Cautionary notice regarding the Affordable Care Act
Claim:  Item describes penalties for non-compliance with the PPACA individual health insurance mandate. MOSTLY  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
In April 2017, rumors appeared on social media that former United States President Barack Obama had been arrested in Japan in connection with large quantities of cocaine purportedly found on his yacht:      The arrest rumor appeared to have originated via a 31 March 2017 blog post from Benjamin Fulford (who days earlier had claimed that the Japanese government was trying to kill him) that was further aggregated by other dubious web sites: originated claimed aggregated Former US President Barack Obama, in custody of the US military police, has informed on his drug dealing bosses, according to sources in Japanese military intelligence. As a result of this, an airplane filled with Afghan Heroin and North Korean amphetamines was impounded at Argyle International Airport on St. Vincent and the Grenadines in the Caribbean, the sources say. The money raised from this drug flight was intended to be used to finance the operations of Daesh (formerly known as ISIS), the sources say. This impoundment follows the capture of an Obama linked ship containing 4.2 tons of cocaine, the sources note. At the bottom of the post was a citation referencing a 15 March 2017 post on conspiracy site WhatDoesItMean.com about Barack Obama's supposedly fleeing the scene of a drug bust that took place in the Caribbean on a "fishing vessel named the Lady Michelle" that was linked to the former president:  post Obama Flees After Massive Drug Bust Aboard Lady Michelle Vessel In Caribbean An intriguing Foreign Intelligence Service (SVR) report circulating in the Kremlin today states that former President Barack Obama fled Washington D.C. this past Friday (10 March) traveling to New York City, Omaha (Nebraska), San Jose (California) and ending up in Hawaii  all occurring within 36 hours while he sought elite allies to defend him, and keeping him ahead of investigators from the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) of the US Department of the Treasury (DoT) seeking to interview him about one of the largest drug busts in American history occurring in the Caribbean aboard a fishing vessel named the Lady Michelle.   4.2 tons of seized cocaine, worth an estimated $125 million, from the President Barack Obama linked fishing vessel named Lady Michelle on 16 February 2017 According to this report, nearly immediately upon taking office as President Donald Trumps Attorney General on 9 February, Jeff Sessions, as head of the US Department of Justice (DOJ), was handed a top secret file by Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Director James Comey detailing the nearly two-decade long crimes of 12 current and former security and intelligence officers belonging to the Transportation Safety Administration (TSA) who for at least 18 years under both the Bush and Obama regimes had smuggled into the United States at least $100 million worth of cocaine. None this was true, as the "Obama drug bust" story originated with the WhatDoesItMean.com is a fake news conspiracy site, described by RationalWiki as follows: WhatDoesItMean.com fake news RationalWiki follows Sorcha Faal is the alleged author of an ongoing series of "reports" published at WhatDoesItMean.com, whose work is of such quality that even other conspiracy nutters don't think much of it. Each report resembles a news story in its style but usually includes a sensational headline barely related to reality and quotes authoritative high-level Russian sources (such as the Russian Federal Security Service) to support its most outrageous claims. Except for the stuff attributed to unverifiable sources, the reports don't contain much original material. They are usually based on various news items from the mainstream media and/or whatever the clogosphere is currently hyperventilating about, with each item shoehorned into the conspiracy narrative the report is trying to establish. The image used to illustrate the WhatDoesItMean article was taken from an earlier news report about a 16 February 2017 U.S. Coast Guard drug bust off the coast of Suriname that had nothing to do with Barack Obama or Japan: report The U.S. Coast Guard busted four men suspected of smuggling more than four tons of cocaine worth $125 million in the Atlantic Ocean. Officials said on Feb. 16 they intercepted a suspicious fishing boat off Paramaribo, Suriname. The 70-foot vessel was allegedly carrying numerous bales of cocaine, the Coast Guard said. Officials seized 4.2 tons of the drugs, worth an estimated $125 million in wholesale value. Georgia Gov. Nathan Deal received a letter on Dec. 12 that likely gained the attention of his staff.The author was Grover Norquist, the president of the Washington-based Americans for Tax Reform, best known for the pledge he asks political candidates to sign vowing to oppose and vote against tax increases. Nearly one-half of the members of Congress, including nine from Georgia, have signed the pledge. During his successful 2010 campaign, Deal promised ATR that he would oppose and veto all tax increases as governor.Norquist, you see, has some pull.His letter to the governor urged Georgia lawmakers considering a tax overhaul next year to pass legislation that is revenue-neutral. Norquist also warned officials here to stay away from tax increases in other areas. A portion of one sentence caught our attention.Last years target was tobacco; this year may be a repeat, or we may hear proposals for excise tax increases on alcohol or sweetened beverages, Norquist wrote. Whatever