birdog1960 Posted December 4, 2012 Share Posted December 4, 2012 http://www.npr.org/b...rance-tax-break. it's the largest so i say "yes". interesting that the piece states that virtually no health care experts would design such a system from scratch. and that tax revenue by closing the deduction would pay for insurance for all the uninsured 2 times over. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted December 4, 2012 Share Posted December 4, 2012 There's all sort of things people should not get to exclude from taxable wages; including medical plan premiums and pretty much everything on schedule A other than charitable contributions. Of course, the offset is that we should have a flat tax of somewhere under 15%. But simply throwing another truckload of money into the pockets of the corrupt Washington crowd to spread around as it best serves them isn't a very good idea on its own. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted December 4, 2012 Share Posted December 4, 2012 I see... I was under the impression that the struggling middle class couldn't afford a taxable base increase of $15,000 a year or more. Or was that just another lie of convieniance? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted December 4, 2012 Author Share Posted December 4, 2012 it would certainly help push the newly planned insurance exchanges off the starting blocks. it would mean massive changes in private insurance and how it's bought, i believe. maybe companies would be less likely to provide insurance but make up for it in wages from which people could buy insurance from an exchange. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted December 4, 2012 Share Posted December 4, 2012 (edited) it would certainly help push the newly planned insurance exchanges off the starting blocks. it would mean massive changes in private insurance and how it's bought, i believe. maybe companies would be less likely to provide insurance but make up for it in wages from which people could buy insurance from an exchange. What makes you think wages will rise? Wages will continue to stagnate under a poor business climate and high inflationary environment, and the economy will suffer as government syphons out even more otherwise healthy capital, by double dipping into the private healthcare expense pool by both taxing the purchasers of the private plans, and by fining the businesses for not providing the insurance. Edited December 4, 2012 by TakeYouToTasker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted December 4, 2012 Author Share Posted December 4, 2012 most businesses already provide some health insurance (apparently a great deal, if the taxes on those benefits would bring in $250 bil). if they aren't paying for those benefits anymore why is it unreasonable toexpect them to give that money as wages instead. of course, another option would be to scrap private insurance all together... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted December 4, 2012 Share Posted December 4, 2012 most businesses already provide some health insurance (apparently a great deal, if the taxes on those benefits would bring in $250 bil). if they aren't paying for those benefits anymore why is it unreasonable toexpect them to give that money as wages instead. of course, another option would be to scrap private insurance all together... Because they are forced to continue to cut costs in a weak business climate, a higher tax and regulatory burden, high upward inflationary pressure on prices, and a newly imposed fines installed by the ACA. There is no extra money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Large Posted December 4, 2012 Share Posted December 4, 2012 most businesses already provide some health insurance (apparently a great deal, if the taxes on those benefits would bring in $250 bil). if they aren't paying for those benefits anymore why is it unreasonable toexpect them to give that money as wages instead. of course, another option would be to scrap private insurance all together... they probably would pay higher wages, given that the labor market would adjust amounts paid to be attractive to prospects. But it is a wash, the higher wage would simple be put into your new individual private insurance plan. It would be nice to have the option to take the wages at earned income tax rate, or the option to have that employer fund an HSA or benefits acocunt for you to use as you chose, and perhaps make it have a small tax advantage. I still think flat tax is the way to go, but lets me honest, not gonna happen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted December 4, 2012 Share Posted December 4, 2012 (edited) they probably would pay higher wages, given that the labor market would adjust amounts paid to be attractive to prospects. But it is a wash, the higher wage would simple be put into your new individual private insurance plan. It would be nice to have the option to take the wages at earned income tax rate, or the option to have that employer fund an HSA or benefits acocunt for you to use as you chose, and perhaps make it have a small tax advantage. I still think flat tax is the way to go, but lets me honest, not gonna happen This theory assumes that all things are equal in regards to employer and business costs, which they aren't. As I've already stated twice in this thread, employers are forced to continue to cut costs in a weak business climate with an expanding tax and regulatory burden, high upward inflationary pressure on prices, and a newly imposed fines installed by the ACA. Edited December 4, 2012 by TakeYouToTasker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted December 4, 2012 Author Share Posted December 4, 2012 the aca could certainly be altered to accomodate such a tax move. i'll bet a majority of dems would support it if done properly and rebups could hold their heads high saying there achieving income generation through their proposed model: closing loopholes. the responsibility to buy insurance would be moved to the individual. but the bigger point is that employee sponsored private insurance is inefficient from an economic perspective. this would be a major step away from a flawed model. let's not also forget that this is another regressive tax break: them that's got, get more. thems that don't get nothing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted December 4, 2012 Share Posted December 4, 2012 When they tied the Health Insurance MandateTax to the IRS, I knew exactly where this was heading Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dayman Posted December 4, 2012 Share Posted December 4, 2012 I would go ahead and get rid of it. At the very least you could keep it for a certain level and then take it away for the "Cadillac" benefit plans (so to speak) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted December 4, 2012 Share Posted December 4, 2012 I would go ahead and get rid of it. At the very least you could keep it for a certain level and then take it away for the "Cadillac" benefit plans (so to speak) And, as usual, the problems with American healthcare are government generated. I assume you're aware of the massive wholesale renegotiation of group plans going on nationwide as we speak, because no one's employees can afford the minimum $9000 a year tax for decent health coverage. And, in case you're wondering how that works, almost every employer provided group plan in the country is a Cadillac Policy, because its based on total premium costs per employee, not the quality of coverage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted December 5, 2012 Share Posted December 5, 2012 most businesses already provide some health insurance (apparently a great deal, if the taxes on those benefits would bring in $250 bil). if they aren't paying for those benefits anymore why is it unreasonable toexpect them to give that money as wages instead. of course, another option would be to scrap private insurance all together... Well, they'll have to pay a $7,500 fine if they have 50+ employees and don't provide a group coverage option. Then, any money above that amount up to what they previously paid will be taxable. So, if they contributed $9,000 toward an employee's group policy - Uncle BO now takes $7.5k neat upfront, and taxes the $1,500 at a 30- 39% rate. The accountants and legal advice will cost $800 - $900. So the employee will get (IF the employer WANTS to give it to them) a huge pay increase of $200 - $300 a year that they can use to offset the cost of buying insurance from a state brokerage. Brilliant! Of course the corporation could probably find some way to shelter the entire amount saved (previous premiums - BO penalty tax) and stiff BO and their employees in the process. Doubly Brilliant! While we're at it, why not go nuclear on the class envy? Instead of being pikers by going after income, why not go after wealth? Poor Warren Buffet pays so little on his income because he has it structured as capital gains. Why not go after his HOLDINGS? He's worth billions! He's such a man of the people, I'm sure he'd sign on for that in a heartbeat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keukasmallies Posted December 5, 2012 Share Posted December 5, 2012 (edited) I'd love to see a discussion of reducing the tax on the annual mandatory withdrawal amount from 401's for taxpayers over 70 1/2. (There'll be a YouTube instructional video for those of you under forty.) Edited December 5, 2012 by Keukasmallies Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted December 5, 2012 Share Posted December 5, 2012 I'd love to see a discussion of reducing the tax on the annual mandatory withdrawal amount from 401's for taxpayers over 70 1/2. (There'll be a YouTube instructional video for those of you under forty.) A discussion about reducing the tax on RMD's? Are you nuts? They're discussing lowering the contribution limit and retrocatively taxing the current holdings! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts