On Thu, 04 Jun 2009 06:42:03 -0400, Wizard of Woodstock
wrote:

"President Obama, in a pivot from some of his harshest campaign
rhetoric, told Democratic senators yesterday that he is willing to
consider taxing employer-sponsored health benefits to help pay for a
broad expansion of coverage."

http://tinyurl.com/kvkndy

Is this a tax aimed at those who don’t need or use government health
insurance? If you’re already getting benefits from your employer,
you’re opting out of ObamaCare, no?

Is this a case of forcing the private insurance by employeers to be
canceled and forcing employees into a national care system?

If that's the case where’s all the revenue from taxing health benefits
coming from?

I’m missing something. The way I read it, private plans will be taxed
to pay for national health care thus, in practice, forcing people to
move to the national system which is being paid for by taxes on
insurance benefits that no longer exist.

How much is the tax, Tom?

Do you have a percentage figure upon which you're basing your
assumption that it'll so punitive as to "force" people onto Obamacare?

jps wrote:
On Thu, 04 Jun 2009 06:42:03 -0400, Wizard of Woodstock
wrote:

"President Obama, in a pivot from some of his harshest campaign
rhetoric, told Democratic senators yesterday that he is willing to
consider taxing employer-sponsored health benefits to help pay for a
broad expansion of coverage."

http://tinyurl.com/kvkndy

Is this a tax aimed at those who don’t need or use government health
insurance? If you’re already getting benefits from your employer,
you’re opting out of ObamaCare, no?

Is this a case of forcing the private insurance by employeers to be
canceled and forcing employees into a national care system?

If that's the case where’s all the revenue from taxing health benefits
coming from?

I’m missing something. The way I read it, private plans will be taxed
to pay for national health care thus, in practice, forcing people to
move to the national system which is being paid for by taxes on
insurance benefits that no longer exist.

How much is the tax, Tom?

Do you have a percentage figure upon which you're basing your
assumption that it'll so punitive as to "force" people onto Obamacare?


Of course he doesn't. His purpose was to troll, not illuminate.

I prefer removing the employee "caps" on all income for social security,
and using the proceeds to help fund social security, medicare and health
insurance.

On Thu, 04 Jun 2009 12:39:11 -0400, HK wrote:

jps wrote:
On Thu, 04 Jun 2009 06:42:03 -0400, Wizard of Woodstock
wrote:

"President Obama, in a pivot from some of his harshest campaign
rhetoric, told Democratic senators yesterday that he is willing to
consider taxing employer-sponsored health benefits to help pay for a
broad expansion of coverage."

http://tinyurl.com/kvkndy

Is this a tax aimed at those who don’t need or use government health
insurance? If you’re already getting benefits from your employer,
you’re opting out of ObamaCare, no?

Is this a case of forcing the private insurance by employeers to be
canceled and forcing employees into a national care system?

If that's the case where’s all the revenue from taxing health benefits
coming from?

I’m missing something. The way I read it, private plans will be taxed
to pay for national health care thus, in practice, forcing people to
move to the national system which is being paid for by taxes on
insurance benefits that no longer exist.

How much is the tax, Tom?

Do you have a percentage figure upon which you're basing your
assumption that it'll so punitive as to "force" people onto Obamacare?


Of course he doesn't. His purpose was to troll, not illuminate.

I prefer removing the employee "caps" on all income for social security,
and using the proceeds to help fund social security, medicare and health
insurance.

Excellent idea. It'd also help address the disparity between what low
and medium income families pay in percentage-of-income in tax with
their wealthier counterparts.

(Now watch while the "Conservatives" misread and misinterpret my
statement as income taxes.)

Of course he doesn't. His purpose was to troll, not illuminate.


Of course you would know, Herr Krause. You make trolling a daily
practice here.

"HK" wrote in message
m...

I prefer removing the employee "caps" on all income for social security,
and using the proceeds to help fund social security, medicare and health
insurance.

If I recall correctly employers match dollar for dollar the social security
tax paid by employees.
Does your plan also include having the employer match the new, uncapped tax?

Did I really have to ask?

My point is that although your idea has merit, there is a downside. Small
businesses may not be able to absorb even more taxes without having a
negative impact on their business, ability to grow or even maintain their
current employee levels.

Eisboch

Eisboch wrote:

"HK" wrote in message
m...

I prefer removing the employee "caps" on all income for social
security, and using the proceeds to help fund social security,
medicare and health insurance.

If I recall correctly employers match dollar for dollar the social
security tax paid by employees.
Does your plan also include having the employer match the new, uncapped
tax?

Did I really have to ask?

My point is that although your idea has merit, there is a downside.
Small businesses may not be able to absorb even more taxes without
having a negative impact on their business, ability to grow or even
maintain their current employee levels.

Eisboch


I did say "remove the employee caps," right? That does not mean removing
the employer caps.

"HK" wrote in message
m...
Eisboch wrote:

"HK" wrote in message
m...

I prefer removing the employee "caps" on all income for social security,
and using the proceeds to help fund social security, medicare and health
insurance.

If I recall correctly employers match dollar for dollar the social
security tax paid by employees.
Does your plan also include having the employer match the new, uncapped
tax?

Did I really have to ask?

My point is that although your idea has merit, there is a downside.
Small businesses may not be able to absorb even more taxes without having
a negative impact on their business, ability to grow or even maintain
their current employee levels.

Eisboch


I did say "remove the employee caps," right? That does not mean removing
the employer caps.

It was a legitimate question. Currently, employers match dollar for dollar
the employee SS tax contribution. If you remove the employee cap, by
default you remove the employer cap.
Can't be too careful with you tax and spend liberals, you know.

Eisboch

On Fri, 5 Jun 2009 04:55:45 -0400, "Eisboch"
wrote:


It was a legitimate question. Currently, employers match dollar for dollar
the employee SS tax contribution. If you remove the employee cap, by
default you remove the employer cap.
Can't be too careful with you tax and spend liberals, you know.


What's the cap now? Over $100k I think.
Check small business wages.
Here's one source.
http://www.inc.com/news/articles/2008/07/salaries.html
About $32k.
Might affect 1% of small business wage earners - if that.
So the guy making a million will add what 30 small business wage
earners add.
Maybe the boss will say "Hey, have to cut your salary 7% of everything
past $100k so my business doesn't suffer. So now you're only making
$937k."
Think the guy will quit because he's now kicking in only what 28 small
business wage earners are kicking in?
Might be a tremendous insult to him, thinking he is being devalued.
Not sure.

--Vic

"Vic Smith" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 5 Jun 2009 04:55:45 -0400, "Eisboch"
wrote:


It was a legitimate question. Currently, employers match dollar for
dollar
the employee SS tax contribution. If you remove the employee cap, by
default you remove the employer cap.
Can't be too careful with you tax and spend liberals, you know.


What's the cap now? Over $100k I think.
Check small business wages.
Here's one source.
http://www.inc.com/news/articles/2008/07/salaries.html
About $32k.
Might affect 1% of small business wage earners - if that.
So the guy making a million will add what 30 small business wage
earners add.
Maybe the boss will say "Hey, have to cut your salary 7% of everything
past $100k so my business doesn't suffer. So now you're only making
$937k."
Think the guy will quit because he's now kicking in only what 28 small
business wage earners are kicking in?
Might be a tremendous insult to him, thinking he is being devalued.
Not sure.

--Vic


It depends on the business. There are many small businesses with employees
that have salaries over 100K, particularly in high tech or engineering
fields.

Eisboch

Vic Smith wrote:
On Fri, 5 Jun 2009 04:55:45 -0400, "Eisboch"
wrote:

It was a legitimate question. Currently, employers match dollar for dollar
the employee SS tax contribution. If you remove the employee cap, by
default you remove the employer cap.
Can't be too careful with you tax and spend liberals, you know.


What's the cap now? Over $100k I think.
Check small business wages.
Here's one source.
http://www.inc.com/news/articles/2008/07/salaries.html
About $32k.
Might affect 1% of small business wage earners - if that.
So the guy making a million will add what 30 small business wage
earners add.
Maybe the boss will say "Hey, have to cut your salary 7% of everything
past $100k so my business doesn't suffer. So now you're only making
$937k."
Think the guy will quit because he's now kicking in only what 28 small
business wage earners are kicking in?
Might be a tremendous insult to him, thinking he is being devalued.
Not sure.

--Vic







Yeah...he'll pick up and move to...Yemen.

Love that b.s. line the Repubs throw out..."tax and spend liberals."
It's more intellectually honest than what conservatives do..."spend, but
don't tax, and let the next generations pay for it." That was the credo
of Reagan and Bush II.