the case may be, targeted excise tax increases drive commerce across state lines and hurt small businesses bottom lines.The question for us: Do excise tax increases, as Norquist wrote, drive commerce across state lines?Excise taxes are placed on items such as cigarettes and alcohol. Most excise taxes are on cigarettes. Georgia, like most Southern states, has among the lowest excise taxes on cigarettes (37 cents a pack) in the nation. One news report earlier this said state Senate leaders are considering raising the cigarette tax by $1 a pack.The Americans for Tax Reform staff argued its case that Norquist is right, pointing to the results of excise tax increases in three places, Chicago, Washington, D.C., and South Carolina. Heres a closer look:ChicagoATR told us that Chicagoans flocked to neighboring Indiana when Cook County, which encompasses the Windy City, raised its cigarette tax by $1 in 2006. After the 2006 changes in Cook County, Chicagoans paid among the highest prices for cigarettes in the country. A team of University of Illinois-Chicago researchers found in a sample survey of discarded cigarette packs that 75 percent of them came from outside Cook County, The Huffington Post reported. The taxes on a pack of cigarettes in Chicago in 2007 was $4.05. The taxes were $1.37 outside city limits.Washington, D.C.ATR says Washington saw an 11 percent net decline in cigarette tax revenue after it raised the cigarette tax by 50 cents, to $2.50 a pack in 2009. Cigarette taxes in the nations capital were already higher than most states before 2009. In Virginia, the taxes for a pack of smokes is 30 cents, nearly the lowest in the nation. Missouri has the lowest cigarette taxes, 17 cents a pack, according to the Campaign for Tobacco-free Kids. City officials still expected to bank $30 million from the increase, although it was less than their initial projection of about $45 million.South CarolinaGeorgia saw a net increase in cigarette sales of nearly 1.3 million packs in the six months after South Carolina raised its excise tax rate in July 2010, ATR says. Cigarette tax revenue did decline slightly in South Carolina in the first 12 months since its increase, records show. South Carolina previously had the lowest cigarette tax in the nation, at 7 cents a pack. Its now 57 cents a pack. Many smokers in the Palmetto State were not happy with the changes.Matthew Farrelly, whose research on cigarette excise taxes has been used by others, said some people will travel across state lines to buy cigarettes once excise taxes are raised. Other smokers will buy by the carton or choose a lesser brand to save money, he said. Farrelly contends its bogus for anyone to say large numbers of smokers will rush to another state to buy cigarettes once an increase takes effect because few Americans live near a border. He also noted the states that raise their excise taxes eventually make a profit.On net, increases in taxes on cigarettes lead to revenue all the time, said Farrelly, senior director, RTI International Public Healthy Policy Research Program, headquartered near Raleigh, N.C.Our conclusion:Norquist has a good argument for his basic point, based on the research weve seen and people weve interviewed. The difference in taxes between some places, however, is so large ($2.20 a pack between Washington, D.C., and Virginia) that it adds some important context to this argument. With that additional bit of information, we rate Norquists claim as Mostly True. FACT CHECK: Does avideo show a drone airplane clipping the wing of an airliner?  Claim:  Avideo shows a drone airplane clipping the wing of an airliner.   Origins:  On 23 June 2015, a video purportedly showing a drone airpline clipping the wing of a passenger plane and shearing off the wingtip was uploaded to the web siteLiveleak:  Some idiot's drone crossed our take-off path.I'm still alive! The plane wing shown in the above-displayed video has the same colors as Southwest Airlines, but a closer look reveals that the company's namehas been replaced with the URL for visual effects artist Bruce Branit's website, Branit.com: Branit.com Shortly after the above-displayed video went viral, Branit publisheda blog post explaining that it was fake: blog post Lately, I've beenlooking for little videos to make with no budget, an iPhone and some CGI. After shooting this footage of NYC as we were climbing out of Laguardia (thanks FAA for finally letting us keep our phones in airplane mode during take-off), I thought it might be a challenge to make something go by or even strike the wing. This is the same air corridor that Captain "Skully" ditched his Airbus A320in the Hudson after a double bird strike, saving all on-board. But I chose to make a drone zip past instead of a birdand tear off a section of the winglet. Branit also published another video showing how he created the "drone hits plane" viral video:  Last updated: 24 June 2015 West Virginia Gov. Jim Justice took to Facebook in October to tout gains in his states tourism industry. When I took office, I made tourism a top priority because I knew it had all the potential in the world, Justicewrote in his post. Today I am proud to announce that West Virginias tourism industry has grown for the second consecutive year, reversing years of decline and outpacing national growth by 58%! Way to go West Virginia Tourism! The post linked to apress releasethat provided additional detail and cited astudyconducted by  Dean Runyan Associates, an economic consulting firm that has examined the states tourism industry annually since 2000. A year ago, we fact-checked how well Justice described the previous years statistics and rated itMostly True, because