Most likely everyone except unions will have their health care taxed. Gotta love it





Unions’ Health Benefits May Avoid Tax Under Proposal

<edit>
By Ryan J. Donmoyer and Holly Rosenkrantz
'http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=aDvu77pZr7k4#'
June 26 (Bloomberg) -- The U.S. Senate proposal to impose taxes for the first time on “gold-plated” health plans may bypass generous employee benefits negotiated by unions.

Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, the chief congressional advocate of taxing some employer-provided benefits to help pay for an overhaul of the U.S. health system, says any change should exempt perks secured in existing collective- bargaining agreements, which can be in place for as long as five years.

The exception, which could make the proposal more politically palatable to Democrats from heavily unionized states such as Michigan, is adding controversy to an already contentious debate. It would shield the 12.4 percent of American workers who belong to unions from being taxed while exposing some other middle-income workers to the levy.

“I can’t think of any other aspect of the individual income tax that treats benefits of different people differently because of who they work for,” said Chris Edwards, director of tax policy studies at the Cato Institute, a Washington research group that often criticizes Democrats’ economic proposals. Edwards said the carve-out “smacks of political favoritism.”

Baucus, a Montana Democrat, is proposing to tax Americans whose health insurance is valued at a higher rate than what is offered to federal employees. About 40 percent of insured Americans have costlier benefits, and Baucus has said he is trying to set the level at which taxes would be imposed high enough so fewer people are affected.

‘Gold-Plated’ Plans

The policy is aimed at so-called “gold-plated” plans such as the $40,543 in health benefits paid to Lloyd Blankfein, chief executive of New York-based Goldman Sachs Group Inc., the fifth largest U.S. bank by assets.

It can also affect companies such as Henderson, Nevada- based Zappos.com, where workers’ $11 per hour pay is supplemented by employer-paid health insurance plans worth about $7,500. Federal workers’ health benefits are worth about $4,200 for individuals and $13,000 for families.

Lawmakers are crafting legislation aimed at meeting Obama’s goal of bringing down the cost of health care and expanding coverage to the 46 million Americans who lack insurance. Obama wants Democratic congressional leaders to seek Republican support, and to send him legislation by mid-October.

Baucus said yesterday the cost of health-care options his panel is considering can be cut to $1 trillion over 10 years and won’t add to the deficit, citing the Congressional Budget Office.

Cost Estimates

The non-partisan budget office last week delivered an informal cost estimate of $1.6 trillion for the legislation to overhaul the health-care system, sparking protests from both Republicans and Democrats and prompting Baucus to say his panel may delay consideration of a bill until next month.

“CBO now tells us we have options that would enable us to write a $1 trillion bill, fully paid for,” Baucus, who set that amount as his goal, told reporters at the Capitol.

The panel’s legislation must be joined with competing proposals from other Senate and House committees and forged into a single bill subject to negotiation and approval by both chambers before it can be sent to Obama.

Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad, a North Dakota Democrat, said earlier this week that senators are coalescing around the idea of taxing some employer-provided benefits. Baucus said the details are still being negotiated, including how high to set the tax-free exclusion and when any changes would take effect, and whether to exempt union employees until their current contracts expire.

Cutting ‘Subsidy’

“It is hard for me to see how you can have a package that is paid for that does not reduce the subsidy” on employer-paid benefits, Conrad said.

Kentucky Senator Mitch McConnell, the top-ranking Republican in the chamber, said today he has “serious reservations about capping the exclusion, particularly if they have a carve-out for union members,” according to his communications director, Don Stewart. Stewart taped McConnell’s comments and provided excerpts to a reporter.

Stewart said McConnell, discussing the prospect of a tax on some employer-provided benefits, said “table-pounding opposition” would result “if it were to exclude union members.”

Gerald Shea, an AFL-CIO official lobbying for health-care reform, said grandfathering benefits negotiated in a collective bargaining agreement is a “common thing when there is a big change in federal law.”

‘Expectations Are Set’

“Once a collective bargaining agreement is set, employer’s budgets are set, workers expectations are set. It doesn’t make sense to go back in the middle of the contract and change it,” he said.

Union groups and workers said Congress shouldn’t target contractually negotiated benefits.

Anna Burger, secretary-treasurer of the Service Employees International Union, said in an interview that workers have often traded salary increases for better benefits in agreements.

