> Loss of the state tax exemption will result in a tax penalty of
> about $200 for anyone who files taxes in the state.
>
> The second year, the penalty will be half of the value of the
> lowest cost policy available to the individual (about $1050 for a
> 37 year old).
>
> At 11:38 PM 4/17/2007, you wrote:
>> hi - any comments on this? - Doug
>>
>> Begin forwarded message:
>>
>>> From: Michael Pollak <mpollak at panix.com>
>>> Date: April 17, 2007 11:24:07 PM EDT
>>> To: lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org
>>> Subject: Re: [lbo-talk] Massachusetts Tweaks Mandatory Health
>>> Insurance Law
>>> Reply-To: lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sat, 14 Apr 2007, Steven L. Robinson quoted an All Headline News
>>> service
>>> article:
>>>
>>>> Massachusetts Tweaks Mandatory Health Insurance Law After Defining
>>>> Affordable Premiums As Between 5 Percent To 10 Percent Of Income
>>>
>>> which was pretty good. The concluding paragraph succintly sums up
>>> what
>>> wrong with Mittcare:
>>>
>>>> According to a statement on its Web site, the group found that 46.1
>>>> percent of those earning up to 300 percent of the Federal Poverty
>>>> Line
>>>> would have to go into debt to afford even subsidized health
>>>> insurance. And
>>>> 39 percent of those earning from 300 percent to 500 percent of the
>>>> poverty
>>>> line could not afford premiums of $380 per month.
>>>
>>> But there was one thing that puzzled me: the penalties. The
>>> article says:
>>>
>>>> Any adult who is not exempted by law from having a policy who
>>>> fails to
>>>> purchase one will lose a $200 annual state tax exemption.
>>>
>>> Assuming people at this income level are in the 15% bracket, this
>>> sounds
>>> like we're talking about a $30 penalty. Which is unjust and unfair
>>> but kind
>>> of trivial as a negative incentive, no? And if they are adding a
>>> $200
>>> annual state tax exemption which these people specifically aren't
>>> getting,
>>> then it's no negative incentive at all.
>>>
>>> So on this reading, it's still a Potemkin plan, but its less
>>> draconian than
>>> I'd been led to believe. Am I misreading something?
>>>
>>> Michael
>>> ___________________________________
>>> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>
>