US health care

[BigSky]

It doesnt meet the definition of income by any stretch of the imagination.

What you are suggesting is that they should also tax what workers comp pays for medical claims or even unemployment even though the benefits may not be used.

Not to mention you conventionally skipped taxing stuff like SCHIP.  After all by your definition of income that too would count as income.

[Rerun]

They tax my disability income. 

                     

[Bill Peckham]

It doesnt meet the definition of income by any stretch of the imagination.

What you are suggesting is that they should also tax what workers comp pays for medical claims or even unemployment even though the benefits may not be used.

Not to mention you conventionally skipped taxing stuff like SCHIP.  After all by your definition of income that too would count as income.

SCHIP? what workers comp pays for medical claims? What are you talking about? The Senate Bill would treat payment of health premiums as income - the only people impacted are people with jobs and high end employer group insurance. Your confusing what the insurance pays doctors - not income, with what the employer pays the insurer - income. The premium is income NOT the claims.

[BigSky]

SCHIP? what workers comp pays for medical claims? What are you talking about? The Senate Bill would treat payment of health premiums as income - the only people impacted are people with jobs and high end employer group insurance. Your confusing what the insurance pays doctors - not income, with what the employer pays the insurer - income. The premium is income NOT the claims.

The alleged claim of "high" end insurance.  LOL Except the definition of high end is actually normal everyday people.

Also if you are going to claim tax on insurance is needed, then ALL such things should be taxed and counted as income, being discriminatory in how applying it is a bit repugnant to the very foundation of this country.

I am not confusing anything. 

Fact is employers pay workers comp insurance and its not counted as income, Also they pay unemployment insurance and its not counted as income.

[Bill Peckham]

SCHIP? what workers comp pays for medical claims? What are you talking about? The Senate Bill would treat payment of health premiums as income - the only people impacted are people with jobs and high end employer group insurance. Your confusing what the insurance pays doctors - not income, with what the employer pays the insurer - income. The premium is income NOT the claims.

The alleged claim of "high" end insurance.  LOL Except the definition of high end is actually normal everyday people.

Also if you are going to claim tax on insurance is needed, then ALL such things should be taxed and counted as income, being discriminatory in how applying it is a bit repugnant to the very foundation of this country.

I am not confusing anything. 

Fact is employers pay workers comp insurance and its not counted as income, Also they pay unemployment insurance and its not counted as income.

Actually you are confused about the nature of both workman's comp and unemployment insurance. In the case of unemployment insurance the benefits are taxed when they are used, when the worker uses unemployment insurance that income is subject to tax. In the case of workman's comp you are confused about who is getting insured. Worker's comp pays (compensates) for medical care for injuries that happen while on the job. If there wasn't worker's comp you could (or would have to) sue your employer for negligence to be compensated for an on the job injury. Worker's comp is in the employer's interest, it insurers them against getting sued for injuries that happen on the job. And if the employee receives disability payments - those are subject to tax.

My point is that all income should be taxed - money that goes to pay insurance premiums should rightly be considered income. People like me who are in a union - everyday people - have high end insurance policies. Those should be taxed if their value is above a given threshold. If it resulted in the insurance having higher copays and deductibles to avoid the tax then I would be paid more - instead of always negotiating to keep these high end plans every time the contract is renewed they could negotiate pay raises - which I would prefer. With the added straight pay each individual could decide to spend their after tax money topping off their health insurance or on whatever they want - I don't think that is  repugnant to the very foundation of this country.

[BigSky]

Actually you are confused about the nature of both workman's comp and unemployment insurance. In the case of unemployment insurance the benefits are taxed when they are used, when the worker uses unemployment insurance that income is subject to tax. In the case of workman's comp you are confused about who is getting insured. Worker's comp pays (compensates) for medical care for injuries that happen while on the job. If there wasn't worker's comp you could (or would have to) sue your employer for negligence to be compensated for an on the job injury. Worker's comp is in the employer's interest, it insurers them against getting sued for injuries that happen on the job. And if the employee receives disability payments - those are subject to tax.