Taxes “shouldn’t be taken from the backs of workers who have bargained away wages and other things for their benefits over the years,” Burger said.

Sandra Carter, a retired Pacific Bell Telephone Co. technician from Stockton, California, said her health benefits, worth about $12,000 per year, were negotiated by the Communications Workers of America. She is unmarried with no children, meaning her individual coverage exceeds benefits paid to federal workers by about $7,800. If that amount were taxed at the 15 percent marginal rate, she would owe $1,170.

“I can’t afford the taxes I pay now,” said Carter, who said she suffers from diabetes. “Why should I get taxed on a benefit that keeps me a functioning person?”

Union Opposition

Other unions say they’re opposed to a tax on some employer- provided benefits, regardless of whether collective bargaining agreements are exempt.

“Either way, we are against a tax on health-care benefits in whatever form it takes,” said Jacob Hay, spokesman for the Laborers’ International Union of North America. The union represents 500,000 workers, largely in the construction industry.

So some health benefits are more equal than other health benefits?

Okaaay ....

All the jackass party deceit about the obamanation healthcontrol bill has nothing to do with fairness, openness, or honesty. It has to do with polytickle payoffs and imposing harm on those who refuse to knuckle under to leftist dogma and dare to live by the principles that founded this nation and enabled it to offer so much to people over the centuries.

The leftists and the collectivists of the right would prefer to see opportunity for all ruined, as long as they figure to be in control. The represent the anti-freedom forces of the world, the true dark side.

Who was the lying liar telling the lie that, "If you earn less than $250,000 per year, you will see no increase in your taxes?" Damned thieves.

Somebody wants better medical coverage? Get off your arse and EARN it!

quote:

Originally posted by RRR52:
Who was the lying liar telling the lie that, "If you earn less than $250,000 per year, you will see no increase in your taxes?" Damned thieves.

Somebody wants better medical coverage? Get off your arse and EARN it!

Hoorah!

quote:

Originally posted by RRR52:
Who was the lying liar telling the lie that, "If you earn less than $250,000 per year, you will see no increase in your taxes?" Damned thieves.

Somebody wants better medical coverage? Get off your arse and EARN it!

Shhh, next someone will come here and tell you that Mil rets get socialized medicine forgetting of course that they not only earned it but pay for it.

quote:

Originally posted by RRR52:
Who was the lying liar telling the lie that, "If you earn less than $250,000 per year, you will see no increase in your taxes?" Damned thieves.

Somebody wants better medical coverage? Get off your arse and EARN it!

Could you also say that if people want something that insurance doesn't cover they should pay for it themselves?

quote:

Originally posted by Boospar:

quote:

Originally posted by RRR52:
Who was the lying liar telling the lie that, "If you earn less than $250,000 per year, you will see no increase in your taxes?" Damned thieves.

Somebody wants better medical coverage? Get off your arse and EARN it!

Could you also say that if people want something that insurance doesn't cover they should pay for it themselves?

Yep...weed out the working-class elderly with heart disease and their children with cancer and the nation's stronger, right? Sounds like an argument for Darwin and natural selection...funny considering the source!

quote:

Originally posted by Yooper_tj:

quote:

Originally posted by Boospar:

quote:

Originally posted by RRR52:
Who was the lying liar telling the lie that, "If you earn less than $250,000 per year, you will see no increase in your taxes?" Damned thieves.

Somebody wants better medical coverage? Get off your arse and EARN it!

Could you also say that if people want something that insurance doesn't cover they should pay for it themselves?

Yep...weed out the working-class elderly with heart disease and their children with cancer and the nation's stronger, right? Sounds like an argument for Darwin and natural selection...funny considering the source!

Not exactly .... unlike many who are literacy challenged I read what was covered in my policies when I bought them, and cancer and heart disease are dealt with. My current dilemma involves an insurance company refusing to fork over $2500 plus for a neuro-psychiatric exam for my ADHD son. Can I be the subject of a whiny liberal newspaper article about how horrible it is to be under-insured?

quote:

Originally posted by Boospar:

quote:

Originally posted by Yooper_tj:

quote:

Originally posted by Boospar:

quote:

Originally posted by RRR52:
Who was the lying liar telling the lie that, "If you earn less than $250,000 per year, you will see no increase in your taxes?" Damned thieves.

