[ghaff]

I am not an accountant, but in the US, I'm guessing that there are tax advantages to offering employees dental insurance rather than just paying employees more. This is somewhat mitigated by the fact that employees could just put money for routine teeth care into a flexible spending account. (That said, most bigger ticket dental items like crowns are typically only covered by about 50% anyway because they're often at least partially cosmetic.)

[AnthonyMouse]

> I am not an accountant, but in the US, I'm guessing that there are tax advantages to offering employees dental insurance rather than just paying employees more.

That's just an example of bad policy, not a reason to encourage that as a solution to the problem. If buying dental insurance or dental services is tax deduction when paid by the employer but not the employee, fix your tax code.

[ghaff]

I don't actually disagree. But in the meantime I'll take the dental insurance and the tax benefit that comes with it.

[AnthonyMouse]

That's assuming there is a tax benefit. What does it do to the EITC? Does your state or spouse's employer or school have a dental program you get disqualified from if your employer offers coverage? Maybe there is a way for the employee to claim it as a deduction? The US tax code and welfare system is so convoluted that it's difficult to identify whether a given thing will actually save you money without consulting a tax attorney.