Should employee benefits be tax exempt?

[OnePercenter]

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.

Healthcare insurance companies don't own any homeopathy company stores.

 

[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!

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

A fire department doesn't derive public tax monies allocated through tax money expenditures?

 

[OnePercenter]

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.

You may disagree, but you certainly use taxpayer paid services.

 

[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!

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.

You really, really, need to read this:

Libertarianism Makes You Stupid

 

[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.

You may disagree, but you certainly use taxpayer paid services.

Local services, sure. I have no problem with states and cities having an income tax. Federally, no.

If you look at city budgets (generally) you can see that my tax money, is in fact going to useful services, rather than Solyondra and green energy grants, and government money-for-votes giveaways.

So yes, I have no problem with local taxes. It's the Federal taxes for Social Security that I'll never see, and other garbage cash-for-clunker programs, that I think we should have zero income tax.

The federal government should be entirely funded by low (non-protectionist) tariffs, and a corporate tax (again low).

 

[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.

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.

No. It would not mean that. It was just mean that government would blow even more money.

More money to the government in taxes, never results in lower taxes on anyone. It just means they spend even more money. Again... .look at France. Much higher tax rates, and they are still spending more money than they collect in taxes.

The idea that if we didn't have a deduction for X, means that tax rates would be lower for Y... is just not true. They just spend the more money they get.

Remember in 2000, when at least on paper, we had a surplus of tax revenue? You remember what happened? The government debated how they would spend the surplus.

The didn't lower tax on the rest of us, because they had a surplus.... they didn't even pay off the trillions in debt with the surplus..... they simply found new ways to spend the money.

That's the reality.

 

[CWayne]

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.

Why? Why do you believe insurance is the only way to pay for health care? Why can't people try out different solutions?

because paying docs with chickens and potatoes really won't work anymore.

So, the only system you can think of is a livestock barter system?

There is an excellent Christian program in which they help pay each other's medical bills.

Yes, I know, that is the definition of an insurance program. However, this one is different in that there is no employer or insurance agency involved.

I cannot remember the name of the damn thing right now though.

Here is a synopsis.

Christian Healthcare Plans: Discover the Pros and Cons

 

[WTH_Progs?]

Can't address the OP, because OP didn't list what types of benefits.

That's because I don't believe any benefits should be promoted, or discouraged, by the government. It's really none of their business how people are compensated.

I see your point. I guess my point is some benefits are taxed naturally, such as for pensions, 401K, annual, sick time. Medicare and SSA too, but that's another story.

 

[Lesh]

Why? Why do you believe insurance is the only way to pay for health care? Why can't people try out different solutions?

Like what? Prayer?

 

[dblack]

Why? Why do you believe insurance is the only way to pay for health care? Why can't people try out different solutions?

Like what? Prayer?

Like whatever the fuck they want. Why does it matter? Why do you need to know?

 

[dblack]

Any decent employer happily and willingly offers health insurance.

Of course they do! It gives them incredible power over employees. I knew a guy with MS that was stuck at a dead-end job he hated because they had him by the balls with health insurance.

 

[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.

A fire department doesn't derive public tax monies allocated through tax money expenditures?

A fire department is not paid for with tax deductions, credits, or exemptions.

That's what tax expenditures are.

 

[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.

You really, really, need to read this:

Libertarianism Makes You Stupid

It's a good thing I'm not a Libertarian then, isn't it. Not that the idiot's screed in your link has anything to do with why I am not.

And for someone who doesn't know what tax expenditures are, I'd be careful about who you call stupid.

 

[g5000]

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.

You may disagree, but you certainly use taxpayer paid services.

Local services, sure. I have no problem with states and cities having an income tax. Federally, no.

If you look at city budgets (generally) you can see that my tax money, is in fact going to useful services, rather than Solyondra and green energy grants, and government money-for-votes giveaways.

So yes, I have no problem with local taxes. It's the Federal taxes for Social Security that I'll never see, and other garbage cash-for-clunker programs, that I think we should have zero income tax.

The federal government should be entirely funded by low (non-protectionist) tariffs, and a corporate tax (again low).

You should know the government program which funded Solyndra actually made a profit.

Just like venture capitalism, some investments fail, but not all of them.

 

[g5000]

The didn't lower tax on the rest of us, because they had a surplus.... they didn't even pay off the trillions in debt with the surplus..... they simply found new ways to spend the money.

That's the reality.

Nope. The reality is that the Clinton surplus was used to pay down $453 billion of debt, which was 12 percent of the total debt. If Clinton's successors had stayed on track, the debt would have been paid off a decade ago.

 

[g5000]

Economic policy of the Bill Clinton administration - Wikipedia

The ratio of debt held by the public to GDP, a primary measure of U.S. federal debt, fell from 47.8% in 1993 to 33.6% by 2000. Debt held by the public was actually paid down by $453 billion over the 1998-2001 periods, the only time this happened between 1970 and 2018.

 

[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.

