Did a Banned Federal Study Show That Refugees Bring in More in Government Revenues Than They Cost?
One of the arguments made by the Trump administration for lowering the cap on the number of refugees allowed into the United States is that the costs of refugee resettlement outweigh its benefits. lowering Estimates vary on the total annual cost of processing and resettling refugees in the U.S., but a rough breakdown by the National Conference of State Legislatures put the total expenditures for accepting approximately 70,000 refugees in 2014 at $582 million.These cost estimates rarely attempt to take into account any economic benefits refugees might provide to the countries that take them in. According to a Facebook meme making the rounds since mid-2018, just such an analysis was undertaken by the Trump administration, but the results were suppressed because they undercut the official position:A recently leaked federal study found that refugees to America brought in $63 billion in government revenues than they cost in the last 10 years. Trump chief policy adviser Stephen Miller banned the release of the study, because it contradicts his claim that refugees are too costly. Pass it on!A leaked document fitting that description was indeed published by the New York Times in September 2017. It was an early draft of a report by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) detailing, at the president's request, the estimated long-term costs of the United States Refugee Admissions Program. The Times noted that:The internal study, which was completed in late July but never publicly released, found that refugees contributed an estimated $269.1 billion in revenues to all levels of government between 2005 and 2014 through the payment of federal, state and local taxes. Overall, this report estimated that the net fiscal impact of refugees was positive over the 10-year period, at $63 billion.All in all, the report said, the net fiscal impact of refugees over the 10-year period was positive, not negative, to the tune of $63 billion at all levels of government:The study concluded that refugees on average had a net fiscal impact "comparable" to that of the general population:The per capita annual net fiscal benefit was $2,205 for refugees and $1,848 for the general U.S. population, a difference not likely to be significant given margins of error and other limitations of this study. Expenditures for the general U.S. population were on average higher than expenditures for refugees, while revenues were more comparable.However, none of this information was contained in the final report delivered to the President, the Times reported, noting that some of the refugee program's proponents believed the results of the study were "suppressed" internally. Administration officials characterized those results as illegitimate:This leak was delivered by someone with an ideological agenda, not someone looking at hard data, said Raj Shah, a White House spokesman. The actual report pursuant to the presidential memorandum shows that refugees with few skills coming from war-torn countries take more government benefits from the Department of Health and Human Services than the average population, and are not a net benefit to the U.S. economy.John Graham, the acting assistant secretary for planning and evaluation at the health department, said: We do not comment on allegedly leaked documents and that no report had been finalized. He noted that Mr. Trumps memorandum seeks an analysis related to the cost of refugee programs. Therefore, the only analysis in the scope of H.H.S.s response to the memo would be on refugee-related expenditures from data within H.H.S. programs.The three-page report the agency ultimately submitted, dated Sept. 5, does just that, using government data to compare the costs of refugees to Americans and making no mention of revenues contributed by refugees.The Times also said that according to White House sources, Trump adviser Stephen Miller, who is reputed to be the chief architect of the administration's immigration policies, "personally intervened" to ensure that only the costs of admitting refugees, and not the fiscal benefits thereof, were enumerated in the final report. (According to the New Yorker, the White House denied that Miller was involved in producing the report.)The Facebook meme is largely accurate, then, although it somewhat mischaracterizes what became of the original draft report. It wasn't "banned" from release, in that it doesn't appear the report was ever intended to be made public. It was allegedly suppressed, however, in that it never reached President Trump's desk, and all discussion of the fiscal benefits of admitting refugees into the United States was excised from the final document.  Estimates vary on the total annual cost of processing and resettling refugees in the U.S., but a rough breakdown by the National Conference of State Legislatures put the total expenditures for accepting approximately 70,000 refugees in 2014 at $582 million. breakdown These cost estimates rarely attempt to take into account any economic benefits refugees might provide to the countries that take them in. According to a Facebook meme making the rounds since mid-2018, just such an analysis was undertaken by the Trump administration, but the results were suppressed because they undercut the official position: A recently leaked federal study found that refugees to America brought in $63 billion in government revenues than they cost in the last 10 years. Trump chief policy adviser Stephen Miller banned the release of the study, because it contradicts his claim that refugees are too costly. Pass it on!   A leaked document fitting that description was indeed published by the New York Times in September 2017. It was an early draft of a report by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) detailing, at the president's request, the estimated long-term costs of the United States Refugee Admissions Program. The Times noted that: document The internal study, which was completed in late July but never publicly released, found that refugees contributed an estimated $269.1 billion in revenues to all levels of government between 2005 and 2014 through the payment of federal, state and local taxes. Overall, this report estimated that the net fiscal impact of refugees was positive over the 10-year period, at $63 billion. All in all, the report said, the net fiscal impact of refugees over the 10-year period was positive, not negative, to the tune of $63 billion at all levels of government:  The study concluded that refugees on average had a net fiscal impact "comparable" to that of the general population: The per capita annual net fiscal benefit was $2,205 for refugees and $1,848 for the general U.S. population, a difference not likely to be significant given margins of error and other limitations of this study. Expenditures for the general U.S. population were on average higher than expenditures for refugees, while revenues were more comparable. However, none of this information was contained in the final report delivered to the President, the Times reported, noting that some of the refugee program's proponents believed the results of the study were "suppressed" internally. Administration officials characterized those results as illegitimate: This leak was delivered by someone with an ideological agenda, not someone looking at hard data, said Raj Shah, a White House spokesman. The actual report pursuant to the presidential memorandum shows that refugees with few skills coming from war-torn countries take more government benefits from the Department of Health and Human Services than the average population, and are not a net benefit to the U.S. economy. John Graham, the acting assistant secretary for planning and evaluation at the health department, said: We do not comment on allegedly leaked documents and that no report had been finalized. He noted that Mr. Trumps memorandum seeks an analysis related to the cost of refugee programs. Therefore, the only analysis in the scope of H.H.S.s response to the memo would be on refugee-related expenditures from data within H.H.S. programs. The three-page report the agency ultimately submitted, dated Sept. 5, does just that, using government data to compare the costs of refugees to Americans and making no mention of revenues contributed by refugees. The Times also said that according to White House sources, Trump adviser Stephen Miller, who is reputed to be the chief architect of the administration's immigration policies, "personally intervened" to ensure that only the costs of admitting refugees, and not the fiscal benefits thereof, were enumerated in the final report. (According to the New Yorker, the White House denied that Miller was involved in producing the report.) denied The Facebook meme is largely accurate, then, although it somewhat mischaracterizes what became of the original draft report. It wasn't "banned" from release, in that it doesn't appear the report was ever intended to be made public. It was allegedly suppressed, however, in that it never reached President Trump's desk, and all discussion of the fiscal benefits of admitting refugees into the United States was excised from the final document. Blitzer, Jonathan.  "How Stephen Miller Single-Handedly Got the U.S. to Accept Fewer Refugees."
