This topic was previously discussed by Rush.
A Taxreform bump for you all.
If you would like to be added to this ping list let me know.
John Linder in the House(HR25) & Saxby Chambliss Senate(S25) offer a comprehensive bill to kill all income and SS/Medicare payroll taxes outright and replace them with with a national retail sales tax administered by the states.
H.R.25,S.25
A bill to promote freedom, fairness, and economic opportunity by repealing the income tax and other taxes, abolishing the Internal Revenue Service, and enacting a national retail sales tax to be administered primarily by the States.Refer for additional information:
If this ever happens, I'll just quit working.
Just another stab in the back, trying to get EVERYTHING under the control of the almighty "benevolent" GOVERNMENT.
If this would motivate employers to pay employees a straight-up salary, I'm for it.
If "income" is to be taxed why shouldn't all "income" be taxed. If you get paid in cash, groceries, health care or anything else it should all be taxed equally or not at all.
This topic was previously discussed by Rush.
If the Republicans try this (or Dems for that matter) they will NEVER EVER be elected to the majority again......
Hillary's gotta be rubbing her hands in glee.
Whatever happened to some of the good Health Industry ideas that were floated by the Pubbies in the '90's before Mr. Stangeguv took over the ship of state?
My wife and I are a mom and pop shop and we pay over $7000 a year for health insurance, with a $5k deductible. We are not making a ton of money and are willing to do this but it sure would be nice to get a little help, like small owners being able to join together.
"The tax break is regressive because people at the lower-income brackets get less benefit. It does just the opposite of what it should," said David Kendall, a senior health-policy analyst at the Progressive Policy Institute in Washington, a research center for the centrist Democratic Leadership Council. "It promotes coverage for people who can already afford it."
Ahh, the old "class-warfare" thing again. OK, so instead of just dealing with the fact that low income people get "less benefit," let's eliminate the benefit altogether and tax everyone! That's liberal logic... their solution is to PUNISH everyone instead, but you should be happy about it because the rich will get screwed harder than you!
Democrats.. they'll piss on your head and tell you it's raining.
The problem with the Progressive Policy Institute and other Communist think tanks/activist organizations, is that they always couch proposals ignoring the vast majority of taxpayers, in this case those earning between $25k and $75k, who pay the overwhelming majority of taxes, and who get the royal shaft every time.
I'm fine with this if:
The government gets out of the health business altogether (driving costs back down to sane levels) and employers are required to increase salaries by the amount currently going to health care premiums.
One thing we don't need is another stealth welfare program!
"Left-leaning advocates call for ending the tax exclusion for job-sponsored health benefits in the name of fairness. They think the benefits are an invisible tax break for wealthier Americans that's unavailable to poorer ones
I see. Now average blue collar workers are "wealthy?" Real smart move.
In 2003, 45 million Americans lacked health insurance, census data show.
Again, bull. Notice that this doesn't read "workers," just Americans, which would include children, the unemployed, and the unemployable.
The number of uninsured could be lowered sharply by ending the exclusion and using the new tax revenue to create subsidized insurance for those without job-based coverage,
Yet again, more BS.
What this would lower sharply is the number of insured workers, as employers drop the option.
Quite some time ago, when Ms Slick Willie was proposing a mandated health insurance scheme whereby all employers HAD to offer insurance, many of my employess had very big grins on their faces.
Until I told them "If that happens, okay."
"When the Clinton Health Fairy floats in the window you are fired and the positions will be outsourced." Gee, no more smiles.
AARP is open to capping the value of the exclusion provided there's a direct tradeoff benefit for older Americans
Gee, what a shock. The excrable AARP is in favor of big tax increases only if they get their share of the pie.
I thought this was about health insurance for working Americans.
Advocates on left and right agree on this: Ending the tax exclusion should be accompanied by a new national tax-credit system for health care.
I really doubt that statement.
wait, let me get this straight.. their gonna tax MY medical benefits, to pay for some lazy bums FREE medicaide/care?
If insurance benefits are taxed it will just hasten the day when the US adopts national health insurance. In the mean time those of us who can afford the trip will be going to Thailand or India for our care.
NO, NO, NO.
If a guy making $30,000 a year gets health benefits, and another guy making over $100,000 a year at the same company gets the same benefits, the lower paid guys benefits are worth a whole lot more to him. It could be worth $10,000 a year. Besides, some places, like where I work, the more you make, the more your part of the monthly health insurance is. So for the lowest paid workers, they only pay in I think something like 40%, whereas at the higher end, I think its something like 60%. So the lower paid guy guy would get hit even harder in that type of case.
Of course the best way to take care of this really is to get rid of employer paid health insurance, and give the money to the employee instead.
I'm all for this. This is the way it SHOULD HAVE BEEN in the first place.
IT IS A CONSERVATIVE POSITION TO DO THIS.
IT WILL PUT DECISION MAKING BACK IN THE HANDS OF INDIVIDIUALS AND OUT OF THE GOVT HANDS.
Will it be an easy change.......no.
If the government ends up doing this, and health benefits are taxed as income, then the other side of the equation is that all premiums and out of pocket health costs should be deductible, with no minimum out of pocket required to be eligible for tax relief.
Milton Friedman has argued that this is the first step in regaining control of the health care system, because the non-taxable nature of health care has led people to believe it's "free," and thus to use more of it; and if it were taxed, Friedman argues, people would then engage in negotiations with employers about whether they wanted cash, health care, or whatever. He maintains it's the first step toward medical savings accounts.
Oh good grief!
Give Dr. Tom Coburn a scalpel and let him cut all the pork out of all the budgets they pass, and then maybe I'll consider this a good idea.