DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post

**ddwayspd** · 01-31-2007, 08:50 PM

whoa...

From what I understand, Sam in correct in that this is determined by how much your employer pays for your GROUP health insurance. For instance, I know for a fact that this targets me. When I paid a portion of my group health plans premium for myself as an employee, and my family, the total premium was right on the cusp of Bush's proposed limit.

I changed jobs and negotiated my new salary based on the fact that the new employer would pay for the total premium for the group health plan for my entire family.

I did NOT understand Bush's proposal to be a tax but rather the rescinding of the tax break for employee paid coverage!

For instance, when I paid for my premiums, that amount was deducted from my taxable wages for my W-2. This is a decent advantage to middle class folks but provides nothing to low wage earners who pay no taxes anyway - a tax break on no tax provides no cash with which to purchase insurance. So the old method helped the middle class specifically.

That means that if the tax BREAK is rescinded, the middle class loses out, the lower class gains nothing but the wealthy folks who have their own individual plans that were never subject to a tax break anyway, now get a tax break so they can afford health insurance.

???

Is this not correct?

01-31-2007, 08:50 PM	#38
ddwayspd Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 571 Senior Member	whoa... From what I understand, Sam in correct in that this is determined by how much your employer pays for your GROUP health insurance. For instance, I know for a fact that this targets me. When I paid a portion of my group health plans premium for myself as an employee, and my family, the total premium was right on the cusp of Bush's proposed limit. I changed jobs and negotiated my new salary based on the fact that the new employer would pay for the total premium for the group health plan for my entire family. I did NOT understand Bush's proposal to be a tax but rather the rescinding of the tax break for employee paid coverage! For instance, when I paid for my premiums, that amount was deducted from my taxable wages for my W-2. This is a decent advantage to middle class folks but provides nothing to low wage earners who pay no taxes anyway - a tax break on no tax provides no cash with which to purchase insurance. So the old method helped the middle class specifically. That means that if the tax BREAK is rescinded, the middle class loses out, the lower class gains nothing but the wealthy folks who have their own individual plans that were never subject to a tax break anyway, now get a tax break so they can afford health insurance. ??? Is this not correct?
	Quote