Giving everybody the same tax deductions is not unfair redistribution of wealth, it is simple fairness.
It is not everyone getting the same tax deduction, and you know it. I would have to (as a single person, and if my employer paid more than $7,500 for my health benefits) have to pay taxes on anything over that in order to keep my employer's benefit that I got as a part of my salary for agreeing to work at his business. That is part of my compensation, my salary. Now the IRS comes along and says those benefits that I was given when I was hired are now going to be taxed. That's money out of my pocket. So now I'm put in the position of accepting that I will be taxed or go out and try to find a health insurance plan that will be under the $7,500, in order not to be taxed. The odds are I will not find a policy that had the same benefits or better than the one I already had through my employment. So I stick with my employer's plan (that's assuming all employers don't use Bush's plan as an excuse to dump all their employees' health benefits, if Bush's plan goes through and which is the true motivation of Bush, give another perk to big business), I'm taxed. Now, Joe Schmoe doesn't have a health insurance plan where he works, and because of who knows, intelligence IQ, schooling, laziness, short attention span at any given job, just bad luck, etc., will get a tax break to go buy a health insurance plan rather than having to save his own money for it, and that money will come from the taxes on the wealthier person's health plan who keeps his employers' insurance in spite of being taxed on it because it is better than any plan he could go out and buy himself. And that's the way it really is. Can't have anyone having too good a health plan, can we, without taxing it. Just the whole concept of TAXING your health benefits sucks. It's more taxes on those who weren't paying it on their benefits before. And if you are a self-insurer, go work for someone if you don't want to pay after-taxes on a health plan, rather than ripping the money off from someone else to use as the great leveler. How can you not see this?
If you are in a zero tax bracket, the tax deduction has no value.
Employers could offer a wage instead of health ins benefit then the enployee could run the premium through a 125 plan to avoid taxes, (in the case of the plan costing more than 7500/15000 per year).
Nothing would change.
Well what might change is the employee would take more ownership of heath care costs, and that might not be a bad thing.
You are correct about the possible result of his plan. But your consequence does not in any way negate the fact that it is simple fairness, and is giving people the same tax deduction.
Right now, my taxes are paying for part of your health care costs. If your plan is worth more than $15,000, under Bush's plan my taxes would pay a little less of the costs for your plan, and you would pay more of it. In exchange, people who right now have to pay ALL of their health care costs would now get some of my tax money to pay for their health care plans. I'm upset, but not too upset because at least my taxes didn't go UP to pay their health care costs.
And it's fairer, because now the government subsidy is spread out to all people doing the same thing (buying health insurance), not targetted to people who buy employee health insurance.
But you are completely correct about the harm to you. You and your employer realised that if the employer just paid you a big salary, and you took some of the money and bought insurance, the government would tax you on your pay. You further realised that, by having the employer make a health plan, and having you buy it from them, you could "make more money" in that the govermment would pay part of the cost for your health care by forgiving some of the tax that you would normally owe for what you are being paid.
Bush is seeking to limit that type of income redistribution to under $15,000, removing some of the incentive for you and your employer to construct odd arrangements simply to cut your tax burden.
In the absense of tax deductions, would it make ANY SENSE for your employer to also be your health care insurance provider? After all, you don't buy your car insurance from them. They don't pay for your house, or buy your groceries. (old company-store type employment did that, to the detriment of workers).
Your employer should focus on whatever business they are in, and should pay you a straight salary equal to the value of the work you do for them. The government should tax you based on a fair assessment on the money you make, in order to fund appropriate government functions. You should then spend your money the way you see fit, without government paying you to spend money the way THEY want you to spend it.