My point is that all income should be taxed - money that goes to pay insurance premiums should rightly be considered income. People like me who are in a union - everyday people - have high end insurance policies. Those should be taxed if their value is above a given threshold. If it resulted in the insurance having higher copays and deductibles to avoid the tax then I would be paid more - instead of always negotiating to keep these high end plans every time the contract is renewed they could negotiate pay raises - which I would prefer. With the added straight pay each individual could decide to spend their after tax money topping off their health insurance or on whatever they want - I don't think that is  repugnant to the very foundation of this country.

It would seem the only one confused would be you bill.

Both are benefits that are paid for by the employer that benefit the employee and both are insurance benefits.  Also if there was no workers comp it would have to be demonstrated that the business was negligent in the matter of the injury of which very few are the case. Also it doesnt matter if they have workers compensation, if the business is negligent in some manner over an injury they still can be sued and workers comp does and has nothing to do with it.  Workers comp solely pays the worker for injury and wages lost, it doesn't absolve nor defend the business from negligence over a injury.

A founding principle of this country is equality.  What you are suggesting is not.

The very fact is you are suggesting people on government plans should benefit more than those who work and are barred from such programs just because they are working.

[Bill Peckham]

Actually you are confused about the nature of both workman's comp and unemployment insurance. In the case of unemployment insurance the benefits are taxed when they are used, when the worker uses unemployment insurance that income is subject to tax. In the case of workman's comp you are confused about who is getting insured. Worker's comp pays (compensates) for medical care for injuries that happen while on the job. If there wasn't worker's comp you could (or would have to) sue your employer for negligence to be compensated for an on the job injury. Worker's comp is in the employer's interest, it insurers them against getting sued for injuries that happen on the job. And if the employee receives disability payments - those are subject to tax.

My point is that all income should be taxed - money that goes to pay insurance premiums should rightly be considered income. People like me who are in a union - everyday people - have high end insurance policies. Those should be taxed if their value is above a given threshold. If it resulted in the insurance having higher copays and deductibles to avoid the tax then I would be paid more - instead of always negotiating to keep these high end plans every time the contract is renewed they could negotiate pay raises - which I would prefer. With the added straight pay each individual could decide to spend their after tax money topping off their health insurance or on whatever they want - I don't think that is  repugnant to the very foundation of this country.

It would seem the only one confused would be you bill.

Both are benefits that are paid for by the employer that benefit the employee and both are insurance benefits.  Also if there was no workers comp it would have to be demonstrated that the business was negligent in the matter of the injury of which very few are the case. Also it doesnt matter if they have workers compensation, if the business is negligent in some manner over an injury they still can be sued and workers comp does and has nothing to do with it.  Workers comp solely pays the worker for injury and wages lost, it doesn't absolve nor defend the business from negligence over a injury.

A founding principle of this country is equality.  What you are suggesting is not.

It's called the "the compensation bargain." Look it up.

It should be clear after even superficially considering workman's comp that is is not the same as health insurance. Injuries that happen on the job are not the problem of the larger health insurance system.

How is it equitable for people who receive insurance through work to get a tax break that isn't available to people who self pay? Same insurance - if you get it through a large employer group plan, tax break; if you get it through self pay you don't get an equivalent tax break. The current rules don't sound equitable to me. If equity is your concern then you should favor taxing employer paid premiums.

The very fact is you are suggesting people on government plans shouldbenefit more than those who work and are barred from such programs justbecause they are working.

How do you come to that conclusion? Are you confusing Medicare benefits with insurance premiums again?

[BigSky]

It looks like you are the only one who is confused bill.

As to medicare, those taxes are indeed a premium paid by the employer that solely benefits the employee.  That premium is 1.45% of wages earned while with the employer.

Its foolhardy to think its different because one benefit may be used before another.

[Bill Peckham]

It looks like you are the only one who is confused bill.

As to medicare, those taxes are indeed a premium paid by the employer that solely benefits the employee.  That premium is 1.45% of wages earned while with the employer.

Its foolhardy to think its different because one benefit may be used before another.

When or if they're used isn't the question - the nature of insurance is that is unknown. The difference between FICA and health insurance premiums are fundamental.

FICA is a tax - a shared tax. You have to pay FICA. You pay it to the Federal Government. It funds Social Security and Medicare.

You don't see any difference between taxes and insurance premiums? Are you just pulling my leg now?

[BigSky]

When or if they're used isn't the question - the nature of insurance is that is unknown. The difference between FICA and health insurance premiums are fundamental.