Somebody wants better medical coverage? Get off your arse and EARN it!

Could you also say that if people want something that insurance doesn't cover they should pay for it themselves?

Yep...weed out the working-class elderly with heart disease and their children with cancer and the nation's stronger, right? Sounds like an argument for Darwin and natural selection...funny considering the source!

Not exactly .... unlike many who are literacy challenged I read what was covered in my policies when I bought them, and cancer and heart disease are dealt with. My current dilemma involves an insurance company refusing to fork over $2500 plus for a neuro-psychiatric exam for my ADHD son. Can I be the subject of a whiny liberal newspaper article about how horrible it is to be under-insured?

Must be the Liberal in me, but I hate to see sick kids suffer. I also hate to see the 'pros' tossing Rytalin around like magic beans...

I've always thought of the brain as another organ that can act up---like an arrhythmic heart or a cancerous prostate. Funny how insurance companies in all their magnanimity don't see it that way.

I've found Liberals to be a lot more enlightened when it comes to subjects that carry stigma...careful about publishing that article--someone's likely to start pushing for mental health care to be covered as if it were health care or something...

I won't see you as less Conservative for looking out for your child, Boospar, but you can probably see how life experience tempers the edges of political ideology in many of us.

The unions appear to be as entrenched in the left-wing as Business is in the right....the major difference, however; is that business create jobs, prosperity and opportunities for people to afford whatever healthcare they want...

Texas is a good example of what happens when capitalism is not bogged down by taxes and byzantine regulations, which is common place in California....

Yep. That's why Texas ranks 29th in median household income--a bit under 86% of the Median Household Income for a family of four in the US overall. Of course, that national average is skewed by California, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Illinois and their Liberal Union bases.

And since the Metroplex and Houston skew the number upwards in Texas, those folks out Midland/Odessa way must be real proud of the state of the State.
http://www.workworld.org/wwwebhelp/state_median_income.htm

The prospering business-owners/job-creators aren't the ones with time to cheer Governor Perry's calls for secession at the Tea Parties, Sir.

Look at the tax strucuture in Texas, and tell me why they have no deficit?

Look at the enourmous taxes in california and their attitude toward business...do you see why they have a deficit nearly to 30billion?

Its as clear as day to anyone with any sense, or who is divorced from stubborn left-wing ideology: Low taxes for citizens and corporations, controlled spending, extremely small welfare states, friendly corporate environment all lead to prosperous states...

Its just that simple...Capitalism works, LET IT. Embrace it, get off your butt and work for it....only in American can you work hard and be a millionaire, but for how long? Why sould the ambitious and willing be dragged down to the mediocrity of the lazy and ignorant?

California is no penny ante state. It represents the world’s 8th largest economy. It is home to one of eight Americans. It holds the most electoral votes of any of the 50 states.

Clerly California should be the "flagship" of America, yet it is effectively broke and shattered. There has been nothing but left-wing economic policies, social experiments, high taxes, high spending, byzantine business regulations, enourmous social welfare net that covers illegal immigrants...etc..etc

California is on the right track though, it voted for Prop 8, rejected the May proposals to raise taxes, demanded cuts in spending, and increasingly seems to lean away from the tax and spend social engineers who have brought the state to the edge...

California is the biggest experiment in socialism, who wants to take credit for the results??

quote:

Originally posted by ConservativeHawkP:
Look at the tax strucuture in Texas, and tell me why they have no deficit?

Look at the enourmous taxes in california and their attitude toward business...do you see why they have a deficit nearly to 30billion?

Its as clear as day to anyone with any sense, or who is divorced from stubborn left-wing ideology: Low taxes for citizens and corporations, controlled spending, extremely small welfare states, friendly corporate environment all lead to prosperous states...

Its just that simple...Capitalism works, LET IT. Embrace it, get off your butt and work for it....only in American can you work hard and be a millionaire, but for how long? Why sould the ambitious and willing be dragged down to the mediocrity of the lazy and ignorant?

Ahhh...another Sarah Palin running her state on oil taxes and claiming fiscal conservatism. The way I read things today, Rick Perry is about the cost of one big hurricane from an end to his bragadaccio...

Not that complicated, oh-so-familiar-sounding-dude.

The state’s budget has doubled in the last 10 years, but the population hasn’t. At some point it’s a spending problem, not a revenue (tax) problem. We long ago reached that point.