Justice glossed over some of the reports negative findings. How about this year? Lets take a look, point by point. (Justices office did not respond to inquiries for this article.) This is accurate. The report found that overall spending on tourism in West Virginia grew from $4.14 billion in 2016 to $4.28 billion in 2017 to $4.55 billion in 2018. Thats an increase in the most recent year of 6.5%, easily exceeding the rate of inflation. Spending also grew for the second straight year if you set aside gambling revenue. It rose from $3.48 billion in 2016 to to $3.63 billion in 2017 to $3.91 billion in 2018. Thats an increase in the most recent year of 7.5%. This also exceeded the rate of inflation. This is accurate, too. According to the data in the report, the rise over the past two years came after four consecutive annual declines, as this chart shows:  The report also provides data for the national tourism market thats comparable to the West Virginia numbers. According to the report, spending was $980 billion in 2018, a 4.1% increase over 2017. (These figures are not adjusted for inflation, but neither is the West Virginia figure, so the national and state figures can be compared equitably.) Justices 58% figure appears to come from comparing the most recent one-year increase in West Virginia (6.5%) with the most recent one-year increase nationally (4.1%). The West Virginia percentage increase is 58.5% bigger than the national increase. Justice said, West Virginias tourism industry has grown for the second consecutive year, reversing years of decline and outpacing national growth by 58 percent. These numbers align with the findings of a longstanding annual study of the West Virginia and national tourism economies. We rate the statement True. On 9 July 2016, the Facebook page "The Medical Facts" published the image and explanation shown below, reporting the development of synthetic rhino horn as an anti-poaching measure: image A biotech startup has managed to 3-D print fake rhino horns that carry the same genetic fingerprint as the actual horn. The company plans to flood Chinese [the] Chinese rhino horn market at one-eighth of the price of the original, undercutting the price poachers can get and forcing them out eventually.  The International Rhino Foundation (IRF) and Save the Rhino International (SRI) issued a joint statement after "monitoring the progress of four US-based companies that have announced their intentions  with varying degrees of success  to produce synthetic or bio-fabricated rhino horn, and occasionally also other products including e.g. elephant ivory, lion bones or pangolin scales." In that statement, both groups expressed their opposition to the introduction of fake rhino horn to international markets: statement We are opposed to the development, marketing and sale of synthetic rhino horn [because]: o Selling synthetic horn does not reduce the demand for rhino horn or dispel the myths around rhino horn and could indeed lead to more poaching because it increases demand for the real thing o More than 90% of rhino horns in circulation are fake (mostly carved from buffalo horn or wood), but poaching rates continue to rise annually. o Synthetic horn could give credence to the notion that rhino horn has medicinal value, which is not supported by science. o Users buy from trusted sources and value the real thing. o The availability of legal synthetic horn could normalise or remove the stigma from buying illegal real horn. o It will take time to develop synthetic horn and meanwhile the poaching crisis continues. o How can consumers and law enforcement officials distinguish between legal synthetic horn that looks real, and illegal real horn? o Companies benefitting from making synthetic horn have shown very little commitment to use their profits to help the core problem of rhino poaching; besides which, those profits would meet only a tiny fraction of the total rhino protection costs that would remain to be met as long as demand reduction campaigns falter, as they would with the marketing of synthetic horn. o Finally, the manufacture / marketing / sale of synthetic horn diverts funds and attention from the real problem: unsustainable levels of rhino poaching. A December 2015 National Geographicarticle covered the efforts of one such biotechnology outfit producing synthetic rhino horn (Pembroke) and outlined some conservationist concerns about the unintended consequences of such a venture: article I frankly dont see that its any better, to be honest, says Susie Watts, a consultant for WildAid and co-chair of the Species Survival Network Rhino Working Group, referring to Pembients move to put faux powder on the back burner. While shes aware that people buy rhino horn jewelry, Watts has never heard of rhino horn cell phone cases and chopsticks. But opposition to Pembients synthetic horn plans extends beyond the possible new market it could create. Theres very little, if any, relief on wild populations when we see commercial farming develop or commercial trade of a protected species, says Douglas Hendrie, manager of the wildlife crime and investigations unit for conservation group Education for Nature - Vietnam. The wild trade continues right alongside. Patrick Bergin, CEO of the African Wildlife Foundation, also believes that inserting fake horn into the market could counteract efforts to educate people about why they shouldnt buy wild horn, a strategy most activists push as the best way to reduce demand. If you start to nuance that message with some rhino horn is good, some of it is bad, some of it is legal, some of it is illegal, he says, you lose people and lose the clarity of the message. Theres