McCain to tax health insurance
+3
ziggy
Aaron
shermangeneral
7 posters
Page 1 of 3
Page 1 of 3 • 1, 2, 3
McCain to tax health insurance
Republicans would give working people who have employer sponsored health insurance a real kick in the teeth if they comply with McCain's wishes.
If you receive health coverage for your family provided by your employer you would have to pay income tax on it.
Does anybody think this is a good idea?
Am i missing something?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080707/ap_on_el_pr/mccain_economy
If you receive health coverage for your family provided by your employer you would have to pay income tax on it.
Does anybody think this is a good idea?
Am i missing something?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080707/ap_on_el_pr/mccain_economy
Last edited by shermangeneral on Mon Jul 07, 2008 10:12 am; edited 1 time in total (Reason for editing : forgot link)
shermangeneral- Number of posts : 1347
Location : Sherman, WV
Registration date : 2007-12-30
Re: McCain to tax health insurance
That's not a new law Sherm. Any 'benefit' an employee received from an employer is taxable. If your company gives you a $100.00 TV for Christmas as a bonus, you have to pay taxes on the value of the 'benefit'.
The way the government looks at it, the employer is compensating you for you time, thus you have to pay a tax on that compensation.
I'm not sure which party originated that bill but I know it's been on the books for the past 10 years.
The way the government looks at it, the employer is compensating you for you time, thus you have to pay a tax on that compensation.
I'm not sure which party originated that bill but I know it's been on the books for the past 10 years.
Aaron- Number of posts : 9841
Age : 58
Location : Putnam County for now
Registration date : 2007-12-28
Re: McCain to tax health insurance
Aaron are you saying we have already been paying income tax on health insurance benefits?
Did you read the article?
Did you read the article?
shermangeneral- Number of posts : 1347
Location : Sherman, WV
Registration date : 2007-12-30
Re: McCain to tax health insurance
Sherm,
I'm saying that right now, you pay taxes on all money and benefits on which you are compensated and if I'm not mistaken (which I could be as I'm not current on ALL tax laws but I will find out) that includes income and payroll taxes.
And no, I didn't read the article because the link wasn't posted when I replied to the thread. I have sense read it and it doesn't say one way or another if that is a new tax or not.
I'm saying that right now, you pay taxes on all money and benefits on which you are compensated and if I'm not mistaken (which I could be as I'm not current on ALL tax laws but I will find out) that includes income and payroll taxes.
And no, I didn't read the article because the link wasn't posted when I replied to the thread. I have sense read it and it doesn't say one way or another if that is a new tax or not.
Aaron- Number of posts : 9841
Age : 58
Location : Putnam County for now
Registration date : 2007-12-28
Re: McCain to tax health insurance
I'm saying that right now, you pay taxes on all money and benefits on which you are compensated and if I'm not mistaken (which I could be as I'm not current on ALL tax laws but I will find out) that includes income and payroll taxes.
Health insurance benefits paid by the employer are not currently taxable as personal income- nor have they been for several decades, if ever. And they are not reportable as income or compensation by the employer. Amounts reportable as income on forms W-2 or 1099 do not include health insurance premiums paid by the employer.
Last edited by ziggy on Mon Jul 07, 2008 10:38 am; edited 1 time in total
ziggy- Moderator
- Number of posts : 5731
Location : Jackson County, WV
Registration date : 2007-12-28
Re: McCain to tax health insurance
From the link Sherm provided:
The last sentence is a bit confusing. But I think it means that such employer contributions would be subject to income taxes by the employee, but that the employer would not be paying the usual employer share payroll taxes on the health insurance premiums paid by the employer.
McCain would provide refundable tax credits of $2,500 for individuals, and $5,000 for families, for all those who buy health insurance. Employer contributions toward health insurance would be treated as income, meaning workers would have to pay income taxes on it, but not payroll taxes.
