OMG! It's the Fiscal Cliff!

[BigV]

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

Sorry, happily married.

best bad news I've heard all day.

[Griff]

There is talk of taxing employer paid insurance plans as income. That'd be pretty brutal for the middle class, I'd think. Seems like a step toward National Health Care but taking the most painful route possible to get there.

[SamIam]

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

Sorry, happily married.

Drat! Why does it always seem like the good ones are already taken?

Originally Posted by BigV

best bad news I've heard all day.

hmmm... Let's see - Washington or Washington?

Originally Posted by Griff

There is talk of taxing employer paid insurance plans as income. That'd be pretty brutal for the middle class, I'd think. Seems like a step toward National Health Care but taking the most painful route possible to get there.

That idea has been out on the table for a few years now. The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities called the employer tax exclusion “The largest single subsidy in the tax code” in a paper they put out in 2009.

The exclusion of employer-provided health insurance from taxable income is considered a “tax expenditure” or “tax subsidy” because it is an exception to the usual rule that all compensation is counted as taxable income. In fact, the employer tax exclusion is the largest single subsidy in the tax code. [1] According to the Joint Committee on Taxation, it reduced federal tax collections by $246 billion in 2007 — $145 billion in income taxes and $101 billion in payroll taxes.

~snip~ Although the tax exclusion provides a big boost to employer-sponsored health coverage, it is poorly targeted. It gives the greatest benefit to those with the highest incomes, although they are the group that least needs help paying for health insurance. The 24 per¬cent of tax units with incomes over $75,000 in 2004 received almost half of the benefits of the exclusion, while the 27 per¬cent of tax units with incomes under $20,000 received just 6 percent of the benefits.

[tw]

I don't get it. Everyone keeps talking about a fiscal cliff. Obvously the entire problem is mental.

[Griff]

Originally Posted by SamIam

That idea has been out on the table for a few years now. The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities called the employer tax exclusion “The largest single subsidy in the tax code” in a paper they put out in 2009.

This is where left and right use different language and think about things very differently. To those of us on the right a subsidy is when you get something not when the Feds fail to take something.

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by BigV

By waiting until the new year, the republicans get to save face by saying they nevereverevernever voted for a tax increase. They get to save face. I think this has a lot of substance because there's not a lot of substance to the arithmetic found in their counteroffers.

President Obama's doing them a favor. They know that the higher marginal tax rates will be accepted by "the rich". They know it won't be the end of the world as they imagine it and talk about it. This way, they get to continue to appear stalwart, while permitting something good for the country to occur.

But they will lose the entire middle class vote. The Democrats want to protect the middle class from a tax increase. When the republicans allow middle income taxes to increase, the middle class WILL hold it against them.

[glatt]

The electorate has short memories. If this gets resolved in January, then by November election time, nobody will remember much at all. And if the elections are a year or two from now, it won't matter at all.

[Lamplighter]

Agreed.
Just look how we've completely forgotten Wecanseerussia ??? and Anyonebut ??? (whatever their names)

[SamIam]

Originally Posted by Griff

This is where left and right use different language and think about things very differently. To those of us on the right a subsidy is when you get something not when the Feds fail to take something.

The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities is non-partisen. The link I gave above gives a pretty exhaustive analysis of the effect of the tax break on health insurance thing. (does calling it a "tax break" make you feel more comfortable?) If this is a subject that deeply concerns you, it's worth the read. They discuss a number of possible scenarios. For example:

Based on the income of the taxpayer. Under this variant, only people with incomes above a certain threshold would face taxation on their employer’s contributions to the cost of their health insurance. For example, in one version estimated by CBO, the tax exclusion would be phased out for single persons with incomes above $80,000 and married couples with incomes above $160,000. CBO estimates that this option would raise $182 billion over five years and $552 billion over ten years. An alternative would be to use the income thresholds at which eligibility for Roth Individual Retirement Accounts begins to phase out — $105,000 for individuals and $166,000 for couples in 2009.

Coming from the Right, how do you feel about the proposal above?

[Griff]

It makes more sense as a progressive proposal.

[SamIam]

Originally Posted by Griff

It makes more sense as a progressive proposal.

In other words, you consider it more about some progressive agenda rather than a legitmate proposal to extend health care coverage to lower income Americans while keeping down costs?
If the latter, what would constitute a more reasonable compromise?

Just curious.