Obama may support taxing health-care benefits

[peejay 327]

In shift, Obama may support taxing health-care benefits

By JACKIE CALMES and ROBERT PEAR

NEW YORK TIMES

March 14, 2009, 9:17PM

WASHINGTON — The Obama administration is signaling to Congress that the president could support taxing some employee health benefits, as several influential lawmakers and many economists favor, to help pay for an overhaul of the health care system.

The proposal is politically problematic for President Barack Obama, however, since it is similar to one he denounced in the presidential campaign as “the largest middle-class tax increase in history.” Most Americans with insurance get it from their employers, and taxing workers for the benefit is strongly opposed by union leaders and some businesses.

In millions of dollars worth of television advertisements last fall, Obama criticized his Republican rival for the presidency, Sen. John McCain of Arizona, for proposing to tax all employer-provided health benefits. The benefits have long been tax-free, regardless of how generous they are or how much an employee earns. The ads did not note that McCain, in exchange, wanted to give all families a tax credit to subsidize the purchase of coverage.

Won’t oppose Congress

Now that Obama has begun the health debate, several advisers say that while he will not propose changing the tax-free status of employee health benefits, neither will he oppose it if Congress does so.

At a recent congressional hearing, Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., asked Peter R. Orszag, Obama’s budget director, about the issue. Orszag replied that it “most firmly should remain on the table.”

Orszag, has urged taxing some employer-provided health benefits and using the revenue savings for other health-related incentives. So has another Obama adviser, Jason Furman, the deputy director of the White House National Economic Council.

GOP support

They, like other proponents, cite evidence that tax-free benefits keep pressure on employers to hold down workers’ pay as insurance expenses rise.

And, they say, the policy discriminates against those — mostly low-income workers — who do not have employer-provided coverage.

When Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., advocated taxing benefits at a recent hearing of the Senate Finance Committee, which he heads, Timothy Geithner, Obama’s secretary of the Treasury, assured him that the administration was open to all ideas from Congress.

The administration’s receptivity to the idea is partly due to the advocacy of Baucus, whose committee has jurisdiction over tax policy and health programs, and to support from Republicans. There is less enthusiasm among Democrats in the House.

The Congressional Budget Office says that including health benefits in taxable income could mean $246 billion in additional revenues for a single year.

_______________________________________________________________

BENEFITS SAVINGS

Under current law, employer contributions to the cost of health insurance are not counted as taxable income for employees. Workers do not pay income or payroll taxes on the benefits. A look at the average savings per tax return, given adjusted gross income (AGI).

AGI AVERAGE SAVINGS PER TAX RETURN

$10,000 $625

$10,000-29,999 $2,008

$30,000-49,999 $2,502

$50,000-74,999 $3,106

$75,000-99,999 $3,972

$100,000-199,999 $4,504

$200,000-499,999 $4,634

$500,000+ $4,385

Source: Congressional Joint Committee on Taxation

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/6311649.html

[NickD 203]

Would be nice just to tax net income like the big corporations, could live with that. Like instead of having a standard measly deduction for your kids, why not the actual expenses by keeping receipts as the corporations do. But by taxing the big corporations, the consumer still pays the price. So either way, we are getting screwed.

One index I would love to see is getting a value index on the actual return we receive on our tax dollar.

If you talk to any tax auditor, any money you waste on such basic entities like shelter, food, clothing, and even heathcare, should be fully taxed.

What our leaders should be looking at, is how much of our money they are wasting, but that will never happen, it's our money, not theirs.

[Pooky 3,876]

Won’t oppose Congress

Now that Obama has begun the health debate, several advisers say that while he will not propose changing the tax-free status of employee health benefits, neither will he oppose it if Congress does so.

So, the new President will not technically go against his campaign position, but will rely on Congress and the Senate to do the dirty work for him and simply complain that the bill is not "perfect" but has enough good in it for him not to veto it. (Okay, so that's what he did for the $410 billion bill that just passed).