The last sentence is a bit confusing. But I think it means that such employer contributions would be subject to income taxes by the employee, but that the employer would not be paying the usual employer share payroll taxes on the health insurance premiums paid by the employer.
ziggy- Moderator
- Number of posts : 5731
Location : Jackson County, WV
Registration date : 2007-12-28
Re: McCain to tax health insurance
I recall that it has been proposed from time to time by the republicans.
It seems that the McCain plan would be backed by the insurance companies since it would result in fewer group rates and all the individuals would be buying separate policies. (at higher rates)
Some might call it corporate welfare for the Ins. Companies.
It seems that the McCain plan would be backed by the insurance companies since it would result in fewer group rates and all the individuals would be buying separate policies. (at higher rates)
Some might call it corporate welfare for the Ins. Companies.
shermangeneral- Number of posts : 1347
Location : Sherman, WV
Registration date : 2007-12-30
Re: McCain to tax health insurance
Sherm,
I wasn't sure so I spoke with our payroll administrator. No, employees do not pay taxes on the employer’s contribution for their health insurance. In fact, they can have their contribution taken out pre-tax and actually save a little bit of money although by doing so, they reduce their SS contribution.
As part of a schedule A, the employer can claim their contribution as an exempt income and actually reduce their tax liability as well as that money is written off pre-tax as well.
Under the McCain plan, the employer contribution (typically about 75% to 80% of the cost of health insurance ) would be treated as income but then you would get a tax credit to offset that added tax.
Of course it would benefit the government or they wouldn't do it. To me it would just create more paper work and bureaucracy which is why I'm in favor of doing away with the IRS and everyone paying a flat, one time tax.
I wasn't sure so I spoke with our payroll administrator. No, employees do not pay taxes on the employer’s contribution for their health insurance. In fact, they can have their contribution taken out pre-tax and actually save a little bit of money although by doing so, they reduce their SS contribution.
As part of a schedule A, the employer can claim their contribution as an exempt income and actually reduce their tax liability as well as that money is written off pre-tax as well.
Under the McCain plan, the employer contribution (typically about 75% to 80% of the cost of health insurance ) would be treated as income but then you would get a tax credit to offset that added tax.
Of course it would benefit the government or they wouldn't do it. To me it would just create more paper work and bureaucracy which is why I'm in favor of doing away with the IRS and everyone paying a flat, one time tax.
Aaron- Number of posts : 9841
Age : 58
Location : Putnam County for now
Registration date : 2007-12-28
Re: McCain to tax health insurance
Well that is one way to do it.
Combine that with single payer universal coverage health care.
That would take all the middlemen out and reduce cost I agree.
Combine that with single payer universal coverage health care.
That would take all the middlemen out and reduce cost I agree.
shermangeneral- Number of posts : 1347
Location : Sherman, WV
Registration date : 2007-12-30
Re: McCain to tax health insurance
Who are you agreeing with on single payer universal health care? Certainly not me!!!
I don't do socialist entitlement programs, remember!!!
I understand your confusion. I see this as basically another tax, a way for the government to collect additional taxes by making emplloyer health care contributions as part of ones income and taxing it.
The problem isn't in the health care but in the increased tax proposal, which is what it will turn out to be as the majority of Americans deductions will be less then the tax increase from the increased employee income.
The best way to eliminate this, imo, is to do away with the IRA and the 34 trillion pages of tax code and go to a flat rate, fair tax in which everyone pays their fair share.
The best way to get improve health care is to get the government out and keep them out, not increas their role.
I don't do socialist entitlement programs, remember!!!
I understand your confusion. I see this as basically another tax, a way for the government to collect additional taxes by making emplloyer health care contributions as part of ones income and taxing it.
The problem isn't in the health care but in the increased tax proposal, which is what it will turn out to be as the majority of Americans deductions will be less then the tax increase from the increased employee income.
The best way to eliminate this, imo, is to do away with the IRA and the 34 trillion pages of tax code and go to a flat rate, fair tax in which everyone pays their fair share.
The best way to get improve health care is to get the government out and keep them out, not increas their role.
Aaron- Number of posts : 9841
Age : 58
Location : Putnam County for now
Registration date : 2007-12-28
Re: McCain to tax health insurance
Aaron wrote:Sherm,
I'm saying that right now, you pay taxes on all money and benefits on which you are compensated and if I'm not mistaken (which I could be as I'm not current on ALL tax laws but I will find out) that includes income and payroll taxes.
And no, I didn't read the article because the link wasn't posted when I replied to the thread. I have sense read it and it doesn't say one way or another if that is a new tax or not.
Aaron you are 100% wrong on this one.
Not only aren't your health insurance benefits taxable, the employee contributions to their health care premiums can also be paid with "pre-tax" dollars. I know because this is how we have been paying our share of health insurance premiums and we've been doing it for years.
Re: McCain to tax health insurance
I love it when someone's pissed off, reads one post and makes an ass of themself.
Read my post at 11:11 am this morning Stephanie.
Um, yeah, that would be egg all over your face.
Or is it your foot in your mouth.
Maybe you should have used your power to edit once you realized that 1) I never said anything with certainity so I couldn't be 100% wrong and B) I took the time to find out from someone who actually knows what they are talking about and told Sherm I was mistaken in my first post.
Now don't you just fill silly.
Aaron- Number of posts : 9841
Age : 58
Location : Putnam County for now
Registration date : 2007-12-28
Re: McCain to tax health insurance
Ah, well I see Aaron learned the error of his ways before I posted.
Ron Paul has written extensively on this issue. Let me see if I can find you a link so all of you can read the correct way to deal with this problem.
http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=474
I believe I've posted this before. Either way it's certainly worth reading. I've got to post it.
Ron Paul has written extensively on this issue. Let me see if I can find you a link so all of you can read the correct way to deal with this problem.
http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=474
I believe I've posted this before. Either way it's certainly worth reading. I've got to post it.
Lowering the Cost of Health Care
August 21, 2006
As a medical doctor, I’ve seen first-hand how bureaucratic red tape interferes with the doctor-patient relationship and drives costs higher. The current system of third-party payers takes decision-making away from doctors, leaving patients feeling rushed and worsening the quality of care. Yet health insurance premiums and drug costs keep rising. Clearly a new approach is needed. Congress needs to craft innovative legislation that makes health care more affordable without raising taxes or increasing the deficit. It also needs to repeal bad laws that keep health care costs higher than necessary
We should remember that HMOs did not arise because of free-market demand, but rather because of government mandates. The HMO Act of 1973 requires all but the smallest employers to offer their employees HMO coverage, and the tax code allows businesses- but not individuals- to deduct the cost of health insurance premiums. The result is the illogical coupling of employment and health insurance, which often leaves the unemployed without needed catastrophic coverage.
While many in Congress are happy to criticize HMOs today, the public never hears how the present system was imposed upon the American people by federal law. As usual, government intervention in the private market failed to deliver the promised benefits and caused unintended consequences, but Congress never blames itself for the problems created by bad laws. Instead, we are told more government- in the form of “universal coverage”- is the answer. But government already is involved in roughly two-thirds of all health care spending, through Medicare, Medicaid, and other programs.
For decades, the U.S. healthcare system was the envy of the entire world. Not coincidentally, there was far less government involvement in medicine during this time. America had the finest doctors and hospitals, patients enjoyed high quality, affordable medical care, and thousands of private charities provided health services for the poor. Doctors focused on treating patients, without the red tape and threat of lawsuits that plague the profession today. Most Americans paid cash for basic services, and had insurance only for major illnesses and accidents. This meant both doctors and patients had an incentive to keep costs down, as the patient was directly responsible for payment, rather than an HMO or government program.
The lesson is clear: when government and other third parties get involved, health care costs spiral. The answer is not a system of outright socialized medicine, but rather a system that encourages everyone- doctors, hospitals, patients, and drug companies- to keep costs down. As long as “somebody else” is paying the bill, the bill will be too high
The following are bills Congress should pass to reduce health care costs and leave more money in the pockets of families:
HR 3075 provides truly comprehensive health care reform by allowing families to claim a tax credit for the rising cost of health insurance premiums. With many families now spending close to $1000 or even more for their monthly premiums, they need real tax relief-- including a dollar-for-dollar credit for every cent they spend on health care premiums-- to make medical care more affordable.
HR 3076 is specifically designed to address the medical malpractice crisis that threatens to drive thousands of American doctors- especially obstetricians- out of business. The bill provides a dollar-for-dollar tax credit that permits consumers to purchase "negative outcomes" insurance prior to undergoing surgery or other serious medical treatments. Negative outcomes insurance is a novel approach that guarantees those harmed receive fair compensation, while reducing the burden of costly malpractice litigation on the health care system. Patients receive this insurance payout without having to endure lengthy lawsuits, and without having to give away a large portion of their award to a trial lawyer. This also drastically reduces the costs imposed on physicians and hospitals by malpractice litigation. Under HR 3076, individuals can purchase negative outcomes insurance at essentially no cost.
HR 3077 makes it more affordable for parents to provide health care for their children. It creates a $500 per child tax credit for medical expenses and prescription drugs that are not reimbursed by insurance. It also creates a $3,000 tax credit for dependent children with terminal illnesses, cancer, or disabilities. Parents who are struggling to pay for their children's medical care, especially when those children have serious health problems or special needs, need every extra dollar.
HR 3078 is commonsense, compassionate legislation for those suffering from cancer or other terminal illnesses. The sad reality is that many patients battling serious illnesses will never collect Social Security benefits-- yet they continue to pay into the Social Security system. When facing a medical crisis, those patients need every extra dollar to pay for medical care, travel, and family matters. HR 3078 waives the employee portion of Social Security payroll taxes (or self-employment taxes) for individuals with documented serious illnesses or cancer. It also suspends Social Security taxes for primary caregivers with a sick spouse or child. There is no justification or excuse for collecting Social Security taxes from sick individuals who literally are fighting for their lives.
Re: McCain to tax health insurance
No Aaron, you sounded pretty darn positive to me:
Aaron wrote:That's not a new law Sherm. Any 'benefit' an employee received from an employer is taxable. If your company gives you a $100.00 TV for Christmas as a bonus, you have to pay taxes on the value of the 'benefit'.
The way the government looks at it, the employer is compensating you for you time, thus you have to pay a tax on that compensation.
I'm not sure which party originated that bill but I know it's been on the books for the past 10 years.
Aaron wrote:
Sherm,
I'm saying that right now, you pay taxes on all money and benefits on which you are compensated and if I'm not mistaken (which I could be as I'm not current on ALL tax laws but I will find out) that includes income and payroll taxes.
And no, I didn't read the article because the link wasn't posted when I replied to the thread. I have sense read it and it doesn't say one way or another if that is a new tax or not.
Re: McCain to tax health insurance
Whew...I'm glad I got that out of my system.
I haven't laughed that hard in a while.
Thanks Stephanie. I needed that.
OK, I think I'm done.
And I see you posted something that Dr. No agrees with me on Stephanie. Maybe one of these days we'll get some people elected to Congress that can do something about high health care cost.
I doubt it but there's always hope.
Aaron- Number of posts : 9841
Age : 58
Location : Putnam County for now
Registration date : 2007-12-28
Re: McCain to tax health insurance
Stephanie wrote:No Aaron, you sounded pretty darn positive to me:
Aaron wrote:
...if I'm not mistaken (which I could be as I'm not current on ALL tax laws...
Aaron- Number of posts : 9841
Age : 58
Location : Putnam County for now
Registration date : 2007-12-28
Re: McCain to tax health insurance
You are the most egotistical person I have ever encountered.
Ron Paul has been working on this for years. The article I posted is nearly 2 years old and you claim Congressman Paul agrees with you and you hope someday we'll elect Congressman who can do something.
The people of Texas have sent someone to Congress with the wisdom and courage to straighten out this mess. You continue to ridicule him. You're a regular rocket scientist.
Ron Paul has been working on this for years. The article I posted is nearly 2 years old and you claim Congressman Paul agrees with you and you hope someday we'll elect Congressman who can do something.
The people of Texas have sent someone to Congress with the wisdom and courage to straighten out this mess. You continue to ridicule him. You're a regular rocket scientist.
Re: McCain to tax health insurance
Are you saying that Dr. No doesn't agree with me in that government interference in medicine leads to increased cost and poor health care and that it is slowly destroying the medical industry?
You sure about that???
You sure about that???
Aaron- Number of posts : 9841
Age : 58
Location : Putnam County for now
Registration date : 2007-12-28
Re: McCain to tax health insurance
What I'm saying is that Congressman Paul has been actively working on these issues since you were in elementary school. You have a rudimentary understanding of the problems and challenges America faces in healthcare. He is the expert not you. He doesn't agree with you. He doesn't' know you exist. You agree with what little you know and understand about his position and his proposals.
Re: McCain to tax health insurance
shermangeneral wrote:I recall that it has been proposed from time to time by the republicans.
It seems that the McCain plan would be backed by the insurance companies since it would result in fewer group rates and all the individuals would be buying separate policies. (at higher rates)
Some might call it corporate welfare for the Ins. Companies.
As it is right now it is corporate welfare for the employees.
Especially State, County and City employees because their Payroll Contributions and Co-pays are rock bottom, ....... and their Provider covers dozens of medical procedures and Health Aids that private insurers don't and won't.
.
SamCogar- Number of posts : 6238
Location : Burnsville, WV
Registration date : 2007-12-28
Re: McCain to tax health insurance
Especially State, County and City employees because their Payroll Contributions and Co-pays are rock bottom, ....... and their Provider covers dozens of medical procedures and Health Aids that private insurers don't and won't.
Right.
Carelink (via PEIA) is pretty good but for my family it is almost 400$ a month (with 10%-15% co-pays - no deductible).
That is close to 20% of my gross pay.
An MRI of my hand (20 minutes, start to finish) cost me 200 bucks.
As to the list of procedures and health aids that they will approve, you would be surprised.
There are private insurers that will cover Viagra but not birth control pills. I'd be careful about making judgment calls down that line of debate.
Anyway, I'm making a list of myths about state employees. I'll put this one with the "handsome retirement package and the free health care".
Meh...
Right.
Carelink (via PEIA) is pretty good but for my family it is almost 400$ a month (with 10%-15% co-pays - no deductible).
That is close to 20% of my gross pay.
An MRI of my hand (20 minutes, start to finish) cost me 200 bucks.
As to the list of procedures and health aids that they will approve, you would be surprised.
There are private insurers that will cover Viagra but not birth control pills. I'd be careful about making judgment calls down that line of debate.
Anyway, I'm making a list of myths about state employees. I'll put this one with the "handsome retirement package and the free health care".
Meh...
TerryRC- Number of posts : 2762
Registration date : 2008-01-05
Re: McCain to tax health insurance
McCain would provide refundable tax credits of $2,500 for individuals, and $5,000 for families, for all those who buy health insurance. Employer contributions toward health insurance would be treated as income, meaning workers would have to pay income taxes on it, but not payroll taxes.
There has always been a dispute over the Employer's contribution to the Employees Health Insurance Premiums and I haven't kept abreast of the fracus for the past 20+ years.
Here are some of the reasons for said dispute.
The Employer's contribution is "tax deductible" because it is an expense.
If it is an Employer expense ..... then it is an employee income whether cash or inkind service.
If the Employer pays all costs then employees get free inkind service.
If the Employee pays partial costs pre-tax, that reduces their gross income and thus decreases their payroll taxes and their income tax liability ...... but they are still getting free inkind service for the portion the Employer pays.
If the Employee pays partial costs post-tax, that reduces their net income but does not decrease their payroll taxes or their income tax liability ...... but they are still getting free inkind service for the portion the Employer pays.
If the Employer doesn't pay any costs for health insurance then the employees must purchase it with a portion of their after taxes net income ....... or do without.
If the employee purchases said insurance, this is an expense, ..... but I don't believe it is deductible to reduce their income tax liability.
Thus the "self pay" employee is getting screwed royally when it comes to paying Income Taxes.
Now I think I got that right but iffen I didn't .... I'm sure one of you will tell me.
.
SamCogar- Number of posts : 6238
Location : Burnsville, WV
Registration date : 2007-12-28
Re: McCain to tax health insurance
Stephanie wrote:He doesn't agree with you. He doesn't' know you exist.
He's a nice enough person I guess. I met him in 84 at a congressional forum. I'm under no illusions that he specifically remembers me but he did shake my hand, thank me for my service and talk with 10 of us for an hour and a half or so. Bob Wise was more impressive, at least imo.
Last edited by Aaron on Tue Jul 08, 2008 8:05 am; edited 1 time in total
Aaron- Number of posts : 9841
Age : 58
Location : Putnam County for now
Registration date : 2007-12-28
Re: McCain to tax health insurance
TerryRC wrote:Carelink (via PEIA) is pretty good but for my family it is almost 400$ a month (with 10%-15% co-pays - no deductible).
I'm glad to see PEIA is finally charging for insurance. Perhaps if they had done so 20 years ago, PEIA wouldn't be in the mess it is.
Personally, I think the state should bid insurance out to private firms and get out of the insurance business but if they're going to be in it, then the participants should at least have to foot their fair share, just as it's done in the real world.
Aaron- Number of posts : 9841
Age : 58
Location : Putnam County for now
Registration date : 2007-12-28
Re: McCain to tax health insurance
TerryRC wrote:Especially State, County and City employees because their Payroll Contributions and Co-pays are rock bottom, ....... and their Provider covers dozens of medical procedures and Health Aids that private insurers don't and won't.
Right.
Carelink (via PEIA) is pretty good but for my family it is almost 400$ a month (with 10%-15% co-pays - no deductible).
That is close to 20% of my gross pay.
An MRI of my hand (20 minutes, start to finish) cost me 200 bucks.
As to the list of procedures and health aids that they will approve, you would be surprised.
There are private insurers that will cover Viagra but not birth control pills. I'd be careful about making judgment calls down that line of debate.
Anyway, I'm making a list of myths about state employees. I'll put this one with the "handsome retirement package and the free health care".
Meh...
NAH, I'm covered under PEIA and what they approve wouldn't surprise me.
Now I could post you a copy of my Express Scripts card but I would hafta block out the ID#s.
GEEEZE TerryRC, ...... I'm really sorry to hear about your troubles, ....... I suggest you apply for a Teaching position in your County School System, ....... I am sure you will find their PEIA coverage is a lot better than what you describe above.
At least I think my coverage has been better than what you describe above.
And my wife doesn't even get that "non-smoker(s)" deduction and thus her PEIA cost are higher than those who attest they don't smoke.
.
SamCogar- Number of posts : 6238
Location : Burnsville, WV
Registration date : 2007-12-28
Page 1 of 3 • 1, 2, 3
Similar topics
» Health Care Reform
» Health Care Roulette
» Free Our Health Care Now!
» The truth about health care.
» Health Care Bombshell...
» Health Care Roulette
» Free Our Health Care Now!
» The truth about health care.
» Health Care Bombshell...
Page 1 of 3
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum