Should employee benefits be tax exempt?

[initforme]

Any decent employer happily and willingly offers health insurance. Most workers, since their wages are pathetically low, could never afford health insurance. This is the disconnect between the Uber wealthy and those that work till they drop just to barely scrape by.

 

[OnePercenter]

Tax expenditures (exemptions, credits, deductions) are a massive government social welfare program. It is deliberate interference which grossly distorts the free market.

No right-minded conservative would EVER support this huge $1.4 trillion annual expense which drives up tax rates and government borrowing.

You saying that conservatives NEVER take exemptions, credits, or deductions?

 

[beautress]

Thread: Should government approved employee benefits be tax exempt? Why or why not?

Government employee benefits should be taxed the same as non-government employees. The government was never intended to be a Cinderella story for its employees, but a way for people who serve Americans can be same as average Americans are. No better, no worse. I don't see a lot of Americans with 30 days of holidays nor month-long furloughs for their first 20 years of employment.

 

[g5000]

Tax expenditures (exemptions, credits, deductions) are a massive government social welfare program. It is deliberate interference which grossly distorts the free market.

No right-minded conservative would EVER support this huge $1.4 trillion annual expense which drives up tax rates and government borrowing.

You saying that conservatives NEVER take exemptions, credits, or deductions?

As long as deductions, credits, and exemptions are on the table, it would be foolish not to take advantage of them to at least mitigate the robbery of the higher tax rates you are paying because of them.

But the goal should be ZERO tax expenditures. That's what I support.

We currently live in a totally rigged system where the government chooses winners and losers and so entities earning identical incomes are paying radically different amounts of tax.

No one can explain how that is just or fair. No one.

The government actually runs a behavioral control program on the masses which punishes you for not breeding or not buying the right products.

It was no great leap to punish you for not buying the right kind of health insurance.

 

[Polishprince]

Well, some benefits are, like portions of health benefits that taken out before taxes are. Generally though, benefits are gained as a part of employment, so no they should not be exempt.

Why health insurance? Is that the only benefit that should be tax exempt?

That was going to be my question. What benefits does the OP refer to?

But in general I'd say no. But then imo everyone should be covered by HC insurance. The devil of course is in the details.

Not everyone needs health insurance. When I was a young man I didn't have any and didn't need anything. My grandfather didn't go to a doctor one time for 60 years he didn't need it either. In addition, a lot of people prefer to go to naturopaths and homeopaths and other alternative health providers who are not part of the medical insurance panels.

Homeopathy is bunk.

I can appreciate that's your opinion, and I'm somewhat inclined to agree. However, a lot of people think otherwise, and I'm not sure that legislating this kind of thing is really what we want to do.

 

[Andylusion]

Why is the libertarian only allowed to say "no" to exemptions? Don't you guys think taxation is theft?

To pay for tax expenditures, you have to raise tax rates on everyone. This is classic robbing Peter to pay Paul.

In other words, massive theft.

Since we have $1.4 trillion in tax expenditures every year, it is not possible for our politicians to raise tax rates high enough to pay for all that without revolution, and so they are paid for with a combination of higher rates and borrowing.

$4.4 Trillion in tax expenditures.

 

[g5000]

Well, some benefits are, like portions of health benefits that taken out before taxes are. Generally though, benefits are gained as a part of employment, so no they should not be exempt.

Why health insurance? Is that the only benefit that should be tax exempt?

That was going to be my question. What benefits does the OP refer to?

But in general I'd say no. But then imo everyone should be covered by HC insurance. The devil of course is in the details.

Not everyone needs health insurance. When I was a young man I didn't have any and didn't need anything. My grandfather didn't go to a doctor one time for 60 years he didn't need it either. In addition, a lot of people prefer to go to naturopaths and homeopaths and other alternative health providers who are not part of the medical insurance panels.

Homeopathy is bunk.

I can appreciate that's your opinion, and I'm somewhat inclined to agree. However, a lot of people think otherwise, and I'm not sure that legislating this kind of thing is really what we want to do.

It explains why insurance companies don't pay for homeopathy, and they shouldn't.

 

[g5000]

Why is the libertarian only allowed to say "no" to exemptions? Don't you guys think taxation is theft?