The end result will mean that whatever tax cuts he manages for the 95%, the tax increases from other sources will end up being a net tax hike for everyone. And he gets to blame it on Congress and the Senate (Pelosi and Reid). As a strategy, it has benefits, but one major flaw. In 2010, the disenfranchized Obama supporters who have seen his promises fade into dust will crucify the Democratic party in the mid-terms and leave President Obama stranded without a means to pass legislation that needs to be passed.

I know there will be some who complain that it's only politics and what a candidate says on the campaign trail does not necessarily translate into what a President does in office, but Obama was all about change. So far, he has only proven to be more of the same. I have a feeling the electorate, regardless of what the media, both left and right say, are going to expect more of their new President. Like a backbone to stick by his word and bring the change he spoke of.

[EstebanTrabajos 7]

Won't oppose Congress

Now that Obama has begun the health debate, several advisers say that while he will not propose changing the tax-free status of employee health benefits, neither will he oppose it if Congress does so.

So, the new President will not technically go against his campaign position, but will rely on Congress and the Senate to do the dirty work for him and simply complain that the bill is not "perfect" but has enough good in it for him not to veto it. (Okay, so that's what he did for the $410 billion bill that just passed).

The end result will mean that whatever tax cuts he manages for the 95%, the tax increases from other sources will end up being a net tax hike for everyone. And he gets to blame it on Congress and the Senate (Pelosi and Reid). As a strategy, it has benefits, but one major flaw. In 2010, the disenfranchized Obama supporters who have seen his promises fade into dust will crucify the Democratic party in the mid-terms and leave President Obama stranded without a means to pass legislation that needs to be passed.

I know there will be some who complain that it's only politics and what a candidate says on the campaign trail does not necessarily translate into what a President does in office, but Obama was all about change. So far, he has only proven to be more of the same. I have a feeling the electorate, regardless of what the media, both left and right say, are going to expect more of their new President. Like a backbone to stick by his word and bring the change he spoke of.

wow that's a change, I'm already used to 8 years of constant vetoing by a President.

This Obama fellow is weird

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

The way I heard this idea first introduced was not a bad idea. There would be a threshold number, say $7,200 a year per employee, where the benefits would remain tax-except, and deductible as a bussiness expense for the employer. After that amount, any further benefit would become reportable as taxable income for the employee, and deductible as wage expenses for the the employer, with all the included payouts for UI, SSI, Medicare, etc., added on.

[Dan J 277]

The way I heard this idea first introduced was not a bad idea. There would be a threshold number, say $7,200 a year per employee, where the benefits would remain tax-except, and deductible as a bussiness expense for the employer. After that amount, any further benefit would become reportable as taxable income for the employee, and deductible as wage expenses for the the employer, with all the included payouts for UI, SSI, Medicare, etc., added on.

How many people still have their health care still subsidized by their employer? Fewer people are getting health coverage through their employer and those who do are finding an ever smaller portion of its costs subsidized by their employer.

If you buy your own health insurance, you don't get any tax benefit unless you spend over 7.5% of AGI on health care related expenses (Including health insurance).

[peejay 327]

The way I heard this idea first introduced was not a bad idea. There would be a threshold number, say $7,200 a year per employee, where the benefits would remain tax-except, and deductible as a bussiness expense for the employer. After that amount, any further benefit would become reportable as taxable income for the employee, and deductible as wage expenses for the the employer, with all the included payouts for UI, SSI, Medicare, etc., added on.

How many people still have their health care still subsidized by their employer? Fewer people are getting health coverage through their employer and those who do are finding an ever smaller portion of its costs subsidized by their employer.

If you buy your own health insurance, you don't get any tax benefit unless you spend over 7.5% of AGI on health care related expenses (Including health insurance).

My employer pays roughly half of my insurance and I pick up the rest with untaxed $$$ (i.e. the premiums are subtracted from taxable income). I'm far from Obama's evil rich guys making $250,000+ a year. So why ** the little guy?