  The New Yorker.  13 October 2017. Davis, Julie Hirschfeld.  "Trump to Cap Refugees Allowed into U.S. at 30,000, a Record Low."
  The New York Times.  17 September 2018. Davis, Julie Hirschfeld and Somini Sengupta.  "Trump Administration Rejects Study Showing Positive Impact of Refugees."
  The New York Times.  18 September 2017. Phillips, Amber.  "Here's How Much the United States Spends on Refugees."
  The Washington Post.  20 November 2015. The New York Times.  "Rejected Report Shows Revenue Brought in by Refugees."
  19 September 2017.
Claim:  Yahoo! will begin charging for its previously-free POP e-mail service in April 2002. Status:  True. Example:  [Collected on the Internet, 2002] I have just read and signed the online petition: "Petition to request  that Yahoo Inc reconsider their decision to charge fees for pop mail, groups, and homepages" hosted on the web by PetitionOnline.com, the free online petition service, at: https://www.PetitionOnline.com/11213/ https://www.PetitionOnline.com/11213/ I personally agree with what this petition says, and I think you might agree, too.  If you can spare a moment, please take a look, and consider signing yourself as it looks that Yahoo is going to try charging money for email addresses, yahoo groups and other things they currently offer for free. If you are against it, please take the time like I did to sign the petition. Origins:  In mid-March 2002, those who had been availing themselves of Yahoo!'s free POP mail service received a shock in their inboxes, an announcement from the company that as of 24 April 2002 those previously-free services would continue to be available only to those willing to pay for them. Beginning April 24, Yahoo! will charge $29.99 a year for this feature.  Those who sign up before that date can secure continuation of this service for $19.99 per annum. Before anyone becomes overly confused on this point, remember that we're talking strictly about POP (Post Office Protocol) e-mail accounts (a protocol that allows desktop e-mail clients such as Eudora and Microsoft Outlook to download mail messages from  host systems to users' PCs ).  Non-POP e-mail accounts  those accessed by reading e-mail from Yahoo! via a web browser  will still be  free. Advertising income on the Internet fell dramatically in 2001. Previously, Yahoo! could afford to offer its POP mail services free of charge because the revenue needed to support it was coming from the sale of ads displayed on its site.  Since that revenue has dropped due to the tech wreck of 2000-2001, Yahoo! has chosen to begin charging users for some of the more expensive-to-support features. The monies needed to pay for them have to come from somewhere, and if the ad revenue no longer supports them, then individual users must. Although signing an e-petition decrying this state of affairs might make someone momentarily feel a bit better, such action is highly unlikely to alter Yahoo!'s plans. All the e-signatures in the world won't pay the bills for Yahoo!, and that is the overriding factor. Customers always retain the option of "voting with their feet" by taking their business elsewhere, but you have to wonder at how "unfair" the decried treatment is when it amounts to someone's no longer providing something for free. As much as we like to have free stuff, we don't have an inherent right to it. Those who choose to rely upon free services should always keep firmly in mind the possibility that these services may someday go away. The incitement to sign the e-petition asserts that Yahoo! will be charging user fees for POP mail, groups, and homepages. That's only partially true. Although POP mail will be available only to those willing to pay a couple of bucks a month for it after April 24, there do not appear to be immediate plans in the works to institute across-the-board user charges for Yahoo!-based groups or homepages that will turn them into "pay for it or lose it" propositions. However, in the case of free GeoCities web sites that is a distinction without a difference, because Yahoo! has already gutted the free version of this service. Yahoo! has announced that by early April it will no longer support FTP (file transfer protocol) to its unpaid GeoCities subscribers. Without FTP capability, users cannot move HTML files to or from their web sites on their own; they have to maintain their web sites through Yahoo!'s advertising-laden forms. Those determined to host their personal web pages on GeoCities will have to become paid subscribers and cough up $4.95 a month to get that vital FTP capability back. (They'll also get extra storage and ad-free page display for their money, though.) Those who do not wish to pay the $4.95 a month fee can still keep their pages there, but they won't be able to use FTP to maintain them. As for Yahoo!'s discussion groups, if there are plans afoot to begin charging for them, no mention of this is showing up in any of Yahoo!'s statements or in news articles detailing changes to Yahoo!'s services. We suspect this claim might have been tossed in to incite a larger number of folks to support the petition. Last updated:  5 January 2008    Sources:   Mangalindan, Mylene.  "Yahoo Will Charge Users a Yearly Fee for E-Mail Feature."   The Wall Street Journal.  22 March 2002  (p. B5).     Bloomberg News.  "Yahoo to Charge E-Mail Forwarding Fee."   Ventura County Star.  26 March 2002  (p. D2). In May 2016, syndicated talk radio host Sean Hannity aired an item claiming that Donald Trump had sent a plane to give 200 stranded U.S. marines a much-needed ride home after Operation Desert Storm in 1991: item When Corporal Ryan Stickney and 200 of his fellow Marines prepared to return to their families after Operation Desert Storm in 1991, a logistics error forced them to turn to a surprising source for a ride home: Donald J. Trump. Today, Stickney would like to say "thank you." Stickney (left), was a squad leader in a TOW company of a Marine reserve unit based in Miami, FL and spent approximately six months in Saudi Arabia during the Gulf War between 1990 and 1991. Upon his units return to the United States, the former Marine says the group spent several weeks decompressing at Camp Lejeune in North Carolina before heading back to Miami. Stickney recalls being told that a mistake had been made within the logistics unit and that an aircraft wasnt available to take the Marines home on their scheduled departure date. This  according to Stickney  is where Donald Trump comes in. "The way the story was told to us was that Mr. Trump found out about it and sent the airline down to take care of us. And thats all we knew ... I remember asking 'Who is Donald Trump?' I truly didn't know anything about him," the former Marine said. Corporal Stickney snapped a photo to remember the day by:   The story came up several times during the course of the 2016 presidential campaign (Cpl. Stickney even told it in person at a Trump rally), but skeptics questioned its validity despite a statement from the Trump campaign allegedly confirming it: "The Trump campaign has confirmed to Hannity.com that Mr. Trump did indeed send his plane to make two trips from North Carolina to Miami, Florida to transport over 200 Gulf War Marines back home. No further details were provided." told confirming The few details we do have about Trump's alleged participation don't, in fact, add up. We can confirm, based on military records, that the 209-member Anti-Tank (TOW) Company, part of the 8th Tank Battalion for Operation Desert Shield, deployed to Camp LeJeune, North Carolina, from their home base in Miami on 26 November 1990. And we can confirm that the company deployed from Camp LeJeune to Saudi Arabia on 22 December, served throughout the combat phase of Operation Desert Storm (from 17 January to 28 February 1991), and returned to North Carolina in April. A command chronology of the deployment notes that a "Cpl. Stickey" was among those receiving certificates of commendation. deployed command chronology We can also confirm, via a 23 April 1991 article from the Sun-Sentinel, that a series of flight delays stalled the company's homecoming to Miami on 22 April, but that they finally did arrive home after split across two separate flights. Stickney's photograph shows that he arrived on a plane marked "Trump," but it also proves something else: that even if Trump did send the plane, it wasn't his private jet. article That Trump didn't send the pictured plane at all was something noted by a sharp-eyed reader, who wrote to us to note: First, thats not Trumps private 727 jet; its one of the jets in the Trump Shuttle fleet. I wondered if maybe Trumps jet back in those days was painted differently, so I researched his private jet as of April 1991. I found that Trump was deep in the red, financially, and having to liquidate assets, one of which was his personal 727. The sale of that jet was finalized in the first week of May 1991, making it highly unlikely he was also flying reservists around while discussing the sale at the end of April. jet Shuttle The markings of the plane in Stickney's photo match those of the Trump Shuttle fleet, so the question becomes: Did Trump himself send a Trump Shuttle to retrieve the stranded Marines, or was it procured some other way? To arrive at an answer, it's necessary to go into a bit of the history of Trump Shuttle. A July 2015 article in NYC Aviation detailed Trump's short-lived airline industry involvement, beginning with an entirely separate carrier, Eastern Air Shuttle, which he immediately rebranded with his own name: article carrier rebranded CEO Frank Lorenzo ... began selling off assets including the prized Shuttle operation. Donald Trump placed a winning bid for the Shuttle, its aircraft and landing slots at LaGuardia and National for $380 million dollars that was financed through no less than 22 banks. The newly branded Trump Shuttle took the skies on June 7, 1989. Timing is everything in business, and unfortunately for Trump he entered the airline game at the wrong time. The US entered an economic recession in the late-80s leading many corporations to cut back on business travel. In addition, tensions in the Middle East leading up to the first Gulf war caused oil prices to spike. This 1-2 punch was devastating for the airline industry and led to the demise of a number of airlines including Eastern and Pan Am. Given these circumstances, the Trump Shuttle lost money, and with Trump continuing to accumulate debt in his other ventures it was becoming increasingly difficult to pay back the loans taken to purchase the airline. In September of 1990 Trump defaulted on his loan and control of the airline went back to the banks led by Citibank. Given that the bankers, not Donald Trump, owned Trump Shuttle from September 1990 until it was sold to U.S. Air in 1996, Trump wasn't in a position to send the planes anywhere, much less on a spur-of-the-moment Marine transport mission. So who did? As it turns out, the U.S. military itself chartered the flights -- a common practice in the day, according to an 11 August 2016 report by The Washington Post: Lt. Gen. Vernon J. Kondra, now retired, was in charge of all military airlift operations. He said that relying on commercial carriers freed up the military cargo aircraft for equipment transport. Vernon J. Kondra Kondra's notes on the flight are declassified and available online and show a contract for Trump Shuttle to "move troops in [the] continental United States" during the 1990-91 timeframe: online There are several references to a 1990-91 contract for Trump Shuttle to carry personnel across the United States, between the East and West Coasts, on a standard LaGuardia-Dover-Charleston-Travis-Chord-Kelly-Dover-LaGuardia run.   "It worked very well, and the crews loved it, and really thought that we'd done something special for them," Kondra recalled in the oral history. "It was a helluva lot better than using 141s [cargo craft], which we could use for something else." But Kondra said that the notion that Trump personally arranged to help the stranded soldiers made little sense. "I certainly was not aware of that. It does not sound reasonable that it would happen like that. It would not fit in with how we did business. I don't even know of how he would have known there was a need." So the real story underlying the claim that Donald Trump personally sent his jet to pick up stranded soldiers and return them to the U.S. is that the military paid to charter a plane from an airline Trump no longer owned in order to bring those service personnel home. Kessler, Glenn.  "Too Good to Check: Sean Hannitys Tale of a Trump Rescue."
  The Washington Post.  11 August 2016. Reed, Ted.  "Trump: I Ran a Great Airline."
  The Globe and Mail.  26 September 2011. Rodriguez-Florido, Lourdes.  "Grand Homecoming Welcomes War-Weary Marine Reservists Company Looks Forward to Settling Into Life's Regular Routines."
  Sun-Sentinel.  23 April 1991. CNN.  "Inside Donald Trump's Private Jet."
  10 November 2009. GulfLINK.  "8th Tank BN Command Chronology 8th Nov 90 to March 91."
  12 April 1991. In October 2018, social media users shared a meme posted by the liberal Facebook page Occupy Democrats reporting a series of events involving Gulf states were the result of President Donald Trump and his son-in-law and adviser Jared Kushner "using American foreign policy to enrich themselves":   Although the sequence of events referenced in the meme is described accurately according to reputable news reports, the motives, connections, and causality the meme ascribes to those events have not been proved. It is true that Jared Kushner, who is married to President Trump's eldest daughter Ivanka, was in need of over a billion dollars to cover the mortgage on 666 Fifth Avenue, a 41-story Manhattan building he purchased for $1.8 billion in 2007, as the New Yorker reported on 2 March 2018: reported Kushner Companies co-owns 666 Fifth Avenue with another developer, Vornado Realty. In 2007, at Jared Kushners urging, the company paid $1.8 billion for the building -- at the time, the highest price ever paid for a New York office tower. The property occupies a prime spot between Fifty-second and Fifty-third streets, but it was built in 1957 and needed extensive upgrades. It still has many vacancies, and the $1.2 billion mortgage, which reportedly has ballooned to almost $1.5 billion, is due in February, 2019. Right now, it is not entirely clear whether Kushner Companies is in a position to repay or refinance the loan. The company hoped to knock the building down and put up another, twice as tall and far more luxurious, in its place, Bloomberg reported. It sought funds from investors in Saudi Arabia, Qatar, China, South Korea, Israel and France. No investors were announced for the plan, described by many as prohibitively expensive. That same day, The Intercept reported that in April 2017, Kushner's father Charles, who runs the family's real estate firm Kushner Companies, had made a direct appeal for financing to Qatari Finance Minister Ali Sharif Al Emadi, which was followed shortly afterwards by the Saudi-led blockade of Qatar: reported The 30-minute meeting, according to two sources in the financial industry who asked not to be named because of the sensitivity of the potential transaction, included aides to both parties, and was held at a suite at the St. Regis Hotel in New York. A follow-up meeting was held the next day in a glass-walled conference room at the Kushner property itself, though Al Emadi did not attend the second gathering in person. The failure to broker the deal would be followed only a month later by a Middle Eastern diplomatic row in which Jared Kushner provided critical support to Qatars neighbors. Led by Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, a group of Middle Eastern countries, with Kushners backing, led a diplomatic assault that culminated in a blockade of Qatar. Kushner, according to reports at the time, subsequently undermined efforts by Secretary of State Rex Tillerson to bring an end to the standoff. Middle Eastern diplomatic row subsequently undermined In May 2017, Qatar's Gulf neighbors commenced a blockade of that country, and within days President Trump tweeted his support of the blockage despite the fact that Qatar is home to Al Udeid Air Base, a key U.S. military installation: commenced tweeted During my recent trip to the Middle East I stated that there can no longer be funding of Radical Ideology. Leaders pointed to Qatar - look!  Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 6, 2017 June 6, 2017  In May 2018, the New York Times reported that the Kushner family was close to reaching a bailout deal for 666 Fifth Avenue with a company possessing Qatari government ties: reported Charles Kushner, head of the Kushner Companies, is in advanced talks with Brookfield Asset Management over a partnership to take control of the 41-story aluminum-clad tower in Midtown Manhattan, 666 Fifth Avenue, according to two real estate executives who have been briefed on the pending deal but were not authorized to discuss it. Brookfield is a publicly traded company, and its real estate arm, Brookfield Property Partners, is partly owned by the Qatari government, through the Qatar Investment Authority. And, the Trump administration around that time reversed course with Secretary of State Mike Pompeo telling the Saudis in April 2018 that it was time to end the blockade against Qatar. telling It's likely the meme gained momentum on social media in October 2018 due to scrutiny over Kushner and Trump's relationship with Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman in light of the gruesome murder of Jamal Kashoggi.  scrutiny Kashoggi, a Saudi national and columnist for the Washington Post, went missing on 2 October 2018 after entering the Saudi consulate in Istanbul seeking documents he needed to get married. According to reports citing Turkish government and U.S. intelligence sources, the Virginia resident never left the consulate, where he was ambushed by Saudi agents, tortured and murdered, and his body dismembered. ambushed Trump has resisted calls by U.S. lawmakers to impose sanctions on Saudi Arabia in retaliation for the journalist's apparent death, comparing global condemnation of the Gulf kingdom to accusations of sexual misconduct leveled against U.S. Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh. Trump told the Associated Press: "Here we go again with, you know, you're guilty until proven innocent. I don't like that. We just went through that with Justice Kavanaugh and he was innocent all the way as far as I'm concerned." calls told Cassidy, John.  "Jared Kushners Conflicts of Interest Reach a Crisis Point."
  The New Yorker.  2 March 2018. Swisher, Clayton and Ryan Grim.  "Jared Kushner's Real Estate Firm Sought Money Directly from Qatar Government Weeks Before Blockade."
  The Intercept.  2 March 2018. Bagli, Charles V. and Jesse Drucker.  "Kushners Near Deal with Qatar-Linked Company for Troubled Tower."
  The New York Times.  17 May 2018. Kirkpatrick, David D. and Carlotta Gall.  "Audio Offers Gruesome Details of Jamal Khashoggi Killing, Turkish Official Says."
  The New York Times.  17 October 2018. Sometimes, the circulation of misinformation revives interest in separate, similar, but still inaccurate claims. Thisappeared to be the case with a March 2016 internet rumor alleging that the Food and Drug Administration classified walnuts as drugs. In February and March 2016, the FDA was already the subject of rumors that the agency "outlawed"cannabidiol (CBD) oils. Almost immediately, rumors began to surfaceon social media that walnuts had also recently fallen prey to preposterous reclassification by the FDA. outlawed While the rumors weren't new, interest in whether walnuts were drugs spiked in March 2016. Many social media users linked to a RealFarmacy itemfrom2013. On 23 March 2016, the Facebook page "Living Traditionally" sharedthe 2013 article as if its claims were new: item shared    The 2013 article claimed thatFDA sent letters to walnut distributor Diamond Foods deeming that their "walnut products [were] drugs": Seen any walnuts in your medicine cabinet lately? According to the Food and Drug Administration, that is precisely where you should find them. Because Diamond Foods made truthful claims about the health benefits of consuming walnuts that the FDA didnt approve, it sent the company a letter declaring, Your walnut products are drugs  and new drugs at that  and, therefore, they may not legally be marketed  in the United States without an approved new drug application. The agency even threatened Diamond with seizure if it failed to comply. RealFarmacy alsoclaimedthat manufacturers' First Amendment rights were being infringed by the FDA's regulation of unsubstantiated health claims: Of course, if the Constitution were being followed as intended, none of this would be necessary. The FDA would not exist; but if it did, as a creation of Congress it would have no power to censor any speech whatsoever. If companies are making false claims about their products, the market will quickly punish them for it, and genuine fraud can be handled through the courts. In the absence of a government agency supposedly guaranteeing the safety of their food and drugs and the truthfulness of producers claims, consumers would become more discerning, as indeed they already are becoming despite the FDAs attempts to prevent the dissemination of scientific research. Besides, as [another blog]observed, If anyone still thinks that federal agencies like the FDA protect the public, this proclamation that healthy foods are illegal drugs exposes the governments sordid charade. The site linked to a letter publicly shared on the FDA's website, which wasalready several years old by the time the 2013 article was published,and whichplainly indicated that itsaction was due to health claimsmadeabout walnuts in labeling and marketing: letter The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has reviewed the label for your "Diamond of California Shelled Walnuts" products and your website at www.diamondnuts.com. Based on our review, we have concluded that your walnut products are in violation of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the Act) and the applicable regulations in Title 21, Code of Federal Regulations (21 CFR) ... Based on claims made on your firm's website, we have determined that your walnut products are promoted for conditions that cause them to be drugs because these products are intended for use in the prevention, mitigation, and treatment of disease. The following are examples of the claims made on your firm's website under the heading of a web page stating "OMEGA-3s ... Every time you munch a few walnuts, you're doing your body a big favor.": "Studies indicate that the omega-3 fatty acids found in walnuts may help lower cholesterol; protect against heart disease, stroke and some cancers; ease arthritis and other inflammatory diseases; and even fight depression and other mental illnesses." "[I]n treating major depression, for example, omega-3s seem to work by making it easier for brain cell receptors to process mood-related signals from neighboring neurons." No part of the letter said (or even implied)that walnuts had been subjected to a sweeping reclassificationasdrugs, and inthe ensuing six years, no one was arrested for or charged with possession of walnuts with intent to distribute. Additionally,the FDA didn't ban, regulate, or demand withdrawal of Diamond Foods' walnuts, or any other, from the market, but did go after the company for unauthorizedhealth claims: The back of your product label also bears the following statement: "The omega-3 in walnuts can help you get the proper balance of fatty acids your body needs for promoting and maintaining heart health. In fact, according to the Food and Drug Administration, supportive but not conclusive research shows that eating 1.5 oz of walnuts per day, as part of a low saturated fat and low cholesterol diet, and not resulting in increased caloric intake, may reduce the risk of coronary heart disease. Please refer to nutrition information for fat content and other details about the nutritional profile of walnuts." Although FDA exercises enforcement discretion over the last two sentences of this statement, which meet the criteria for a qualified health claim for walnuts and coronary heart disease, the last two sentences read in conjunction with the first sentence makes the entire statement an unauthorized health claim. The statement suggests that the evidence supporting a relationship between walnuts and coronary heart disease is related to the omega-3 fatty acid content of walnuts. There is not sufficient evidence to identify a biologically active substance in walnuts that