also concern that fake horn could increase the workload for law enforcement in countries already struggling to contain the illicit trade. According to Hendrie, Vietnam doesnt have the enforcement capacity to regulate the black market along with the legal one. A February 2016 followup article presented a five-point set of objections to the introduction of genetic copies of rhino horn to the market, filed with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service by the Center for Biological Diversity: presented Additionally, U.S Fish & Wildlife Service Law Enforcement Deputy Chief Ed Grace commented: Experience demonstrates that efforts to 'flood the market' with products produced from protected wildlifeeither by producing synthetic alternatives or raising animals in captivity for harvestoften fail to achieve their stated goal. Such efforts often create more demand from consumers, even as products from wild animals and plants continue to command a premium over synthetic or farmed alternatives. ... We also have significant concerns about injecting products into the market that would make it harder for law enforcement to detect poached and trafficked wildlife products, or allow criminals to disguise the source of illegal products by commingling them with these alternatives. In short, it's true that at least four biotechnology firms have engaged in some form of development of synthetic material genetically identical to rhino horn. Although progress in that area was initially hailed as a potential anti-poaching measure, conservation groups and wildlife officials have since expressed strong skepticism that the overall effects on the rhinoceros population of selling such material wouldn't be deleterious.  Members of both groups have espoused positions opposing the introduction of fake rhino horn to any market, citing anticipated demand uptick and burdens on already taxed enforcement agencies. Actman, Jani.  "Can Fake Rhino Horn Stop the Poaching of an Endangered Species?"
  National Geographic.  2 December 2015. Neme, Laurel.  "Petition Seeks Ban on Trade in Fake Rhino Horn."
  National Geographic.  10 February 2016. Save the Rhino International.  "Joint Statement by the International Rhino Foundation and Save the Rhino International."
  July 2015. On the eve of former Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin's conviction on murder and manslaughter charges in the killing of George Floyd, a Black man whose death sparked a global reckoning over racism, cities around the U.S. braced for the potential fallout of the trial outcome. On April 19, 2021, one day before the verdict was reached, Mayor Ted Wheeler of Portland, Oregon -- which had been a hotbed of racial justice protests for over a year -- declared a state of emergency. The declaration was widely reported by national news outlets as the world awaited the verdict reading in the Chauvin trial. In a 45-minute news conference, Wheeler was joined by other city leaders to respond to violence that had already erupted in Portland in anticipation of the verdict. Wheeler called the event a high-intensity moment and said that the city needed to be ready as possible for anything. widely reported national news outlets As the mayor, Ive declared a state of emergency to allow city bureaus to facilitate peaceful first amendment activity and respond to any violence if necessary, said Wheeler, adding that the state of emergency would be activated for 24 hours and could be extended if necessary. In response, Oregon Governor Kate Brown had made available the state police and select members of the national guard should the city need the resources. The mayor also acknowledged a coordinated plan to combat anarchist posters and a group of 100 or so largely white, self-described anarchists who engage in the criminal destruction of Portlands economy and confidence. Lets be clear, anarchist flyers call for what they describe as quote direct action which are code words for breaking windows, ransacking businesses, arson and intimidation. They call for attacks on public employees, said Wheeler. They use crime and violence to intimidate those who dont share their political views. These people are not protestors. They are criminals.  A tweet shared by conservative journalist Andy Ngo (archived here) appeared accurately described Wheelers emergency declaration but claimed that Antifa had put out flyers calling for violence regardless of the trial outcome. Ngo is also the editor-at-large of The Post Millennial, a Canadian conservative news website, that has been accused of pamphleteering. (Ngo did not respond to our request for comment.) tweet here pamphleteering   A tweet that was shared on the afternoon of April 20, 2021 (archived here) furthered Ngo's sentiment, implying that the state of emergency was in part due to antifa and the Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement, who were both supposedly behind the poster that told rioters to rage in Portland no matter what the verdict is. tweet here   As of this writing, Snopes has not been able to determine if the flyer in question was actually posted around Portland. Furthermore, the text did not specifically mention antifa or BLM, though it did imply that Dont Shoot Portland, a social justice nonprofit, was supporting the protest. In an email to Snopes, the organization said that they were not involved with the posters in any capacity. Unfortunately, it is not uncommon for people to use our name for their own agendas. Our marches center [on] children and nonviolence, a spokesperson told Snopes. A reverse image search did not return any results, and Snopes contacted both BLM and Wheeler's office but did not receive a response in time for publication. reverse image search While it is true that Wheeler issued a state of emergency in advance of the Chauvin verdict and mentioned "anarchist posters," there is not enough evidence to confirm whether Wheeler was speaking of the flyer above, or what group(s) were behind this flyer, if it was real. We will update this article if and when more information becomes available. Update [April 21, 2021]: This article was updated to include statements from Dont Shoot Portland. 