To pay for tax expenditures, you have to raise tax rates on everyone. This is classic robbing Peter to pay Paul.

In other words, massive theft.

Since we have $1.4 trillion in tax expenditures every year, it is not possible for our politicians to raise tax rates high enough to pay for all that without revolution, and so they are paid for with a combination of higher rates and borrowing.

$4.4 Trillion in tax expenditures.

It's $1.4 trillion each year.

https://www.cbpp.org/sites/default/files/atoms/files/policybasics-taxexpenditures.pdf

In fiscal year 2018, tax expenditures reduced federal income tax revenue by roughly $1.4 trillion, and they reduced payroll taxes and other revenues by an additional $136 billion.

 

[OnePercenter]

Tax expenditures are a classic example of robbing Peter to pay Paul.

Tax expenditures pay for the fire department, a government service you don't need until you really do. And they show-up 24 hours per day, 365 days per year!

 

[g5000]

Any decent employer happily and willingly offers health insurance. Most workers, since their wages are pathetically low, could never afford health insurance. This is the disconnect between the Uber wealthy and those that work till they drop just to barely scrape by.

Employers pay the bulk of an employee's health insurance premiums. If that money was instead put into your paycheck, and you were able to pick up the telephone and call any insurance company in the country and buy your own insurance, just like you do for home/auto/life insurance, you would no longer be hostage to your employer and you would not automatically lose your insurance if/when you lose your job.

And your health insurance would be way cheaper since we would have unfettered competition between insurance companies, and you would get package discounts if you buy all your insurance policies from the same company.

You should be asking yourself why the Republicans and Democrats are working so hard to prevent you from being able to do that. And you should be really, really pissed off.

 

[g5000]

Tax expenditures are a classic example of robbing Peter to pay Paul.

Tax expenditures pay for the fire department, a government service you don't need until you really do. And they show-up 24 hours per day, 365 days per year!

Uh...you don't know what tax expenditures are, clearly.

 

[sparky]

~S~

 

[Andylusion]

Thread: Should government approved employee benefits be tax exempt? Why or why not?

Government employee benefits should be taxed the same as non-government employees. The government was never intended to be a Cinderella story for its employees, but a way for people who serve Americans can be same as average Americans are. No better, no worse. I don't see a lot of Americans with 30 days of holidays nor month-long furloughs for their first 20 years of employment.

Well..... Since I disagree with an income tax at all.... yes.

 

[OnePercenter]

Choose one. If you feel like it, explain your answer.

No. There should be ZERO tax expenditures in our tax code.

Currently, though, the employer contribution to health insurance, which is the bulk of the insurance premium, is 100 percent tax exempt.

It shouldn't be.

The employer health insurance tax exemption is one of the factors which bends the cost of healthcare upward.

The bulk of the premium? Not anywhere I know of, unless maybe under union companies.

Yes, the bulk of the premium. In almost all cases. How do you not know this?!?

What Percent of Health Insurance is Paid by Employers?

Across the country, Kaiser Family Foundation found the average percent of health insurance paid by employers is 82 percent for single coverage and 71 percent for family coverage.

Damn!!! I pay 100%, and PPO at that.

 

[Andylusion]

Why is the libertarian only allowed to say "no" to exemptions? Don't you guys think taxation is theft?

To pay for tax expenditures, you have to raise tax rates on everyone. This is classic robbing Peter to pay Paul.

In other words, massive theft.

Since we have $1.4 trillion in tax expenditures every year, it is not possible for our politicians to raise tax rates high enough to pay for all that without revolution, and so they are paid for with a combination of higher rates and borrowing.

$4.4 Trillion in tax expenditures.

It's $1.4 trillion each year.

https://www.cbpp.org/sites/default/files/atoms/files/policybasics-taxexpenditures.pdf

In fiscal year 2018, tax expenditures reduced federal income tax revenue by roughly $1.4 trillion, and they reduced payroll taxes and other revenues by an additional $136 billion.

Oh.... I see. I only have a problem with people paying more, not less tax.
But whatever.

 

[OnePercenter]

What about daycare? Housing? Why just health care? Why should government make this call?

Housing should be limited to the wealthy. I have six properties which I live-in, all are tax deductible.

Sure you do.

Home mortgage interest is another example of a tax exemption that shouldn't be allowed.

