[marclove]

So if a company (or state government in your example) wants to provide health care benefits to be competitive in the marketplace, they should be penalized for that?

I don't accept your premise that taxes = penalization.

Employers who pay their employees $35,000/yr have to pay more in federal taxes than if they paid their employees $34,000/yr. I don't consider that a penalty either. Its progressive taxation.

Additionally, your statement about "well-paid employees" doesn't seem to fit with the article you quoted. Secretaries and van drivers aren't generally highly paid positions.

"Well-paid employees" referred to Microsoft employees.

The government positions (secretaries & van drivers) mentioned in the article, I would agree, probably aren't highly paid. They have a great health plan because of the unions that represent them and fight for those benefits. If they were non-union, they'd probably have much crappier health plan options.

But as the article said, the value of their plan is $20,400/yr. The excise tax is on whatever amount exceeds $27,500/yr. So they, and the state government they work for, will not be subject to any new taxes under the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010.

The reason I quoted the article was to show how great a $20,400/yr health plan is. Just imagine the benefits you'd get from a $27,500+/yr health plan. The people who have plans that expensive, most of them executives and other highly paid employees, are not hurting and I could care less if they have to go with a slightly less lavish plan that doesn't cover things like rehab, treadmills and gym memberships or choose to pay what amounts to income taxes on the portion that exceeds $27,500/yr.

[d2viant]

I don't accept your premise that taxes = penalization.

Employers who pay their employees $35,000/yr have to pay more in federal taxes than if they paid their employees $34,000/yr. I don't consider that a penalty either. Its progressive taxation.

The two aren't mutually exclusive. Just because it's called "progressive taxation" doesn't mean it isn't penalizing. I consider any tax at all penalizing. It's the exact reason politicians raise taxes when they want to discourage certain activities or lower them when they want to encourage more of a certain activity.

[marclove]

I consider any tax at all penalizing.

Heh, so all taxes should be abolished because the government shouldn't be penalizing us for making money, right?

[d2viant]

I suppose if your goal was to let people keep as much money as possible, then sure -- don't tax them on anything. However, voters have accepted a certain amount of self-inflicted pain in exchange for services that the private sector can't or won't provide. However, generally speaking I don't believe the government is a particularly efficient means of reallocating society's capital, I'd rather give entrepreneurs in the private sector the chance to do it better.

[marclove]

Yea, those crazy voters...engaging in a little self-masochism because they want things like police officers, firefighters, armed forces, potable water, roads, education, and social security.

In general, I agree that the private sector can do better than the government in many areas. The problem is, when it comes to health care coverage they haven't, not when the #1 cause of bankruptcy in the United States is medical bills.

Furthermore, entrepreneurs still have the chance to do it better. Nothing in the health reform bill prevents them from doing so. So if you think you can do better d2viant, more power to ya. There are tens of millions of Americans with no health care coverage who are waiting for your better & more efficient solution.