So where is the promise that 95% of the People will get a tax cut? Is this more "change we can believe in"?

What do you mean that I don't already get a tax benefit by paying my premiums in before taxed $$$. Anytime you shield money from the tax man you are getting a benefit. Just like with the 401K contributions being tax defered with deductions taken in before tax $$$. It's one of the few ways the little guy gets to shield income from the tax man.

Already the Dims are talking about eliminating both of these havens. So please convince me that Obama and the Dims actually want to cut my taxes and are for the working people in America. With friends of the working man like this...who needs enemies?

Really...it's bad enough that these people have actively given stimulus jobs to illegal aliens with US unemployment ratcheting upwards to 10% and beyond. Not to mention the elimination of workplace raids targeting employers that hire illegal workers rather than American unemployed. At what point are the working class people in this country going to continue to believe that these clowns are working in the interests of the American middle class?

All I see is a whole bunch of bait and switch going on here. Political double speak. No change going on here. Different faces...same old sh*t.

[Dan J 277]

The way I heard this idea first introduced was not a bad idea. There would be a threshold number, say $7,200 a year per employee, where the benefits would remain tax-except, and deductible as a bussiness expense for the employer. After that amount, any further benefit would become reportable as taxable income for the employee, and deductible as wage expenses for the the employer, with all the included payouts for UI, SSI, Medicare, etc., added on.

How many people still have their health care still subsidized by their employer? Fewer people are getting health coverage through their employer and those who do are finding an ever smaller portion of its costs subsidized by their employer.

If you buy your own health insurance, you don't get any tax benefit unless you spend over 7.5% of AGI on health care related expenses (Including health insurance).

My employer pays roughly half of my insurance and I pick up the rest with untaxed $$ (i.e. the premiums are subtracted from taxable income). I'm far from Obama's evil rich guys making $250,000+ a year. So why ** the little guy?

So where is the promise that 95% of the People will get a tax cut? Is this more "change we can believe in"?

What do you mean that I don't already get a tax benefit by paying my premiums in before taxed $$. Anytime you shield money from the tax man you are getting a benefit. Just like with the 401K contributions being tax defered with deductions taken in before tax $$. It's one of the few ways the little guy gets to shield income from the tax man.

Already the Dims are talking about eliminating both of these havens. So please convince me that Obama and the Dims actually want to cut my taxes and are for the working people in America. With friends of the working man like this...who needs enemies?

Really...it's bad enough that these people have actively given stimulus jobs to illegal aliens with US unemployment ratcheting upwards to 10% and beyond. Not to mention the elimination of workplace raids targeting employers that hire illegal workers rather than American unemployed. At what point are the working class people in this country going to continue to believe that these clowns are working in the interests of the American middle class?

All I see is a whole bunch of bait and switch going on here. Political double speak. No change going on here. Different faces...same old sh*t.

If your employer doesn't provide provide health insurance, and you buy your own. You pay for it after-tax and you cannot take a deduction on that expense, unless you pay more than 7.5% of your AGI to health care related expenses. For those of us who have to buy private insurance, having health-care money taxed is nothing new. HSA contributions can be tax-deducted, but that does not cover health insurance.

If anything health care should not be tied to an employer in the first place. It limits competition and often ties people to jobs they hate in the first place.

If you are worried about the middle class getting screwed, look at what it would cost to buy private insurance for yourself and your family. And realize that if costs are going to keep growing at 10% a year or more, every year it will be more likely that your employer will end its health insurance benefit.

Even if the transition is funded by a removing the tax exemption on the employer provided part of the health insurance. The long term benefit of lower premiums will likely significantly offset any costs inured in the short term.

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

He likes his taxes.

[dalegg 143]

Won't oppose Congress

Now that Obama has begun the health debate, several advisers say that while he will not propose changing the tax-free status of employee health benefits, neither will he oppose it if Congress does so.