You let business do it, why not the people that make business all of their monies?

 

[g5000]

Why is the libertarian only allowed to say "no" to exemptions? Don't you guys think taxation is theft?

To pay for tax expenditures, you have to raise tax rates on everyone. This is classic robbing Peter to pay Paul.

In other words, massive theft.

Since we have $1.4 trillion in tax expenditures every year, it is not possible for our politicians to raise tax rates high enough to pay for all that without revolution, and so they are paid for with a combination of higher rates and borrowing.

$4.4 Trillion in tax expenditures.

It's $1.4 trillion each year.

https://www.cbpp.org/sites/default/files/atoms/files/policybasics-taxexpenditures.pdf

In fiscal year 2018, tax expenditures reduced federal income tax revenue by roughly $1.4 trillion, and they reduced payroll taxes and other revenues by an additional $136 billion.

Oh.... I see. I only have a problem with people paying more, not less tax.
But whatever.

Because of tax expenditures, you are paying higher tax rates. Higher tax rates and tax expenditures go hand in glove. This is the dirty secret your paid off politicians never tell you.

Well, Deven Nunes tipped their hand, once. I'll quote him later.

But without tax expenditures, we'd all be paying much lower tax rates.

 

[OnePercenter]

Tax expenditures (exemptions, credits, deductions) are a massive government social welfare program. It is deliberate interference which grossly distorts the free market.

No right-minded conservative would EVER support this huge $1.4 trillion annual expense which drives up tax rates and government borrowing.

You saying that conservatives NEVER take exemptions, credits, or deductions?

As long as deductions, credits, and exemptions are on the table, it would be foolish not to take advantage of them to at least mitigate the robbery of the higher tax rates you are paying because of them.

But the goal should be ZERO tax expenditures. That's what I support.

We currently live in a totally rigged system where the government chooses winners and losers and so entities earning identical incomes are paying radically different amounts of tax.

No one can explain how that is just or fair. No one.

The government actually runs a behavioral control program on the masses which punishes you for not breeding or not buying the right products.

It was no great leap to punish you for not buying the right kind of health insurance.

This is where your Libertarianism falls apart. You're against something unless it benefits you. HYPOCRITE!

 

[g5000]

This brings me to a point I made earlier today about the recent attraction to socialism on the part of the masses.

I like the idea of insurance. Insurance is a great business model and it benefits everyone.

However, our health insurance industry has royally screwed the capitalist pooch.

I mentioned unfettered competition above. Well, greed has carried the insurance industry away and the last thing they want is unfettered competition with each other. So they have formed a cabal among themselves, and they have paid off our congressional politicians to create zones where they can each operate without competition from the others.

So health care costs have gone up and up and up, to the point where the masses are now fed up with capitalism and are starting to look at socialism for the answer. In this case, socialized medicine.

The Republican Party is a key player in this obstacle to unfettered competition. Their campaign coffers are filled to the brim by the insurance industry.

Which is exactly why you have NEVER seen a health care reform plan from the GOP.

Which is why socialized medicine is inevitable here.

 

[g5000]

Tax expenditures (exemptions, credits, deductions) are a massive government social welfare program. It is deliberate interference which grossly distorts the free market.

No right-minded conservative would EVER support this huge $1.4 trillion annual expense which drives up tax rates and government borrowing.

You saying that conservatives NEVER take exemptions, credits, or deductions?

As long as deductions, credits, and exemptions are on the table, it would be foolish not to take advantage of them to at least mitigate the robbery of the higher tax rates you are paying because of them.

But the goal should be ZERO tax expenditures. That's what I support.

We currently live in a totally rigged system where the government chooses winners and losers and so entities earning identical incomes are paying radically different amounts of tax.

No one can explain how that is just or fair. No one.

The government actually runs a behavioral control program on the masses which punishes you for not breeding or not buying the right products.

It was no great leap to punish you for not buying the right kind of health insurance.

This is where your Libertarianism falls apart. You're against something unless it benefits you. HYPOCRITE!

It would benefit everyone, fool. By eliminating tax expenditures, we could lower tax rates on EVERYONE.

And individuals earning identical incomes would pay identical taxes. As well as corporations earning identical incomes.

Huge win for everyone except the looters.