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 Responding to an unprecedented disruption to the U.S. economy caused by the COVID-19 coronavirus pandemic, U.S. President Donald Trump on March 27, 2020, approved a $2.2 trillion stimulus package called the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act.  approved CARES Aiming to provide direct payments to Americans, the relief package authorized the U.S. Treasury Department and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) to send $1,200 checks to low- and middle-class workers. The legislation also boosted funding for unemployment benefits, set aside billions of dollars for loans to help small businesses, and increased health care spending by $100 billion, among other provisions. $1,200 checks But the bill included an additional benefit for wealthy Americans, per national media headlines in mid-April: Over 43,000 U.S. Millionaires will get stimulus averaging $1.6 million each" (New York Post) and "How Some Rich Americans Are Getting Checks Averaging $1.7 million" (Forbes). Snopes received numerous reader inquiries about the veracity of those reports.  Over 43,000 U.S. Millionaires will get stimulus averaging $1.6 million each How Some Rich Americans Are Getting Checks Averaging $1.7 million" The claim is multi-pronged: that millionaires and other Americans received the same type of stimulus checks, termed "Economic Impact Payments"; that those payments were higher for millionaires than for other workers; and that the economic benefits for the country's wealthiest residents averaged $1.7 million each under the CARES Act. other Americans The coronavirus relief package authorized the federal government to send: For single tax filers with higher annual salaries  but less than $99,000  the federal government is reducing the stimulus checks by $5 for each $100 above the $75,000 threshold (similar math goes for payments to families). Yet here is evidence that proves part of the above claim false, in the words of the IRS: "Tax filers with adjusted gross income up to $75,000 for individuals and up to $150,000 for married couples filing joint returns will receive the full payment"  which does not exceed the amounts of $1,200 for individuals, $2,400 for joint claims, and $500 per qualifying child. That means only in this hypothetical situation  a family had 3,400 qualifying children  could an American receive a stimulus check of $1.7 million. Here's language verbatim from the CARES Act:   However, the latter part of the claim  that millionaires could reap an average of $1.7 million in financial gains under the CARES Act  is less definite. The answer begins with understanding pre-CARES Act tax code. In 2017, the federal government established new limitations on how much money owners of so-called "pass-through" businesses can deduct as losses against their "nonbusiness" income to minimize their tax liability. Under the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, owners of such businesses  entities where profits flow through to owners and are not subject to corporate income taxes  could deduct a maximum of $250,000 in losses individually ($500,000 for couples) to offset taxable income from other sources, such as capital gains. Two Democratic Congressmen  Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island and Rep. Llloyd Doggett of Texas  have explained the rule like this: pass-through" Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, have explained If one spouse owns a company that had a $5 million loss in 2018 and the other spouse made $5 million from stock market investments, this limitation meant that the couples taxable income was $4.5 million (not zero, if the loss were allowed to fully cancel out the income). The other $4.5 million in losses, however, could be carried forward to use in future years. Provisions in the CARES Act temporarily suspended that limitation until the start of 2021, according to an analysis of legislative records by Snopes. In other words, the IRS is legally obligated to count excess losses from businesses that it otherwise wouldnt have and provide them with "the same treatment as if the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act had not been enacted," according to attorneys with the international law firm Foley and Lardner.  Foley and Lardner Additionally, the provisions change the timeline of the 2017 law and allow for the new standard to retroactively apply, enabling businesses to report losses in 2018 and 2019 against the past five years. Those taxpayers, however, would likely need to amend their 2018 and 2019 tax returns if they have already been filed to see any changes, according to the tax consulting firm Calvetti Ferguson.  