You may disagree, but you certainly use taxpayer paid services.

Local services, sure. I have no problem with states and cities having an income tax. Federally, no.

If you look at city budgets (generally) you can see that my tax money, is in fact going to useful services, rather than Solyondra and green energy grants, and government money-for-votes giveaways.

So yes, I have no problem with local taxes. It's the Federal taxes for Social Security that I'll never see, and other garbage cash-for-clunker programs, that I think we should have zero income tax.

The federal government should be entirely funded by low (non-protectionist) tariffs, and a corporate tax (again low).

You should know the government program which funded Solyndra actually made a profit.

Just like venture capitalism, some investments fail, but not all of them.

Does not matter.

In fact, I am as much against government making a profit, as government losing money on the deal.

You know made a huge profit off of programs? Stalin's Soviet Russia. Huge profits off of the public. What a great system that was.

Do you know what a feudal system is? It's where government owns everything, and the people worked as indentured servants to the government. They made huge profits off the people.

The last thing I want is government using the US public, like a feudal system, to make profits from.

Government loves to try and convince that government making money, is a benefit to the public. Yeah, and every tyrant dictator does the same.

Government is supposed to be there to enforce the law, protect the nation, and defend the rights of the people.

It is not there to be running a business.... whether "profitable" or not.

 

[my2¢]

I would have answered "No" but I don't consider myself left, right, or libertarian. If a flat tax was ever implemented I'd change my opinion to a "Yes".

 

[Andylusion]

Economic policy of the Bill Clinton administration - Wikipedia

The ratio of debt held by the public to GDP, a primary measure of U.S. federal debt, fell from 47.8% in 1993 to 33.6% by 2000. Debt held by the public was actually paid down by $453 billion over the 1998-2001 periods, the only time this happened between 1970 and 2018.

First off, it was not the economic policies of Bill Clinton. Not even close. If you look at the budgets before 1995... not one of them showed any attempt to contain costs, or reduce government spending. Not one. I would challenge you to go look at the budgets Bill Clinton passed BEFORE 1995, and show me ONE where they planned to have a balanced budget.

Doesn't exist.

It was the Republicans that gained control over Congress in 1994, that had the contract with America, that pushed to reduce spending. It was Congress that under-cut the President's budget year over year until 2000.

That said.....

The claim that the debt went down, is merely cooking numbers. If you doubt that, let me help you....

Government - Historical Debt Outstanding - Annual 1950 - 1999
Government - Historical Debt Outstanding - Annual 2000 - 2018

Direct the from Treasury department of the US government....


09/30/2001 5,807,463,412,200.06
09/30/2000 5,674,178,209,886.86
09/30/1999 5,656,270,901,615.43
09/30/1998 5,526,193,008,897.62
09/30/1997 5,413,146,011,397.34
09/30/1996 5,224,810,939,135.73
09/29/1995 4,973,982,900,709.39
09/30/1994 4,692,749,910,013.32

Is that clear enough for you? There is not one single year, in which the debt owed by the US government, went down.

THERE IS NOT ONE YEAR WHERE THE US DEBT WENT DOWN.

This ridiculous myth has been debunked a billion times.

 

[g5000]

Economic policy of the Bill Clinton administration - Wikipedia

The ratio of debt held by the public to GDP, a primary measure of U.S. federal debt, fell from 47.8% in 1993 to 33.6% by 2000. Debt held by the public was actually paid down by $453 billion over the 1998-2001 periods, the only time this happened between 1970 and 2018.

First off, it was not the economic policies of Bill Clinton. Not even close. If you look at the budgets before 1995... not one of them showed any attempt to contain costs, or reduce government spending. Not one. I would challenge you to go look at the budgets Bill Clinton passed BEFORE 1995, and show me ONE where they planned to have a balanced budget.

Doesn't exist.

It was the Republicans that gained control over Congress in 1994, that had the contract with America, that pushed to reduce spending. It was Congress that under-cut the President's budget year over year until 2000.

That said.....

The claim that the debt went down, is merely cooking numbers. If you doubt that, let me help you....

Government - Historical Debt Outstanding - Annual 1950 - 1999
Government - Historical Debt Outstanding - Annual 2000 - 2018

Direct the from Treasury department of the US government....


09/30/2001 5,807,463,412,200.06
09/30/2000 5,674,178,209,886.86
09/30/1999 5,656,270,901,615.43
09/30/1998 5,526,193,008,897.62
09/30/1997 5,413,146,011,397.34
09/30/1996 5,224,810,939,135.73
09/29/1995 4,973,982,900,709.39
09/30/1994 4,692,749,910,013.32

Is that clear enough for you? There is not one single year, in which the debt owed by the US government, went down.

THERE IS NOT ONE YEAR WHERE THE US DEBT WENT DOWN.

This ridiculous myth has been debunked a billion times.

Comprehension fail.

"The ratio of debt held by the public to GDP, a primary measure of U.S. federal debt..."