–Life in general is not fair. As Americans we are blessed well beyond most of the world’s population, even in our poverty; we really don’t have a whole lot of room to complain about very much (I still whine all the time anyway)

–If we’re going to talk about selective fairness and relate it to the example of the two people making $50k, I suggest it would be just as fair–and certainly preferable– to aim for the flip side of that example, wherein efforts are taken to defray the costs of the person without benefits, rather than penalizing the person who has them (granted, I admit this may be impractical at present)

–Despite life not being fair in general, I believe the fairness we can achieve needn’t require those who are more prosperous (at least for legal reasons) to suffer punitive actions that–in all likelihood–aren’t helping the less privileged anyway (such as in the aforementioned example)

–Having worked for both Federal and State government agencies, I’ve watched what happens when tax revenues dried up: for my state, at least, the solution was not to raise taxes, but to cut spending. Unfortunately, that did result in job loss, but my state’s economy is currently among the best in the nation. I think it’s possible that this might also work on a Federal level

–I see taxation of benefits as principally similar to the “No Child Left Behind” law, which, at least indirectly, risked penalizing students who excelled, as teachers felt the need to spend more time on students who did not in an effort to ensure they (the teachers) kept their jobs

–This idea might look fair in print, but it really seems to ignore what may be better alternatives (I’m sorry I don’t have any specifics to offer at the moment), and I really don’t feel that it addresses any of the roots of the problems

I’ll shut up now.

Though the example given has sound reasoning behind it, the fact is that I’m being taxed on money that I never see–on income that I do not make. More to the point, I’m being taxed on benefits that I don’t even get 100% value from.

I happen to be in a job that has blessed me with something that people would call a “Cadillac” package. Due to my lower actual wage, however, the taxation on my benefits would tax me as though I were making an additional 24% income (based on 40% taxation of total aggregate value of my benefits). This 40%, for me, amounts to roughly $13k per annum. Right now, I don’t use anywhere *near* $13k worth of medical services, and, as I’m in my early 30s, probably won’t reach those levels for another decade or two, provided nothing unfortunate happens. In this case, the logic of the example from the article fails. I wouldn’t be paying as much as I would be taxed on, which is why I don’t see this as particularly fair.

So, admitting my bias–and we’re all biased–I’m opposed to this tax, and view it as taxation without representation. Were I to actually have an opportunity to vote for this measure, I would vote against it. Likewise, I did not vote for either of the candidates that supported this measure.

But such is life in a republic. You win some, you lose some, so I guess my only real option is to grin and bear it.