Calvetti Ferguson And since the modification under the CARES Act only applies until Dec. 31, 2020, the 2017 law will kick in the following year. Here's how that change to tax code is relevant to the claim: Americans who earn $1 million or more will benefit the most from the temporary suspension on the deduction limit, according to an analysis by the nonpartisan congressional body the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT). In early April 2020, Whitehouse and Doggett requested the committee to research "the distributional effects" of the provision within the CARES Act. Later, the commissions chief of staff, Thomas Barthold, shared its findings in a letter to the congressmen, including the caveat: Joint Committee on Taxation in a letter There is, of course, a great deal of uncertainty about the economic effects of the COVID-19 pandemic, and how those economic effects will translate into business losses for individuals. The revenue estimate represents our best effort to give Congress useful information about the potential scale of revenue changes associated with this provision. The letter included the following table, showing what class of Americans will receive what percentage of benefits from the amendment to the 2017 tax law:   The table shows almost 82% of the provision's benefits will go toward about 43,000 Americans who earn $1 million or more annually. Put another way, hedge-fund investors and owners of real estate businesses are "far and away" the two prime beneficiaries of the change to the 2017 tax law, Steve Rosenthal, a tax expert at the nonpartisan Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center, told The Washington Post. The JCT also found that suspending the limitation for "pass-through" businesses will cost taxpayers about $90 billion in 2020 alone, the Post reported. Tax Policy Center The Washington Post Using those numbers, you can do back-of-the-napkin math to estimate the amount of money the country's wealthiest population could reduce from their tax burden as a result of the change (82% of $90 billion): about $73.8 billion. Then, if you divide that total by the estimated number of impacted Americans who earn $1 million or more (43,000), you end up with an average of $1,716,279  or about $1.7 million  each. "If you take the reports calculations at face value, that means that, on average, each of the eligible taxpayers would get a windfall of ~$1.7 million! Forbes contributor Shahar Ziv wrote. Clearly not all of those earning only $1 million will receive a $1.7 million tax cut; however, just as some may receive less than the $1.7 million, some may benefit much more." In sum, given that U.S. millionaires won't receive stimulus payments based on their income under the CARES Act but rather the Act's provisions enable those Americans to take advantage of a temporary tax relief  potentially to the tune of $1.7 million on average  we rate this claim as a "Mixture" of true and false information. Arnell, Michael and Teachout, Eric.  CARES Act  Income Tax Implications."  Calvetti Ferguson.  31 March 2020. Brown, Lee.  Over 43,000 U.S. millionaires will get stimulus averaging $1.6 million each.
  New York Post.  16 April 2020. Cochrane, Emily and Fandos, Nicholas.  Senate Approves $2 Trillion Stimulus After Bipartisan Deal.
  The New York Times.  25 March 2020. H.R.748  CARES Act.  All Actions H.R.748  116th Congress (2019-2020).
  Congress.gov.  Accessed 20 April 2020. Internal Revenue Service. "Economic impact payments: What you need to know".
 Accessed 20 April 2020. May, Ashley and Weisblat, David.  CARES Act -- Summary of Tax Provision.
 Foley & Lardner LLP.  Accessed 20 April 2020. H.R.748  CARES Act.  All Actions H.R.748  116th Congress (2019-2020).
Congress.gov.  Accessed 20 April 2020. Stein, Jeff.  Tax change in coronavirus package overwhelmingly benefits millionaires, congressional body finds.
 The Washington Post.  14 April 2020. Tax Cuts and Jobs Act.
Congress.gov.  Accessed 20 April 2020. The White House.  Remarks by President Trump at Signing of H.R. 748, The CARES Act.
27 March 2020. Ziv, Shahar.  How Some Rich Americans Are Getting Stimulus Checks Averaging $1.7 Million.
Forbes.  14 April 2020. 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 May 2020, a video supposedly showing Vice President Mike Pence delivering empty boxes that were supposed to be filled with personal protective equipment (PPE) to the Woodbine Rehabilitation and Healthcare Center in Alexandria, Virginia, was featured on the show "Jimmy Kimmel Live." A clip of this segment was later shared on social media along with the caption: "Mike Pence caught on hot mic delivering empty boxes of PPE for a PR stunt."  This is genuine footage of Pence. However, it does not show him "caught on hot mic" admitting that he just delivered a bunch of empty boxes to a health care facility. This video actually shows Pence making a humorous quip after delivering boxes that were truly filled with PPE.  The full video from C-Span shows Pence transporting several boxes from a truck to the door of the health care center. After unloading the boxes from his dolly, Pence returns to the truck to grab another round of boxes but is informed by someone that the remaining boxes are empty. Pence then jokes that he should carry one of the empty boxes for the cameras. The man replies with a quip of his own, saying that the empty ones are much easier to carry than the full ones, which draws laughter from the crowd. Pence then closes the van door. You can see this exchange around the 9-minute mark of the following video from C-Span: https://www.c-span.org/video/?471876-1/vice-president-pence-delivers-ppe-woodbine-rehabilitation-center We reached out to the Woodbine Rehabilitation Center to confirm that it had received PPE from the vice president. While we have yet to receive a response, the facility did post a message on Facebook to thank Pence and his team: Facebook   Jon Thompson, a spokesperson for the vice president, called the claim that Pence was delivering empty boxes "absolute garbage" in a tweet: tweet     Coleman, Justine.  "Pence Delivers PPE to Alexandria Nursing Home."