So, the new President will not technically go against his campaign position, but will rely on Congress and the Senate to do the dirty work for him and simply complain that the bill is not "perfect" but has enough good in it for him not to veto it. (Okay, so that's what he did for the $410 billion bill that just passed).

The end result will mean that whatever tax cuts he manages for the 95%, the tax increases from other sources will end up being a net tax hike for everyone. And he gets to blame it on Congress and the Senate (Pelosi and Reid). As a strategy, it has benefits, but one major flaw. In 2010, the disenfranchized Obama supporters who have seen his promises fade into dust will crucify the Democratic party in the mid-terms and leave President Obama stranded without a means to pass legislation that needs to be passed.

I know there will be some who complain that it's only politics and what a candidate says on the campaign trail does not necessarily translate into what a President does in office, but Obama was all about change. So far, he has only proven to be more of the same. I have a feeling the electorate, regardless of what the media, both left and right say, are going to expect more of their new President. Like a backbone to stick by his word and bring the change he spoke of.

wow that's a change, I'm already used to 8 years of constant vetoing by a President.

This Obama fellow is weird

You do realize that Bush didn't actually issue his first veto until 5 1/2 years into office, right?

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Won't oppose Congress

Now that Obama has begun the health debate, several advisers say that while he will not propose changing the tax-free status of employee health benefits, neither will he oppose it if Congress does so.

So, the new President will not technically go against his campaign position, but will rely on Congress and the Senate to do the dirty work for him and simply complain that the bill is not "perfect" but has enough good in it for him not to veto it. (Okay, so that's what he did for the $410 billion bill that just passed).

The end result will mean that whatever tax cuts he manages for the 95%, the tax increases from other sources will end up being a net tax hike for everyone. And he gets to blame it on Congress and the Senate (Pelosi and Reid). As a strategy, it has benefits, but one major flaw. In 2010, the disenfranchized Obama supporters who have seen his promises fade into dust will crucify the Democratic party in the mid-terms and leave President Obama stranded without a means to pass legislation that needs to be passed.

I know there will be some who complain that it's only politics and what a candidate says on the campaign trail does not necessarily translate into what a President does in office, but Obama was all about change. So far, he has only proven to be more of the same. I have a feeling the electorate, regardless of what the media, both left and right say, are going to expect more of their new President. Like a backbone to stick by his word and bring the change he spoke of.

wow that's a change, I'm already used to 8 years of constant vetoing by a President.

This Obama fellow is weird

You do realize that Bush didn't actually issue his first veto until 5 1/2 years into office, right?

That was sarcasm, right?

[Pooky 3,876]

Won't oppose Congress

Now that Obama has begun the health debate, several advisers say that while he will not propose changing the tax-free status of employee health benefits, neither will he oppose it if Congress does so.

So, the new President will not technically go against his campaign position, but will rely on Congress and the Senate to do the dirty work for him and simply complain that the bill is not "perfect" but has enough good in it for him not to veto it. (Okay, so that's what he did for the $410 billion bill that just passed).

The end result will mean that whatever tax cuts he manages for the 95%, the tax increases from other sources will end up being a net tax hike for everyone. And he gets to blame it on Congress and the Senate (Pelosi and Reid). As a strategy, it has benefits, but one major flaw. In 2010, the disenfranchized Obama supporters who have seen his promises fade into dust will crucify the Democratic party in the mid-terms and leave President Obama stranded without a means to pass legislation that needs to be passed.

I know there will be some who complain that it's only politics and what a candidate says on the campaign trail does not necessarily translate into what a President does in office, but Obama was all about change. So far, he has only proven to be more of the same. I have a feeling the electorate, regardless of what the media, both left and right say, are going to expect more of their new President. Like a backbone to stick by his word and bring the change he spoke of.

wow that's a change, I'm already used to 8 years of constant vetoing by a President.

This Obama fellow is weird

You do realize that Bush didn't actually issue his first veto until 5 1/2 years into office, right?

That was sarcasm, right?

