to complain about tax paperwork when the act of buying a 250 peso empanada gets you a written receipt stamped with the vendor's RUT.

Except the proposed 1099 isn't disposible like the little chits we get here in Chile. A 1099 identifies both buyer and seller/service provider.

The kakistocracy has spoken.

Ripsigg wrote:Thanks the new health care bill, everyone receiving more than $600 needs to be given a 1099 form. In other words, if I go to Walmart and spend more than $600, I need to give them a 1099. If I sell a coin dealer more than $600 worth of coins, he's required to give me a 1099..

Companies will be required to issue 1099 to contractors or individuals who are PAID more than $600.00. Not people who BUY from companies. It is up from the previous amount required for issuing a 1099, but it does not mean if you (a person or a company) SPEND $600 or more at any given store that you have to issue a 1099. According to your understanding of the Article I would be having to sit down and print out 1099's for freaking car payments, pharmacies, electric companies, etc. The law lowers the amount...previously if I was PAID $1000 or more by a company for services rendered, I would have been issued a 1099. I would not have been then, nor under this law, required to issue one for spending money at a store or purchasing stuff.

Anyone else sense that there is some mistaken interpretation of the original post? No fan of gov. but the original post doesn't match the actual part of the bill that was quoted. I may (as usual) be missing something.