  The Hill.  7 May 2020. C-Span.  "Vice President Pence Delivers PPE to Woodbine Rehabilitation Center."
  7 May 2020. In August 2021, rumors swirled around the future of Lionel Messi, one of the greatest soccer players of all time, who broke down in tears at a press conference to announce he would be leaving FC Barcelona of Spain, for whom he had played for two decades, leading the club to extraordinary success and establishing himself as a global superstar of the sport, rivaled only by Portugal's Cristiano Ronaldo.  broke down in tears According to statements issued by both the club and Messi himself, both sides had agreed a new contract for the Argentine attacking midfielder, now aged 34, the terms of which would have seen his previous salary  reported to have be $667,000 per week  cut in half.  statements reported However, strict Financial Fair Play (FFP) rules put in place by Spain soccer authorities, combined with Barcelona's dire financial straits  the club has debts of more than 1 billion ($1.2 billion)  ultimately made the new contract impossible. debts of more than 1 billion Messi's previous contract expired earlier in the summer of 2021, meaning he was now a free agent, and could be signed by any other club without the need for a transfer fee to be paid. However, Messi's profile in the sport, and his likely wage demands, meant only a very small number of clubs were in a realistic position to sign him.  Over the weekend Aug. 6 to Aug. 8 of 2021, rumors emerged online that French giants Paris Saint-Germain (PSG) were aggressively pursuing the signing of Messi, who scored a staggering 672 goals in 778 first-team appearances at Barcelona, and won a record six Ballons d'Or  an annual award generally considered to recognize the world's best player each year  between 2009 and 2019.  scored PSG was taken over in 2012 by the Qatari government-run Qatar Investment Authority, providing an extraordinary injection of cash and sponsorship deals that have helped drastically improve the club's fortunes in the intervening decade. taken over in 2012 The club's controversial Qatari backers also funded a series of marquee signings, including the two most expensive transfers in soccer history: that of Brazilian star Neymar from Barcelona, in August 2017 for 222 million ($264 million or $293 million in 2021 terms); and that of French star Kylian Mbappe from AS Monaco, in February 2018 for 180 million ($223 million or $247 million in 2021 terms). controversial Qatari backers 222 million 180 million On Aug. 10, PSG further fueled speculation that its signing of Messi was imminent  scheduling a press conference for the next morning, and posting short videos featuring the Argentinian flag and snippets of an Argentinian soccer jersey.  press conference short videos When Messi himself was greeted by PSG fans at Paris-Le Bourget airport, on the outskirts of the French capital, and at the Royal Monceau hotel, the rumors were all but officially confirmed.  greeted by PSG fans Royal Monceau However, the club removed any remaining doubts when, on the evening of Aug. 10, they officially confirmed Messi's move to the club on a two-year contract, with the option of a third year.   In a news release posted to the club's official website, PSG wrote: news release [PSG] is very happy to announce the signing of Leo Messi on a two-year contract, with the option of a further year. The six-time Ballon d'Or winner is considered a legend of the sport, and a true source of inspiration for all generations, on and off the field. The signing of Leo reinforces the ambitions of PSG and offers our loyal supporters an exceptional team, which promises to bring incredible footballing moments in the years to come.  Messi himself further confirmed the bombshell move, providing the following statement as part of PSG's news release: I can't wait to start a new chapter of my career in Paris. The club and its vision match perfectly my own ambitions. I know just how talented the players and staff are here. By their sides, I'm determined to create something great for this club and for the fans. I cannot wait to step on to the grass at [PSG home ground] Parc des Princes. On 29 May 2016, Facebook user Frank Huguenard published a Huffington Post link leading to an article titled "Hillary Clinton to be Indicted on Federal Racketeering Charges" and an article bylined to him: published    The claims caused a stir, then disappeared as quickly as they manifested. Clicking through to the link on 30 May 2016 led to an error message:  error   However, the text of the article remains accessible on forums, blogs, and archives. Huguenard's original piece reported that Clinton would be indicted under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (or RICO) Act, and maintained that the Federal Bureau of Investigation would recommend to Attorney General Loretta Lynch that Clinton be indicted on charges related to money laundering, among other things: reported The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) is a United States Federal Law passed in 1970 that was designed to provide a tool for law enforcement agencies to fight organized crime. RICO allows prosecution and punishment for alleged racketeering activity that has been executed as part of an ongoing criminal enterprise. Activity considered to be racketeering may include bribery, counterfeiting, money laundering, embezzlement, illegal gambling, kidnapping, murder, drug trafficking, slavery, and a host of other nefarious business practices. James Comey and The FBI will present a recommendation to Loretta Lynch, Attorney General of the Department of Justice, that includes a cogent argument that the Clinton Foundation is an ongoing criminal