Comments on: Will Obama Make Employee Health Benefits Taxable?

By: Finance Entry

Finance Entry — Wed, 18 Mar 2009 09:11:43 +0000

Health Insurance Policy For All Seasons

This plans help in the payment of our health care before time. It is advisable to know the type of coverage that your health insurance plan gives to you, the rules and guidelines that governs your health insurance plans in details. Many health insurance plans covers things like injuries, outpatient visits and pregnancies. This reason makes health insurance planning very important. The right insurer can only be contacted via a trusted health insurance website.

By: Robert

Robert — Sat, 14 Mar 2009 17:20:34 +0000

Hi Tax Geek: if my Employer gave me what he pays for medical in extra salary, and I could pay with pretax dollars that are eventually taken off of my AGI, then I agree whole heartedly…as it stands, for my family policy, I already pay more than my employer contributes…

The idea of giving benefits as part of an employment package comes form employers trying to entice people to work for them. Believe me, when I lose over $500 a month out of my check towards health insurance, I fully understand the cost…

By: Another Tax Geek, CPA

Another Tax Geek, CPA — Sat, 14 Mar 2009 06:50:00 +0000

The real key is getting employers out of the health insurance business. As long as the cost is borne by ’someone else’ consumers have no incentive to spend wisely – we need educated health care consumers who make wise choices, that will never happen until they pay the bill themselves. I completely disagree with mandating the ‘EE plus 1′ coverage though – I know all the EE’s with families whine, but it’s an incredibly generous benefit given to some EE’s solely because they have a family, not a good way to distribute comp in my opinion.

By: Wayne Phillips

Wayne Phillips — Fri, 13 Mar 2009 11:58:26 +0000

This is another example of how remote politicians are from reality. The tax code can be skewed for large corporations in many ways (said to maintain their profitabilty while reducing the US workforce), but going after tax code benefits for the working folks is “not fair” (as my daughter says) especially when so many folks are struggling to keep their finances in reality terms.
As a retiree, my health premiums are no bargain. My wife and I have health care, but my former employer (DuPont) has made it clear that using it has extremely dangerous risks. I am not the only one experiencing this, and I suspect other companies do or are considering simialr steps.
The tax code must be simplified, and across the board. Just think if it were simplified, a good portion of the government would dissipate (IRS). Wonder how much that would save the government (and taxpayers).
Affordable quality health care should be affordable to all. I place that right below that no child in America should go to bed hungry.
Until Congress and the President really get serious about improving the health of our country, same old gets same.
By the way, as my daughter continues her journey through life as an adult and mom to three, she has encountered more of “it’s not fair”. That is part of life, and she has come to appreciate the challenges it brings. I have to smile at some of her comments, as I recall her much younger days. But Dad is proud.

By: Robert

Robert — Thu, 12 Mar 2009 22:39:26 +0000

The fundamental problem with the system is the taxpayer inherently will bear the burden regardless of the solution…I was thinking that perhaps it would be wiser to tax food products that contain so many chemicals and trans fats, etc that are bad for consumption and are known health risks in an effort to attack the problem from a different standpoint…if we are healthier because we eat healthier, in theory, it will eventually create less need on an overburdened health system, quite possibly lowering prices of health care…then I thought…”wow…all the food companies would do is raise prices and the consumers would pay anyway…”

By: Dennis

Dennis — Thu, 12 Mar 2009 21:37:54 +0000

I am self employed and hired my wife as an employee so that I could deduct the full cost of health insurance. Even with this, I can only afford a very high deductible plan. Although I am not a fan of more taxes, taxing health insurance might get more people aware of its high costs. It does seem inequitable that people getting a top notch health plan that may also include optical and dental do not have to include that as income and the rest of us can only deduct a portion of the cost if it gets above a certain minimum. This tax may also make more people to support a one payer system ot the type much of the industrial world already has. Certainly the high cost of health insurance is a big drain on the economy and making our country less competitive.

By: Robert

Robert — Thu, 12 Mar 2009 21:23:29 +0000

I pay over $6000 a year for a policy for my family that has a $250 deductible per MEMBER on prescriptions. If the amount was included in my income, my Federal taxes would have been about $1500 more added to what I already owe this year…this is a HORRIBLE idea…
If paying with post tax dollars, this amount falls under the 7.5% AGI used when determining medical write offs on schedule A…
Making matters worse, WE HARDLY WENT TO THE DOCTOR THIS YEAR…i know our policy paid much less than what me and my employer paid for the policy…

Seems to me, the wrong side is being asked to make changes…

By: Boyd Thomas EA

Boyd Thomas EA — Thu, 12 Mar 2009 20:56:48 +0000

A way out of our current health care mess? I wish this one measure (or any one measure for that matter) would solve the problem. So no, it’s not a way out — however, I do think that it should be an issue left on the table for consideration, in perhaps a modified form.

By: paulwot

paulwot — Thu, 12 Mar 2009 18:10:21 +0000

Tell them to take it off the table. Can’t afford what I have now.
AND I’m sick of paying higher rates because I smoke and the 600 lb lady accross from me is stuffing her face with bacon and doughnuts and gets better coverage for less.

By: Urbie

Urbie — Thu, 12 Mar 2009 14:40:54 +0000

I would go along with this IF it were also mandated that employers provide “employee + 1″ coverage, for married employees with no children. I’ve had it up to here ^ with employer health plans that only offer single or “family” coverage, where the latter requires you to pay for coverage for kids you don’t have — subsidizing other insureds.