reduces the risk of CHD. Therefore, the above statement is an unauthorized health claim. This letter is not intended to be an inclusive review of your products and their labeling. It is your responsibility to ensure that all of your products comply with the Act and its implementing regulations. As with claims that CBD oils wereoutlawed, blogs and Facebook pages spreading rumors that walnuts had been reclassified as drugs either didn't read or misrepresented the FDA's warning letters. In both instances, manufacturers were warned about use of marketing and labeling language that warranted classification of the products in question as drugs, primarily pertaining to suggestion that the substances or foods were "intended to diagnose, treat, cure, or preventanycondition." Thewarnings werespecifically due an "unauthorized health claim," and products that arenot classified as drugs by the FDA are not legally allowed tomake such claims. However, the letters in no way indicated that walnuts had been classified as drugs. Prior dubious itemsfromRealFarmacyincludedclaims that science disproved a link between sun exposure and skin cancer, and another baselessly accusing unspecifiedpro-GMObioterrorists of sabotaging Chipotle's productsupply with foodborne pathogens. skin cancer bioterrorists In the rallies against North Carolinas new LGBT law, commonly known as HB2, protesters have represented not just gay and transgender activists. Also present Monday for the rallies outside the legislature were Latino activists and supporters of the Black Lives Matter and Rise Up for $15 movements. The law doesnt just ban transgender people from using the bathroom of the gender they identify with. It also bans local governments  cities and counties  from raising the minimum wage that businesses within their boundaries would have to pay workers. Rev. William Barber, president of the N.C. NAACP, said the crowds of protesters were more diverse than just LGBT activists because of the wage issue. And in a speech just days before Mondays protests, he said the bathroom issue was actually a Trojan Horse, of sorts, for what he deems the real intent of the law  stopping cities from raising the minimum wage, as such cities as Seattle and Los Angeles have recently done. Eighty percent of North Carolinians are for the living wage, Barber said. So if North Carolina's legislature and the governor had just put on the table a straight bill to make a prohibition against living wages, they would have been going against 80 percent of North Carolinians. A higher minimum wage is often opposed by Republican politicians. But if Barber was right, a higher minimum wage is a true bipartisan issue  something that 4 out of 5 people support in a state where 4 out of 10 are Democrats. What is a living wage? Polling on this issue is all over the place. There are many ways to ask the question. Some polls give a specific number they test for approval; some let the respondents choose a number; some simply ask whether the minimum wage should be higher; some ask who should have the power to make that decision. But first, perhaps we should define living wage, the phrase Barber used in place of higher minimum wage. Its not just a political catchphrase; there are actual ways of calculating it. In 2004, an MIT professor of economic geography and regional planning created what she called the Living Wage Calculator. Accounting for location-specific factors such as the cost of food, childcare, housing, transportation and taxes, the tool determines the living wage as well as poverty wage for states, counties and metro areas. It gives numbers in both wage categories for single adults or couples, and households with zero to three children. It also assumes full-time employment of 2,080 work hours per year (40 hours a week for 52 weeks). For the purposes of this report, well look at the wage for a single person with no children. Right now the federal minimum wage is $7.25 an hour, although some states and cities have gone higher. North Carolina has not, and as Barber accurately said, the state has now forbidden any individual city or county from raising it. In Wake and Mecklenburg counties  the two largest in North Carolina the Living Wage Calculator saysa living wage would be right about $11 an hour. The state average is $10.53, and 13 of 14 metropolitan areas are above $10. A person working full time for $10.53 an hour would make $21,902.40 a year. At the current minimum wage of $7.25 an hour, that same person would make $15,080 a year  a difference of more than $6,800. Recent polling Now that we know what a living wage is, we can look to see whether Barber is right about 80 percent support. The topic isnt surveyed much at the state level, but luckily two polls have tackled this topic in the last month. Theyre from the left-leaning Public Policy Polling and the more centrist Elon University Poll. A spokesman for the states main right-leaning polling firm, The Civitas Institute, said theres no record of Civitas ever having polled people on the topic of minimum wage. Public Policy Polling found that76 percent of North Carolinianssupport a minimum wage of at least $10 an hour. That isnt an exact confirmation of Barbers claim, since its slightly lower than 80 percent and the living wage is $10.53, not $10, but its pretty close. However, the Elon poll found less support for a $10 or higher minimum wage, 65 percent. It also arrived at that number differently than PPP. PPP gave five choices, asking people to say if they thought there shouldnt be a minimum wage, if it should remain $7.25, or if it should increase to $10, $12 or $15. Elon asked people to name whatever they thought the minimum wage should be. A plurality (27 percent) said $10. In total, 65 percent said $10 or higher. Thats certainly less than the 80 percent claim Barber made or the 76 percent that PPP found. But complicating matters, Elon also found less support than PPP for keeping the current minimum wage. The difference is that many in the Elon Poll (23 percent) named a number between $7.26 and $9.99  an option that PPP didnt give. So while the Elon poll found only 65 percent support for wages that could be called a living wage under the MIT definition, it did find 88 percent support for raising the minimum wage at least a little. Political breakdown Barber framed his claim in the context of the states Republican leaders trying to avoid blowback for putting restrictions on a higher minimum wage. So we decided to look at how Republicans feel about the subject. Just like they phrased their questions differently, PPP and Elon also asked about party affiliations differently. PPP found that 63 percent of people who voted for Mitt Romney in 2012 also support at least a $10 minimum wage, as do 92 percent of Barack Obama voters and 65 percent of others. The Elon poll found that 46 percent of self-identified Republicans support a $10 or higher minimum wage, compared with 86 percent of Democrats and with 62 percent of others. Our ruling Its impossible to say for certain that a full 80 percent of North Carolinians want a living wage in North Carolina, like Barber said. But it does appear that a vast majority support the idea, including about half of Republicans and nearly all Democrats. One recent poll found 76 percent support for a $10 or higher minimum wage. With a margin of error of 3.4 points, Barbers 80 percent claim would be well within reason if this was the only recent poll. But another recent poll found just 65 percent support. The average of the two polls is 70.5 percent. We rate this claim Mostly True. Criminals, beware. Just because you got away with an illegal activity doesnt mean the IRS isnt going to come after your earnings. Thats because just ahead of the 2021 tax season, the IRS released guidelines that required taxpayers claim items they have stolen, as well as earnings from illegal activities.  The claim made headlines in publications that joked potential criminals were running out of time to return stolen goods to avoid paying taxes on them. And went viral when the financial Twitter account @litquidity took to social media to remind taxpayers that tax szn is around the corner.  publications joked running out of time  And its true. Publication 17, which contains the IRS general rules for filing federal income tax returns, lists illegal activities under other income  categorized as self-employment activity  required to be reported to the federal tax agency.  Publication 17 general rules  Screengrab/IRS Publication 17  IRS Publication 17   "Income from illegal activities, such as money from dealing illegal drugs, must be included in your income on Schedule 1 (Form 1040), line 8z, or on Schedule C (Form 1040) if from your self-employment activity," read the 2021 the IRS guidelines. The guidelines also require that those who steal property must report fair market value as income in the year that the item was stolen. Of course, one can avoid paying taxes on such items so long as the person returns them to the person they were stolen from in the first place.   Screengrab/IRS Publication 17  IRS Publication 17   The handy regulations also list how to report embezzled funds, notes that bribes are considered nondeductible expenses, and notes that kickbacks, side commissions, and push money must also be included in the Schedule 1 (Form 1040), line 8z, or on Schedule C (Form 1040) if from self-employment activity. Its not just items or earnings obtained through illegal activities. That watch you found in the gym locker room? Yep, its taxable.  If you find and keep property that doesnt belong to you that has been lost or abandoned (treasure trove), its taxable to you at its fair market value in the first year its your undisputed possession, noted the IRS. Snopes spoke with an accountant who said that while the reporting requirements themselves aren't new, there was previously a separate form specifically for reporting illegal activity income. It's unclear to what extent people actually used the form in the past. Its not exactly clear whether law enforcement will be given information about individuals who report income from illegal activities. What is clear is that anyone under the age of 65 who made more than $12,550 in 2021 is required to file by April 18, 2022.  Sources Dolan, Debra. Time Is Running out to Return Stolen Goods to Avoid Paying Taxes on Them. Https://Www.Wdbj7.Com, https://www.wdbj7.com/2021/12/29/time-is-running-out-return-stolen-goods-avoid-paying-taxes-them/. Accessed 30 Dec. 2021. IRS Asks That Criminals Provide Its Cut of Stolen Property, Illegal Income. KXXV, 29 Dec. 2021, https://www.kxxv.com/news/local-news/irs-asks-that-criminals-provide-its-cut-of-stolen-property-illegal-income. Publication 17 (2021), Your Federal Income Tax | Internal Revenue Service. https://www.irs.gov/publications/p17. Accessed 30 Dec. 2021. Stole Something? IRS Says Stolen Property and Bribes Must Be Reported as Income. Usatoday, https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2021/12/28/irs-says-stolen-property-must-reported-and-twitter-goes-wild/9035694002/. Accessed 30 Dec. 2021. Duringa speechin which he warmed up to U.S. House SpeakerPaul Ryan, gave a shout-out toVince Lombardiand even name-droppedKanye West, president-electDonald Trumpalso reaffirmed his promise to cut taxes. Trump appeared Dec. 13, 2016 with vice president-electMike Penceand a host of Badger State Republicans, including Ryan, at the Wisconsin State Fair Park Exposition Center. This stop on his multi-state thank-you tour was mostly a campaign-style rally, but there was some policy, too. Midway into his remarks,Trump said: Were going to undertake one of the great tax reforms and simplifications in American history. This includes a massive tax cut for themiddle-classand middle-class families from Wisconsin, too. Were also going to lower ourbusiness tax rateso that new companies will come to our shores and hire workers in cities like right here. Is that OK? Thats what we want. Were going to bring our rates down from 35 percent, were going to try to get it down to 15 percent. So, right now -- and by the way the jobs will pour in -- so, right now, were the highest-taxed nation in the world. And when we finish, well be one of the lower taxed, one of the lower. Whether the president-elect keeps his promises on taxes will be something to be determined by PolitiFact Nationals Trump-O-Meter, whichwill be launchedin 2017. But we can answer now whether Americas business tax rate is the highest in the world. Top U.S. rate: 35% The corporate income tax rates in the United States range from15 to 35 percent. And that 35 percent top rate -- at least as a statutory rate (more on that below) -- is relatively high. The Paris-based Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development publishesthe top corporate tax ratesfor the35 countriesthat belong to its organization, which includes most advanced, industrialized nations. The U.S top rate of 35 percent ranks first, just ahead of France, 34.4 percent; Belgium, 33 percent; and Australia and Mexico, 30 percent. On the low end: Switzerland, 8.5 percent; Ireland, 12.5 percent; Latvia and Canada, 15 percent; and Germany, 15.8 percent. Sometimes references are made to a combined corporate tax rate, which includes federal and state corporate taxes; the U.S. combined rate is38.9 percent. But Trump was referring to the 35 percent federal rate, the one he vows to reduce. There are, however, two clarifying points to make. Other nations, and what is paid To back Trumps statement, his campaign cited aForbes articlethat noted the United States has the highest corporate rate among industrialized nations. But Trump didnt limit his statement to industrialized nations. The accounting firm PwC tracks the top federal corporate tax rates for155 countries.That listshows five other countries that also have a top rate of 35 percent: Argentina, Chad, Congo, Malta and Zambia. And there are two countries with higher top corporate tax rates: United Arab Emirates, 55 percent; and Puerto Rico, 39 percent. It also needs to be understood that Americas 35 percent top rate is the statutory rate -- before deductions -- but U.S. companies arent actually taxed at that rate. Tax deductions -- on health insurance, pensions and investment returns, for example -- allow corporations to reduce the pool of taxable profits. Indeed, aMarch 2016 reportby the U.S. Government Accountability Office found that in each year from 2006 to 2012, at least two-thirds of all active corporations had no federal income tax liability, although larger corporations were more likely to owe tax. And aMay 2016 paperby Reed College economics professor Kimberly Clausing found U.S. multinational firms have used tax planning to generate effective tax rates that are far lower than the statutory rate, and often in the single digits. Our rating Trump said Americas federal business tax rate is the highest in the world. The top corporate tax in the United States is 35 percent, highest among the worlds industrialized nations. But five smaller nations have the same rate and two smaller ones, United Arab Emirates and Puerto Rico, have rates above 35 percent. Also, the 35 percent U.S. rate is only the starting point, given that corporations can use exemptions and deductions to effectively reduce that rate and pay lower taxes. For a statement that is accurate but needs clarification, our rating is Mostly True. Snopes is still fighting an infodemic of rumors and misinformation surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic, and you can help. Find out what we've learned and how to inoculate yourself against COVID-19 misinformation. Read the latest fact checks about the vaccines. Submit any questionable rumors and advice you encounter. Become a Founding Member to help us hire more fact-checkers. And, please, follow the CDC or WHO for guidance on protecting your community from the disease.  fighting Find out Read Submit Become a Founding Member CDC WHO In October and November 2021, Snopes readers asked us to verify the authenticity and provenance of a message widely shared on social media throughout 2020 and 2021, and heavily promoted by those opposed to COVID-19 lockdowns. According to almost all the posts in question, the message originally came from a "Hopi Indian Chief" named "White Eagle." The message was permeated with the language of New Age spirituality, and typically began by likening "the moment humanity is going through now" to a "portal" or a "hole," and encouraging readers to engage in "resistance through joy":   Despite extensive research, we have not yet been able to find evidence to corroborate the claim that the message originated with a prominent Hopi named "White Eagle," or indeed of any other name. Furthermore, good reasons exist to doubt that widespread attribution, and the earliest versions of the message that we found were published by a Brazilian "medium" who engages in pseudoscientific practices like "reincarnation psychotherapy" and proponents of a Brazilian religious movement  entirely different cultural contexts to the Hopi tribe in Arizona. For now, we are issuing a rating of "Unproven." If definitive evidence becomes available, we will update this fact check accordingly. The message was posted and re-posted multiple times in 2020 and 2021, with occasional minor tweaks, but was almost always attributed to "White Eagle," who was typically described as a "Hopi Indian Chief." 2020 2021 In some cases, social media posts featured photographs of what appeared to be an elderly man, while others contained a picture of an elderly woman  two mutually exclusive claims as to the gender of "White Eagle," and a sign that that attribution might be dubious. In another prominent early version of the message, posted in French on March 28, 2020, the photograph used was actually taken in 1904, meaning it could not possibly show anyone alive in the age of online memes or COVID-19. an elderly man an elderly woman the photograph used actually taken in 1904 In June 2020, "Bird Clan Messenger"  a Canadian blog that espouses "indigenous wisdom" and alternative medicine, as well as opposing COVID-19 mitigation measures like lockdowns and vaccine passports  attributed the "portal and hole" message to Joseph White Eagle, whom the site described as "a Cree spiritual leader and teacher of traditional Native wisdom." attributed the "portal and hole" message However, that blog post was later deleted, and Joseph White Eagle posted on Facebook in September 2021, explicitly denying he had authored the message, and adding: "Somebody first gave credit to a fictitious Hopi Chief White Eagle and when they found he does not exist they started giving me credit for this message." later deleted explicitly denying he had authored the message On March 28, 2020, artist and new-age spiritualist Alex Grey included the message in an Instagram Live broadcast, describing it as "Channeled from White eagle in daime church / Message from Caboclo guia Branca," and dating it to March 16, 2020. In this context, "Daime" likely refers to "Santo Daime," a religious movement which emerged from Brazil in the early 20th century and encompasses elements of various other religions, as well as using the psychedelic drink ayahuasca in rituals. included message Instagram Live broadcast Santo Daime Grey's reference to "Caboclo guia Branca" directed our research to an even earlier social media post containing the message  a March 19, 2020 Instagram post by Jefferson Orlando, a Brazilian "reincarnation pyschotherapist," which bore the headline "Mensagem do Caboclo guia Branca" ("message from White Eagle.") When translated from Portuguese, the message was clearly the same one later attributed to a "Hopi Chief" named White Eagle, and shared widely in English on social media. March 19, 2020 Instagram post   It's not clear whether "White Eagle" is purported to be an actual, living person, a persona adopted by Orlando, or a long-deceased figure whose voice and message Orlando putatively "channeled." Snopes asked Orlando for clarification about the origins of the message, but we did not receive a response. Also on March 19, 2020, a popular Facebook page which celebrates the Umbanda faith  like Santo Daime, Umbanda is a Brazilian religious movement that borrows from other religious practices  also posted the same message as Orlando, in Portuguese: posted the same message   It's not clear whether "Sabedoria de Umbanda" ("Umbanda Wisdom") or Orlando published their post first, and what the ultimate source of the message was. We were unable to find any reference to the "portal and hole" message dated before March 19, and the "Hopi" attribution appears to have only emerged several days later. The earliest available instances of the message emerged from Brazilian religious movements, by way of new-age spirituality and pseudo-scientific paranormal psychology  vastly different cultural milieus from the traditions of the Hopi people. This strongly suggests the claim that a "Hopi Chief White Eagle" authored the message was unfounded. However, we cannot definitively rule out the possibility that the March 19 Brazilian posts were, themselves, borrowed from Hopi culture in some way, with the chain of cross-germination no longer available due to social media posts having been deleted. "Edward S. Curtis." WESTON GALLERY, https://www.westongallery.com/original-works-by/edward-curtis. Accessed 4 Nov. 2021. A Once in a Lifetime Photo of a forest fire in Bitterroot Forest/Montana This awsome picture was taken in the Bitterroot National Forest in Montana on August 6, 2000 by a fire behavior analyst from Fairbanks, Alaska by the name of John McColgan with a Digital camera. Since he was working while he took the picture, he cannot sell or profit from it so he should at least be recognized as the photographer of this once in a lifetime shot.  The year 2000 brought one of the worst fire seasons in half a century to the United States. By the month of August, more than 4 million acres (an area greater in size than the states of Connecticut and Rhode Island combined) had been burned by wildfires, and dozens of blazes raged out of control in eleven western states, with nearly half of the conflagrations occurring in Idaho and Montana. On 6 August 2000, as several fires converged in the Bitterroot National Forest near the town of Sula in western Montana, John McColgan, a fire behavior analyst in the employ of the USDA Forest Service, snapped the spectacular photograph shown above with a digital camera and described the experience to a writer for the western Montana newspaper The Missoulian: Bitterroot Forest Service "That's a once-in-a-lifetime look there. I just happened to be in the right place at the right time. I've been doing this for 20 years and it ranks in the top three days of fire behavior I've seen." The day was Aug. 6, the Sunday when several forest fires converged near Sula into a firestorm that overran 100,000 acres and destroyed 10 homes. Temperatures in the flame front were estimated at more than 800 degrees. Nevertheless, McColgan said, the wildlife appeared to be taking the crisis in stride, gathering near the East Fork of the Bitterroot River where it crosses under U.S. Highway 93. "They know where to go, where their safe zones are," McColgan said. "A lot of wildlife did get driven down there to the river. There were some bighorn sheep there. A small deer was standing right underneath me, under the bridge." McColgan snapped the photo with a Kodak DC280 digital camera. Since he was working as a Forest Service firefighter, the shot is public property and cannot be sold or used for commercial purposes. After McColgan downloaded his amazing image to an office computer, a friend found it, e-mailed a copy to another friend, and by mid-September 2000 the picture was blazing its way across the Internet. Because many forwarded copies of the image lacked any attribution or explanation, e-mail recipients began to circulate rumors about its origins and authenticity  some claimed that the photo was snapped by a tourist, that it was taken during the extensive Yellowstone National Park fire of 1988, or that it was yet another digital fake. fire As John McColgan said afterwards, "I couldn't have profited from [the photograph], so I guess I'm glad so many people are enjoying it." We're happy to help him at least receive proper credit for his work. This picture has also been circulated with text identifying it as a photograph of August 2003 forest fires in British Columbia, of October 2007 California wildfires, of the June 2012 Waldo Canyon Fire in Colorado Springs, Colorado, and the November 2016 forest fires in Gatlinburg, Tennessee. Chaney, Rob.  "Mystery Solved: Forest Service Firefighter Captured Tragedy with Digital Camera."