Although I do not wish to see benefits for the disabled go away. If you are physically or mentally unable to fend for yourself then I understand....as for the rest, put down the Marijuana for a month, get your self a clean pair of underwears and some decent clothes, and look for a job...and there would be plenty of jobs in California if they would open up the state to businesses...

I really do not want it to happen, but I really want to see California plunged into a financial calamity. The autopsy will serve not only the state, but the entire nation well...

quote:

I really do not want it to happen, but I really want to see California plunged into a financial calamity.

quote:

Not that complicated, oh-so-familiar-sounding-dude.

beat me to it

It surprises me that anyone is surprised by this..

And what is going to happen is that if the unions medical care is not taxed, then more ppl will join unions in order to avoid paying the taxes.

Which is what these idiots want anyway..they couldn't get the "make every business a union" law passed, so they will offer them a tax incentive to join the union..

And what happens when all businesses are unionized? Prices go up to meet the demand of pay union workers demand..so more companies will close their doors and take their business else where.

Maybe we should go back to bartering--

quote:

what happens when all businesses are unionized? Prices go up to meet the demand of pay union workers demand..

...and then more people have money to spend on goods and services.

For businesses to even have a chance in Mr.Obama's utopian America the taxes need to go down, and the draconian regulations, fees..etc need to be rolled back...They need to compete on a global stage, we have to be competitive...

Make it easy for businesses to operate and everything will take care of itself...except the people who wear shiny necklaces, bright colored peticures, and bring home an 18 pack instead of the groceries...all on uncle sugars dime..

Once members of Congress figure out what the tax is going to be on THEIR gold-plated health care coverage ... and the President figures out what the taxes would be on HIS ... this won't pass ... or will pass with a reelection-killing exemption for them.

quote:

Originally posted by karlhungusjr:

quote:

what happens when all businesses are unionized? Prices go up to meet the demand of pay union workers demand..

...and then more people have money to spend on goods and services.

You've solved the worlds problems...just PAY everyone more! Brilliant!

quote:

Originally posted by threerings:

quote:

Originally posted by karlhungusjr:

quote:

what happens when all businesses are unionized? Prices go up to meet the demand of pay union workers demand..

...and then more people have money to spend on goods and services.

You've solved the worlds problems...just PAY everyone more! Brilliant!

Yeah...pay everyone less so you can create more working poor without health insurance or other costly benefits jobs.

@#$% a bunch of minimum wage--back to the service economy--everybody works for tips! No more pesky employment contracts.

Workman comp? Socialist nonsense. Get hurt on the job, tough. Suck it up. Ron Reagan walked five miles to school every day in the snow uphill both ways---get hold of those bootstraps, ya slackers!

Tear down all the union manufacturing plants and build more Wal-Marts. Their product comes from China anyway...who the heck needs American manufacturing when we can get the few to manufacture some more get-rich-quick financial derivatives and create some more wealth out of smoke and magic beans. Innovation, right?

We can all eat peanut butter from that plant in Georgia and some contaminated spinach from California...cut life expectancy to get health care costs and social security back in the black.

Did I miss anything?

quote:

Originally posted by Yooper_tj:

quote:

Originally posted by threerings:

quote:

Originally posted by karlhungusjr:

quote:

what happens when all businesses are unionized? Prices go up to meet the demand of pay union workers demand..

...and then more people have money to spend on goods and services.

You've solved the worlds problems...just PAY everyone more! Brilliant!

Yeah...pay everyone less so you can create more working poor without health insurance or other costly benefits jobs.

@#$% a bunch of minimum wage--back to the service economy--everybody works for tips! No more pesky employment contracts.

Workman comp? Socialist nonsense. Get hurt on the job, tough. Suck it up. Ron Reagan walked five miles to school every day in the snow uphill both ways---get hold of those bootstraps, ya slackers!

Tear down all the union manufacturing plants and build more Wal-Marts. Their product comes from China anyway...who the heck needs American manufacturing when we can get the few to manufacture some more get-rich-quick financial derivatives and create some more wealth out of smoke and magic beans. Innovation, right?

We can all eat peanut butter from that plant in Georgia and some contaminated spinach from California...cut life expectancy to get health care costs and social security back in the black.

Did I miss anything?