enterprise engaged in money laundering and soliciting bribes in exchange for political, policy and legislative favors to individuals, corporations and even governments both foreign and domestic. Initially, Comey had indicated that the investigation into Hillarys home brewed email server was to be concluded by October of 2015. However, as more and more evidence in the case has come to light, this initial date kept being pushed back as the criminal investigation has expanded well beyond violating State Department regulations to include questions about espionage, perjury and influence peddling. There were no citations for these claims. There was also no information about how the article's author learned of the supposedly impending indictment: Heres what we do know. Tens of millions of dollars donated to the Clinton Foundation was funneled to the organization through a Canadian shell company which has made tracing the donors nearly impossible. Less than 10% of donations to the Foundation has actually been released to charitable organizations and $2M that has been traced back to long time Bill Clinton friend Julie McMahon (aka The Energizer). When the official investigation into Hillarys email server began, she instructed her IT professional to delete over 30,000 emails and cloud backups of her emails older than 30 days at both Platte River Networks and Datto, Inc. The FBI has subsequently recovered the majority, if not all, of Hillarys deleted emails and are putting together a strong case against her for attempting to cover up her illegal and illicit activities. A conviction under RICO comes when the Department of Justice proves that the defendant has engaged in two or more examples of racketeering and that the defendant maintained an interest in, participated in or invested in a criminal enterprise affecting interstate or foreign commerce. There is ample evidence already in the public record that the Clinton Foundation qualifies as a criminal enterprise and theres no doubt that the FBI is privy to significantly more evidence than has already been made public. Under RICO, the sections most relevant in this case will be section 1503 (obstruction of justice), section 1510 (obstruction of criminal investigations) and section 1511 (obstruction of State or local law enforcement). As in the case with Richard Nixon after the Watergate Break-in, its the cover-up of a crime that will be the Clintons downfall. Furthermore, under provisions of title 18, United States Code: Section 201, the Clinton Foundation can be held accountable for improprieties relating to bribery. The FBI will be able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that through the Clinton Foundation, international entities were able to commit bribery in exchange for help in securing business deals, such as the uranium-mining deal in Kazakhstan. It is a Federal Crime to negligently handle classified information under United States Code (USC) 18 section 1924. It is a Federal Class A Felony under USC 18 section 798. Hillary certified under oath to a federal judge that she had handed over to the state department all of her emails, which she clearly did not. In spite of her repeated statements to the effect that everything that she did with her home brewed email server as Secretary of State was above-board and approved by the State Department, the Inspector General Report vehemently refutes this claim. Hillary refused to be interview by the Inspector Generals office in their investigation, claiming that her upcoming FBI interview took precedent but it seems more likely that Hillary is more concerned about committing perjury or admitting to anything that can be used against her in a court of law. Huguenaud concluded (again, with little to no supporting evidence) that Hillary Clinton was guilty of exposing classified documents to foreign governments and conspiring to circumvent Freedom of Information Act requests by avoiding the use of State Department servers: Some of the documents were so highly classified the the investigators on the case werent even able to examine the material themselves until they got their own clearances raised to the highest levels. While there is an excellent [case] to be made the Hillary committed treasonous actions, the strongest case the FBI has is charging both Bill and Hillary Clinton as well as the Clinton Foundation of Racketeering. Theres no wonder why its taken this long for the FBI to bring forward a recommendation. The rabbit hole is so deep on this one that it has taking dozens of investigators to determine the full extent of the crimes that have been committed. Perhaps the most interesting question here is whether or not the FBIs investigation will be able to directly link The Clinton Foundation with The Hillary Victory Fund. If this happens, the DNC itself may be in jeopardy of accusations of either being an accomplice or of being complicit in racketeering. After the article vanished, rumors swirled that Huffington Post retracted it under pressure from the Clintons, the Democratic National Committee, or other entities with a possible interest in suppressing the information it contained. However, the archived version of the article contained the following caveat: This post is hosted on the Huffington Posts Contributor platform. Contributors control their own work and post freely to our site. If you need to flag this entry as abusive, send us an email. Huguenaud published the item himself as a contributor to Huffington Post, where a disclaimer warned that information published through that platform is not vetted or official. In July 2016, the FBI recommended that no charges be brought against Clinton in connection with her use of a private e-mail server.