To Tavo I'd ask this - go compare how many times GWB used the Presidential veto versus every president since Warren Harding and then define exactly what you mean by "constant".

Even when faced with a hostile Congress and Senate, GWB was remarkably restrained in his use of the veto.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Won't oppose Congress

Now that Obama has begun the health debate, several advisers say that while he will not propose changing the tax-free status of employee health benefits, neither will he oppose it if Congress does so.

So, the new President will not technically go against his campaign position, but will rely on Congress and the Senate to do the dirty work for him and simply complain that the bill is not "perfect" but has enough good in it for him not to veto it. (Okay, so that's what he did for the $410 billion bill that just passed).

The end result will mean that whatever tax cuts he manages for the 95%, the tax increases from other sources will end up being a net tax hike for everyone. And he gets to blame it on Congress and the Senate (Pelosi and Reid). As a strategy, it has benefits, but one major flaw. In 2010, the disenfranchized Obama supporters who have seen his promises fade into dust will crucify the Democratic party in the mid-terms and leave President Obama stranded without a means to pass legislation that needs to be passed.

I know there will be some who complain that it's only politics and what a candidate says on the campaign trail does not necessarily translate into what a President does in office, but Obama was all about change. So far, he has only proven to be more of the same. I have a feeling the electorate, regardless of what the media, both left and right say, are going to expect more of their new President. Like a backbone to stick by his word and bring the change he spoke of.

wow that's a change, I'm already used to 8 years of constant vetoing by a President.

This Obama fellow is weird

You do realize that Bush didn't actually issue his first veto until 5 1/2 years into office, right?

That was sarcasm, right?

To Tavo I'd ask this - go compare how many times GWB used the Presidential veto versus every president since Warren Harding and then define exactly what you mean by "constant".

Even when faced with a hostile Congress and Senate, GWB was remarkably restrained in his use of the veto.

Impotent might be more like it!

[Pooky 3,876]

Won't oppose Congress

Now that Obama has begun the health debate, several advisers say that while he will not propose changing the tax-free status of employee health benefits, neither will he oppose it if Congress does so.

So, the new President will not technically go against his campaign position, but will rely on Congress and the Senate to do the dirty work for him and simply complain that the bill is not "perfect" but has enough good in it for him not to veto it. (Okay, so that's what he did for the $410 billion bill that just passed).

The end result will mean that whatever tax cuts he manages for the 95%, the tax increases from other sources will end up being a net tax hike for everyone. And he gets to blame it on Congress and the Senate (Pelosi and Reid). As a strategy, it has benefits, but one major flaw. In 2010, the disenfranchized Obama supporters who have seen his promises fade into dust will crucify the Democratic party in the mid-terms and leave President Obama stranded without a means to pass legislation that needs to be passed.

I know there will be some who complain that it's only politics and what a candidate says on the campaign trail does not necessarily translate into what a President does in office, but Obama was all about change. So far, he has only proven to be more of the same. I have a feeling the electorate, regardless of what the media, both left and right say, are going to expect more of their new President. Like a backbone to stick by his word and bring the change he spoke of.

wow that's a change, I'm already used to 8 years of constant vetoing by a President.

This Obama fellow is weird

You do realize that Bush didn't actually issue his first veto until 5 1/2 years into office, right?

That was sarcasm, right?

To Tavo I'd ask this - go compare how many times GWB used the Presidential veto versus every president since Warren Harding and then define exactly what you mean by "constant".

Even when faced with a hostile Congress and Senate, GWB was remarkably restrained in his use of the veto.

Impotent might be more like it!

No, restrained will do. The impotence factor is the number of presidential vetoes that were over-ridden, a statistic in which GWB appears unremarkable, until you factor in how many times he tried to use his veto. And that statistic remains firmly down to the enthusiastically hostile Congress he faced in the last 2 years of his presidency, where all of the veto over-rides occurred.

[I'm Gone 60]

Just one more step in the Obamainistas's plan of wealth distribution.