You missed common sense. What happens if everyone's pay was doubled tomorrow?
The REAL value of everyone income would be halfed...or right back where it started. Sure it would take a while ( 3 days!) for prices to adjust, the monetary supply would be drained, the fed would have to print money...and hello inflation, what are you doing at 1000%? C'mon, you can do better.

quote:

You missed common sense. What happens if everyone's pay was doubled tomorrow?
The REAL value of everyone income would be halfed...or right back where it started. Sure it would take a while ( 3 days!) for prices to adjust, the monetary supply would be drained, the fed would have to print money...and hello inflation, what are you doing at 1000%? C'mon, you can do better.

I'm not the one suggesting expanding the influence of unions with card check, nor exempting anyone from taxing income including health bennies if that's going to be the law of the land.

I get that. I don't see unions getting more popular because 7,000 or so of income is untaxed. I don't see unions getting more popular no matter what happens with the healthcare reform bill. Unions are as popular as they are now precisely because union employees enjoy living wages and health benefits. It shouldn't take a union to bring that to more workers.

Everyone wants cheaper goods. That means lowering wages or outsourcing. Everyone wants prosperity, but I'm not hearing anyone accepting the responsibilities--just a lot of old fashioned 'give me mine' from one side and some SOS Irwin R Schyster rhetoric about American Exceptionalism from the other side.

There ain't no such thing as an American made television anymore, but I paid a few bucks extra to buy it from a local appliance retailer. For that extra money, they delivered it. They unboxed it. They set it up, hooked it up, and showed me how to work yet another remote. They service it in house if it fails, and they offered 12 months same as cash financing--I'll pay it off early.

There's value in paying a little extra sometimes. Few see that value anymore.

Healthy, prosperous workers keep companies prosperous. They value their jobs--90 percent do, anyway.

The throwaway employees of the service economy won't be the stalwarts of economic recovery...and neither will their penny-pinching owners.

Class warfare is counter-productive.

quote:

Originally posted by Yooper_tj: ...cut life expectancy to get health care costs and social security back in the black.

The polytishuns may not openly tout it, but only very gullible or uninformed types of citizens will insist that this concept does not underlie a substantial part of the push for guvmint-bureaucrat-controlled healthcare rationing. If that should come to be, then on average, people will die sooner (as in other socialized medicine nations), and that serves well the Medicare and Social Insecurity accounts.

quote:

Originally posted by RRR52:

quote:

Originally posted by Yooper_tj: ...cut life expectancy to get health care costs and social security back in the black.

The polytishuns may not openly tout it, but only very gullible or uninformed types of citizens will insist that this concept does not underlie a substantial part of the push for guvmint-bureaucrat-controlled healthcare rationing. If that should come to be, then on average, people will die sooner (as in other socialized medicine nations), and that serves well the Medicare and Social Insecurity accounts.

The old 'One man's downfall is another man's windfall' school of economics...

quote:

Originally posted by Yooper_tj:

quote:

Originally posted by RRR52:

quote:

Originally posted by Yooper_tj: ...cut life expectancy to get health care costs and social security back in the black.

The polytishuns may not openly tout it, but only very gullible or uninformed types of citizens will insist that this concept does not underlie a substantial part of the push for guvmint-bureaucrat-controlled healthcare rationing. If that should come to be, then on average, people will die sooner (as in other socialized medicine nations), and that serves well the Medicare and Social Insecurity accounts.

The old 'One man's downfall is another man's windfall' school of economics...

Only for those who see life as "us-them," and not "we." When freedom is compromised, in effect involuntarily taken at the point of a gun from those who have EARNED some better benefit, then the opportunity for something better is taken from all. Losers look at others who have EARNED better and whine about it, latching onto the degenerate, immoral person's idea that "They are better off by taking 'something' from me. They should have to give me some of their 'ill gotten' gains." Winners see that if others have EARNED something better, then they, too, have that opportunity to EARN something better and create better circumstances for themselves and their loved ones. So has it always been; so shall it always be. The involuntary collectivism has a strong history, not of bringing those less well-off up to higher levels, but only of dragging down to mediocrity (or less) those who have EARNED better but who have their wealth stolen away. And that eventually harms all, especially those young people and future generations. But we recognize that for many people the rationalizations are very selfish, so transmitting the blessings of liberty and economic freedom to those who come after are unimportant.