FICA is a tax - a shared tax. You have to pay FICA. You pay it to the Federal Government. It funds Social Security and Medicare.

You don't see any difference between taxes and insurance premiums? Are you just pulling my leg now?

It funds insurance benefits which is no different.  It matters not when its used or how its funded or to whom it funded.  The very fact is you want to tax people on something they may or may not even use.

Funny how you think anyone on the government teat should be exempt from the standards that you want to apply to everyone else.

Not to mention in numbers you think people should have to pay an extra 100 or more a month in taxes order to have insurance.

[Bill Peckham]

When or if they're used isn't the question - the nature of insurance is that is unknown. The difference between FICA and health insurance premiums are fundamental.

FICA is a tax - a shared tax. You have to pay FICA. You pay it to the Federal Government. It funds Social Security and Medicare.

You don't see any difference between taxes and insurance premiums? Are you just pulling my leg now?

It funds insurance benefits which is no different.  It matters not when its used or how its funded or to whom it funded.  The very fact is you want to tax people on something they may or may not even use.

Funny how you think anyone on the government teat should be exempt from the standards that you want to apply to everyone else.

Not to mention in numbers you think people should have to pay an extra 100 or more a month in taxes order to have insurance.

So your saying if insurance premiums were considered taxable income you'd have to consider the employer paid FICA taxes taxable income? And then to be fair, employees would have to pay taxes on the employer's taxes!

I think a mnemonic device will help you keep this straight ... 
A tax has three letters; you pay taxes to three levels of government: Local, State, Federal. 
Goods and Services has many letters; there are many companies. 

Goods and services are good! These are things you want and agree to buy. It's your choice!
Taxes are bad. You have to pay taxes and the government then spends your money!

If your $2,000 monthly insurance premium was taxable, and your effective tax rate was 25% ... you'd owe $500 every month!  Watch out for those $4,000/month policies! Ouch!!!

[BigSky]

So your saying if insurance premiums were considered taxable income you'd have to consider the employer paid FICA taxes taxable income? And then to be fair, employees would have to pay taxes on the employer's taxes!

I think a mnemonic device will help you keep this straight ... 
A tax has three letters; you pay taxes to three levels of government: Local, State, Federal. 
Goods and Services has many letters; there are many companies. 

I think you mean a moronic device.  You are trying to use local to cover more than one entity of government.  There are five areas of government.  City, County, Tribal  State, Federal, and no, not everyone pays taxes to "three levels" as you put it.

Also tax means nothing in the matter as it is still a paid for benefit by another party.

If your $2,000 monthly insurance premium was taxable, and your effective tax rate was 25% ... you'd owe $500 every month!  Watch out for those $4,000/month policies! Ouch!!!

Yep that would be $500 ON TOP of the taxes people ALREADY pay.

So by your thinking people should pay $6000 extra a year out of income despite not having an net increase in their income.

Evidently you never considered or thought out such consequences of such a thing and the negative effect it would have on the nation.


But back to your taxes.

Lets see:

25%        for your tax on insurance-your figure

15+%       for income tax
6.2 %      for Social Security
1.45%     for Medicare
7%          for State Income tax

That does not include:  tire tax, oil tax, gas tax, landlline phone tax, cell phone tax, road tax, vehicle registration tax, land tax, home tax etc. etc. etc.

 

[Bill Peckham]

Local taxes
Effective tax rate

And then you apply the tax credit that ALL the proposals include. McCain's was $5,000.

It could be more or it could be less but people would be making the purchasing decision. They would be able to decide to use every pay raises for the rest of their lives to pay an ever increasing insurance bill but I doubt that is what they would choose. Still it would be totally up to them.

You have never really said why this $48,000 in pay should be free of tax?

[BigSky]

Its not income.  IRS makes that pretty clear.

Its up to people to spend THEIR MONEY, not up to the throttlebottoms to decide they should get all the PEOPLE'S MONEY and spend it as the throttlebottoms wish.

[Bill Peckham]

It's not income but it's their money ... interesting. We're talking about people who are working right? Not heiresses?

BTW the musical comedy reference? classic.

[BigSky]

It's not income but it's their money ... interesting. We're talking about people who are working right? Not heiresses?

BTW the musical comedy reference? classic.

Tsk tsk again trying to take something out of context.