Backdoor to socialized medicine?

[briansd1]

[quote=flu] Why if Company X offers shitty health plan 1 and Company Y offers awesome health plan 2, why do you think folks that work at Company Y should be taxed more for it? It’s not income. It doesn’t put money in the bank. If you don’t use it, you don’t get anything back.[/quote]

Because like salary, health plans are a way of attracting good employees.

Also companies generally offer different health plans.

When cadillac health plans are untaxed, they are essentially subsidized and they offer incentive to companies to offering generous and wasteful plans even to employees who don’t need them.

If salaries and health plans were equally taxed, the employer would be indifferent as the compensation. Therefore, the employees with large families and medical conditions would select the cadillac plans. And the healthy single employees would select to get more salary and a more basic plan with higher deductible.

[Coronita]

[quote=briansd1][quote=flu]
Actually, I was going to ask… Why do you think health plans are compensation?[/quote]

Benefits provided to you by your employer are compensation.

If benefits were not taxable, employers wouldn’t pay salaries anymore. They’d pay everything out in benefits (cars, rent, health insurance, life insurance, food, etc..).

Employers shift compensation to untaxable benefits whenever possible. It’s equates to paying the employees/executives more, at the expense of the IRS.[/quote]

If it is a benefit, how does one measure how much of it is used for which it to be taxable benefit “for the recipient of the benefit”?

If the “worth” of an insurance is determined by how much it costs, are you suggesting those for which a premium paid by an employer cost more has “more insurance” and hence should be taxed more than an insurance policy that “costs less”?

So if a company A does a shitty job negotiation an group insurance package with an insurance company and ends up having to pay a lot for providing the same medical coverage to employees that other employees at company B with identical coverage, you think, because it is a taxable benefit, that employees from company A should have to pay more for this benefit than company B, despite the health coverage otherwise being identical?

[Coronita]

[quote=briansd1][quote=flu]
Actually, I was going to ask… Why do you think health plans are compensation?[/quote]

Benefits provided to you by your employer are compensation.

If benefits were not taxable, employers wouldn’t pay salaries anymore. They’d pay everything out in benefits (cars, rent, health insurance, life insurance, food, etc..).

Employers shift compensation to untaxable benefits whenever possible. It’s equates to paying the employees/executives more, at the expense of the IRS.[/quote]

If it is a benefit, how does one measure how much of it is used for which it to be taxable benefit “for the recipient of the benefit”?

If the “worth” of an insurance is determined by how much it costs, are you suggesting those for which a premium paid by an employer cost more has “more insurance” and hence should be taxed more than an insurance policy that “costs less”?

So if a company A does a shitty job negotiation an group insurance package with an insurance company and ends up having to pay a lot for providing the same medical coverage to employees that other employees at company B with identical coverage, you think, because it is a taxable benefit, that employees from company A should have to pay more for this benefit than company B, despite the health coverage otherwise being identical?

[Coronita]

[quote=briansd1][quote=flu]
Actually, I was going to ask… Why do you think health plans are compensation?[/quote]

Benefits provided to you by your employer are compensation.

If benefits were not taxable, employers wouldn’t pay salaries anymore. They’d pay everything out in benefits (cars, rent, health insurance, life insurance, food, etc..).

Employers shift compensation to untaxable benefits whenever possible. It’s equates to paying the employees/executives more, at the expense of the IRS.[/quote]

If it is a benefit, how does one measure how much of it is used for which it to be taxable benefit “for the recipient of the benefit”?

If the “worth” of an insurance is determined by how much it costs, are you suggesting those for which a premium paid by an employer cost more has “more insurance” and hence should be taxed more than an insurance policy that “costs less”?

So if a company A does a shitty job negotiation an group insurance package with an insurance company and ends up having to pay a lot for providing the same medical coverage to employees that other employees at company B with identical coverage, you think, because it is a taxable benefit, that employees from company A should have to pay more for this benefit than company B, despite the health coverage otherwise being identical?

[Coronita]

[quote=briansd1][quote=flu]
Actually, I was going to ask… Why do you think health plans are compensation?[/quote]

Benefits provided to you by your employer are compensation.

If benefits were not taxable, employers wouldn’t pay salaries anymore. They’d pay everything out in benefits (cars, rent, health insurance, life insurance, food, etc..).

Employers shift compensation to untaxable benefits whenever possible. It’s equates to paying the employees/executives more, at the expense of the IRS.[/quote]

If it is a benefit, how does one measure how much of it is used for which it to be taxable benefit “for the recipient of the benefit”?

If the “worth” of an insurance is determined by how much it costs, are you suggesting those for which a premium paid by an employer cost more has “more insurance” and hence should be taxed more than an insurance policy that “costs less”?

So if a company A does a shitty job negotiation an group insurance package with an insurance company and ends up having to pay a lot for providing the same medical coverage to employees that other employees at company B with identical coverage, you think, because it is a taxable benefit, that employees from company A should have to pay more for this benefit than company B, despite the health coverage otherwise being identical?

[Coronita]

[quote=briansd1][quote=flu]
Actually, I was going to ask… Why do you think health plans are compensation?[/quote]

Benefits provided to you by your employer are compensation.

If benefits were not taxable, employers wouldn’t pay salaries anymore. They’d pay everything out in benefits (cars, rent, health insurance, life insurance, food, etc..).

Employers shift compensation to untaxable benefits whenever possible. It’s equates to paying the employees/executives more, at the expense of the IRS.[/quote]

If it is a benefit, how does one measure how much of it is used for which it to be taxable benefit “for the recipient of the benefit”?

If the “worth” of an insurance is determined by how much it costs, are you suggesting those for which a premium paid by an employer cost more has “more insurance” and hence should be taxed more than an insurance policy that “costs less”?

So if a company A does a shitty job negotiation an group insurance package with an insurance company and ends up having to pay a lot for providing the same medical coverage to employees that other employees at company B with identical coverage, you think, because it is a taxable benefit, that employees from company A should have to pay more for this benefit than company B, despite the health coverage otherwise being identical?

[briansd1]

[quote=flu]

If it is a benefit, how does one measure how much of it is used for which it to be taxable benefit *for the recipient of the benefit*?[/quote]

You measure it by what it’s costing the employer to provide the benefit.

For example you employer may pay $2000/mo in premium for your family’s health care coverage. That’s $2,000 in compensation to you.

Currently because the benefit is untaxed, the value to you is $2,857 = 2000/(1-.30) Assuming your tax rate is .30.

Assuming you could buy the same coverage on your own, you would be indifferent if the employer provided you the $2,000 in health insurance plan or $2,857 in additional salary.

[quote=flu]
So if a company A does a shitty job negotiation an group insurance package with an insurance company and ends up having to pay a lot for providing the same medical coverage to employees that other employees at company B with identical coverage, you think, because it is a taxable benefit, that employees from company A should have to pay more for this benefit than company B, despite the health coverage otherwise being identical?
[/quote]

That’s the free market.

If you do a lousy job negotiating the price of a car, you pay more for the same value.

You have to earn more (and pay more taxes) than your friend to pay for the same car.

That wouldn’t be problem with a single payer system.

That’s the nature of insurance. Some people get more benefits out of insurance than others.

[briansd1]

[quote=flu]

If it is a benefit, how does one measure how much of it is used for which it to be taxable benefit *for the recipient of the benefit*?[/quote]

You measure it by what it’s costing the employer to provide the benefit.

For example you employer may pay $2000/mo in premium for your family’s health care coverage. That’s $2,000 in compensation to you.

Currently because the benefit is untaxed, the value to you is $2,857 = 2000/(1-.30) Assuming your tax rate is .30.

Assuming you could buy the same coverage on your own, you would be indifferent if the employer provided you the $2,000 in health insurance plan or $2,857 in additional salary.

[quote=flu]
So if a company A does a shitty job negotiation an group insurance package with an insurance company and ends up having to pay a lot for providing the same medical coverage to employees that other employees at company B with identical coverage, you think, because it is a taxable benefit, that employees from company A should have to pay more for this benefit than company B, despite the health coverage otherwise being identical?
[/quote]

That’s the free market.

If you do a lousy job negotiating the price of a car, you pay more for the same value.

You have to earn more (and pay more taxes) than your friend to pay for the same car.

That wouldn’t be problem with a single payer system.

That’s the nature of insurance. Some people get more benefits out of insurance than others.

[briansd1]

[quote=flu]

If it is a benefit, how does one measure how much of it is used for which it to be taxable benefit *for the recipient of the benefit*?[/quote]

You measure it by what it’s costing the employer to provide the benefit.

For example you employer may pay $2000/mo in premium for your family’s health care coverage. That’s $2,000 in compensation to you.

Currently because the benefit is untaxed, the value to you is $2,857 = 2000/(1-.30) Assuming your tax rate is .30.

Assuming you could buy the same coverage on your own, you would be indifferent if the employer provided you the $2,000 in health insurance plan or $2,857 in additional salary.

[quote=flu]
So if a company A does a shitty job negotiation an group insurance package with an insurance company and ends up having to pay a lot for providing the same medical coverage to employees that other employees at company B with identical coverage, you think, because it is a taxable benefit, that employees from company A should have to pay more for this benefit than company B, despite the health coverage otherwise being identical?
[/quote]

That’s the free market.

If you do a lousy job negotiating the price of a car, you pay more for the same value.

You have to earn more (and pay more taxes) than your friend to pay for the same car.

That wouldn’t be problem with a single payer system.

That’s the nature of insurance. Some people get more benefits out of insurance than others.

[briansd1]

[quote=flu]

If it is a benefit, how does one measure how much of it is used for which it to be taxable benefit *for the recipient of the benefit*?[/quote]

You measure it by what it’s costing the employer to provide the benefit.

For example you employer may pay $2000/mo in premium for your family’s health care coverage. That’s $2,000 in compensation to you.

Currently because the benefit is untaxed, the value to you is $2,857 = 2000/(1-.30) Assuming your tax rate is .30.

Assuming you could buy the same coverage on your own, you would be indifferent if the employer provided you the $2,000 in health insurance plan or $2,857 in additional salary.

[quote=flu]
So if a company A does a shitty job negotiation an group insurance package with an insurance company and ends up having to pay a lot for providing the same medical coverage to employees that other employees at company B with identical coverage, you think, because it is a taxable benefit, that employees from company A should have to pay more for this benefit than company B, despite the health coverage otherwise being identical?
[/quote]

That’s the free market.

If you do a lousy job negotiating the price of a car, you pay more for the same value.

You have to earn more (and pay more taxes) than your friend to pay for the same car.

That wouldn’t be problem with a single payer system.

That’s the nature of insurance. Some people get more benefits out of insurance than others.

[briansd1]

[quote=flu]

If it is a benefit, how does one measure how much of it is used for which it to be taxable benefit *for the recipient of the benefit*?[/quote]

You measure it by what it’s costing the employer to provide the benefit.

For example you employer may pay $2000/mo in premium for your family’s health care coverage. That’s $2,000 in compensation to you.

Currently because the benefit is untaxed, the value to you is $2,857 = 2000/(1-.30) Assuming your tax rate is .30.

Assuming you could buy the same coverage on your own, you would be indifferent if the employer provided you the $2,000 in health insurance plan or $2,857 in additional salary.

[quote=flu]
So if a company A does a shitty job negotiation an group insurance package with an insurance company and ends up having to pay a lot for providing the same medical coverage to employees that other employees at company B with identical coverage, you think, because it is a taxable benefit, that employees from company A should have to pay more for this benefit than company B, despite the health coverage otherwise being identical?
[/quote]

That’s the free market.

If you do a lousy job negotiating the price of a car, you pay more for the same value.

You have to earn more (and pay more taxes) than your friend to pay for the same car.

That wouldn’t be problem with a single payer system.

That’s the nature of insurance. Some people get more benefits out of insurance than others.

[Coronita]

[quote=briansd1][quote=flu]

If it is a benefit, how does one measure how much of it is used for which it to be taxable benefit *for the recipient of the benefit*?[/quote]

You measure it by what it’s costing the employer to provide the benefit.

For example you employer may pay $2000/mo in premium for your family’s health care coverage. That’s $2,000 in compensation to you.

Currently because the benefit is untaxed, the value to you is $2,857 = 2000/(1-.30) Assuming your tax rate is .30.

Assuming you could buy the same coverage on your own, you would be indifferent if the employer provided you the $2,000 in health insurance plan or $2,857 in additional salary.[/quote]

Are you familiar with group health insurance costs for small employers, out of curiosity?

Specially,

(a)suppose you had a company A of 60 people, with half being 45-50 years old, some perhaps with pre-existing condition (lets say 5 are considered obese 5 have heart condition, and 1 with ongoing cancer treatment) and the remaining being under that age.

(b)suppose you had company B of 60 people, with all employees being 25 years old.

Want to take a guess on what sort of group premiums company A would be paying versus company B?

Still think the health “benefit” would be the same at the same dollar amount? Still think if the employers match the benefits to be competitive in employment, that the premiums paid would be the same? Do you still think employees of company A should be taxed more than company b for their health benefit? What do you think this does to Company A’s competitiveness in retaining talent versus Company B?

[Coronita]

[quote=briansd1][quote=flu]

If it is a benefit, how does one measure how much of it is used for which it to be taxable benefit *for the recipient of the benefit*?[/quote]

You measure it by what it’s costing the employer to provide the benefit.

For example you employer may pay $2000/mo in premium for your family’s health care coverage. That’s $2,000 in compensation to you.

Currently because the benefit is untaxed, the value to you is $2,857 = 2000/(1-.30) Assuming your tax rate is .30.

Assuming you could buy the same coverage on your own, you would be indifferent if the employer provided you the $2,000 in health insurance plan or $2,857 in additional salary.[/quote]

Are you familiar with group health insurance costs for small employers, out of curiosity?

Specially,

(a)suppose you had a company A of 60 people, with half being 45-50 years old, some perhaps with pre-existing condition (lets say 5 are considered obese 5 have heart condition, and 1 with ongoing cancer treatment) and the remaining being under that age.

(b)suppose you had company B of 60 people, with all employees being 25 years old.

Want to take a guess on what sort of group premiums company A would be paying versus company B?

Still think the health “benefit” would be the same at the same dollar amount? Still think if the employers match the benefits to be competitive in employment, that the premiums paid would be the same? Do you still think employees of company A should be taxed more than company b for their health benefit? What do you think this does to Company A’s competitiveness in retaining talent versus Company B?

[Coronita]

[quote=briansd1][quote=flu]

If it is a benefit, how does one measure how much of it is used for which it to be taxable benefit *for the recipient of the benefit*?[/quote]

You measure it by what it’s costing the employer to provide the benefit.

For example you employer may pay $2000/mo in premium for your family’s health care coverage. That’s $2,000 in compensation to you.

Currently because the benefit is untaxed, the value to you is $2,857 = 2000/(1-.30) Assuming your tax rate is .30.

Assuming you could buy the same coverage on your own, you would be indifferent if the employer provided you the $2,000 in health insurance plan or $2,857 in additional salary.[/quote]

Are you familiar with group health insurance costs for small employers, out of curiosity?

Specially,

(a)suppose you had a company A of 60 people, with half being 45-50 years old, some perhaps with pre-existing condition (lets say 5 are considered obese 5 have heart condition, and 1 with ongoing cancer treatment) and the remaining being under that age.

(b)suppose you had company B of 60 people, with all employees being 25 years old.

Want to take a guess on what sort of group premiums company A would be paying versus company B?

Still think the health “benefit” would be the same at the same dollar amount? Still think if the employers match the benefits to be competitive in employment, that the premiums paid would be the same? Do you still think employees of company A should be taxed more than company b for their health benefit? What do you think this does to Company A’s competitiveness in retaining talent versus Company B?

[Coronita]

[quote=briansd1][quote=flu]

If it is a benefit, how does one measure how much of it is used for which it to be taxable benefit *for the recipient of the benefit*?[/quote]

You measure it by what it’s costing the employer to provide the benefit.

For example you employer may pay $2000/mo in premium for your family’s health care coverage. That’s $2,000 in compensation to you.

Currently because the benefit is untaxed, the value to you is $2,857 = 2000/(1-.30) Assuming your tax rate is .30.

Assuming you could buy the same coverage on your own, you would be indifferent if the employer provided you the $2,000 in health insurance plan or $2,857 in additional salary.[/quote]

Are you familiar with group health insurance costs for small employers, out of curiosity?

Specially,

(a)suppose you had a company A of 60 people, with half being 45-50 years old, some perhaps with pre-existing condition (lets say 5 are considered obese 5 have heart condition, and 1 with ongoing cancer treatment) and the remaining being under that age.

(b)suppose you had company B of 60 people, with all employees being 25 years old.

Want to take a guess on what sort of group premiums company A would be paying versus company B?

Still think the health “benefit” would be the same at the same dollar amount? Still think if the employers match the benefits to be competitive in employment, that the premiums paid would be the same? Do you still think employees of company A should be taxed more than company b for their health benefit? What do you think this does to Company A’s competitiveness in retaining talent versus Company B?

[Author]

Posts