  The Missoulian.  15 September 2000. CNN.com.  "Montana Homes Threatened by Wildfires."
  7 August 2000. Claim:  Item describes penalties for non-compliance with the PPACA individual health insurance mandate. false Example:  [Collected via e-mail, October 2013] WARNING CONCERNING OBAMACARE ----Immediate Attention Required PLEASE ----- If you do not have to sign up with Obamacare on their website PLEASE DON'T! Once you see the cost of premiums and yearly deductible and choose to opt out from that point they will within a few hours email you stating your actual fees in which now they will by any means collect. REAL EXAMPLE ---- Please Read & Please Forward ASAP!!! A comment posted on the Affordable Care Act/Obamacare FB page: I actually made it through this morning at 8:00 A.M. I have a preexisting condition (Type 1 Diabetes) and my income base was 45K-55K annually I chose tier 2 "Silver Plan" and my monthly premiums came out to $597.00 with $13,988 yearly deductible!!! There is NO POSSIBLE way that I can afford this so I "opt-out" and chose to continue along with no insurance. I received an email tonight at 5:00 P.M. informing me that my fine would be $4,037 and could be attached to my yearly income tax return. Then you make it to the "REPERCUSSIONS PORTION" for "non-payment" of yearly fine. First, your drivers license will be suspended until paid, and if you go 24 consecutive months with "Non-Payment" and you happen to be a home owner, you will have a federal tax lien placed on your home. You can agree to give your bank information so that they can easy "Automatically withdraw" your "penalties" weekly, bi-weekly or monthly! This by no means is "Free" or even "Affordable." Origins:  One of the key (and most controversial) provisions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), commonly known as "Obamacare," is its establishment of an individual mandate to buy health insurance.  Beginning in 2014, U.S. citizens and legal residents are required to either have PPACA-qualifying health insurance coverage (public or private) or pay a penalty for not carrying insurance.  Shortly after the opening of PPACA-created state- and federal-run insurance exchange marketplaces on 1 October 2013, which consumers could use to shop online for qualifying  insurance plans, the item reproduced above began circulating on the Internet.  This item claimed that after a consumer priced an insurance plan on one of the exchanges and found it to be unsuitably non-affordable (and so declined to enroll in it), he received a notice stating that he would be fined over $4,000 and have his driver's license suspended, and if he failed to pay the fine within two years the a federal tax lien would be placed on his home. Without knowing more details about the person referenced in this item, it's difficult to accurately assess whether the figures quoted for insurance coverage ($597.00 per month with a $13,988 yearly deductible) are completely accurate.   However, the PPACA sets annual limits on out-of-pocket expenses at $6,350 for individuals and $12,700 for families on plans offered through the state-based exchanges, so a yearly deductible of nearly $14,000 for someone shopping for coverage through an insurance exchange isn't a plausible offering. The penalty for failing to carry qualifying health insurance coverage varies with household size, income, and year.  In general, the penalties for non-compliance will be assessed as follows: For individuals (whichever is greater): 2014    $95 or 1% of income above tax filing threshold2015    $325 or 2% of income above tax filing threshold2016    $695 or 2.5% of income above tax filing threshold  For families (whichever is greater):  2014    $285 or 1% of income above tax filing threshold2015    $975 or 2% of income above tax filing threshold2016    $2085 or 2.5% of income above tax filing threshold The $4,037 fine claimed in this item doesn't jibe with those figures.  Since the non-compliance penalty for an individual in 2014 is $95 or 1% of income above the tax filing threshold (whichever is greater), that individual would have to earn a yearly income of $403,700 (above the tax filing threshold) in order to incur a fine of that magnitude for a single year  an income level which is far larger than the $45,000-$55,000 range claimed in this item.   Even adding together all the potential fines for three straight years of non-compliance beginning in 2014 produces a figure in the $3,000 range, not one over $4,000.  (The figures could be higher under a scenario in which multiple persons in the same household were non-compliant, but the item quoted above references only an individual.) According to a Congressional Research Service (CRS) report on the PPACA Penalty Provision and the Internal Revenue Service, collection of the penalty for failure to maintain qualifying health insurance coverage may include the IRS' withholding money from federal income tax refunds and obtaining liens against the taxpayer's property, but the PPACA does not allow for criminal prosecution or the seizure of bank accounts or other property: report   The Internal Revenue Code (IRC) limits the means the IRS may employ to collect the penalty established in the [PPACA]. First, the taxpayer is protected from either criminal prosecution or penalty for failure to pay the penalty. Second, the IRS is prohibited from either filing a notice of federal tax lien (NFTL) or levying any property in an effort to collect the penalty. There is no prohibition, however, on establishing a statutory lien against the taxpayers property. No additional limits are placed on the IRS using correspondence or phone calls, either through its own employees or through private collection agencies, in an effort to collect the amount owed. Additionally, no restriction was placed on the IRS's ability to use the refund offset as a means of collecting the amount due. Those who are required to pay the penalty for failure to maintain minimum coverage but choose not to do so will be subject to increases in the amount owed due to interest and late payment penalties imposed on the penalty after it has been assessed by the IRS.  A taxpayer who chooses not to pay the required penalty may ultimately forfeit more than the amount of the penalty if that taxpayer is ever in the position of having an overpayment to the IRS for any reason, since the refund offset applies not only to overpayments shown on original tax returns, but also to any subsequent adjustments, for example an audit by the IRS that results in an overpayment. Further, as explained above, it is possible that the IRS could present its claim when property is being sold and collect both the original penalty amount along with accrued interest and applicable penalties. (Note that a "lien" and a "levy" are two different things.  A lien is a claim against property that does not involve the right to seize property, while a levy is a seizure of property. A lien does not allow the lienholder to sell another's property, but when property subject to the lien is sold, the lien establishes the right to receive proceeds from the sale of the property before they are distributed to the seller.)  In short, failure to pay the PPACA non-compliance penalty might result in the IRS' sending you warning letters and deducting the penalty amount from your future tax refunds  (if you have any), but not throwing you in jail, forcibly taking money from your bank account, or seizing your house or other property.  We have also found no provision of the PPACA or IRS code that would allow the federal government to suspend an individual's driver's license as a penalty for non-compliance with the individual mandate provision of the PPACA. Last updated:  4 October 2013