Free Markets, Free People

About Those Tax Cuts (Update)

So, 95% are going to get a tax cut are they?  Well, that’s great.  But what the government gives on the one hand, it will find a way of taking with the other.  It needs money folks, and it will get what it needs one way or the other:

A senior Senate Democrat said Tuesday he would consider taxing U.S. workers on their employer-sponsored health insurance to help pay for extending coverage to millions of uninsured Americans.

“I think that tax provision should be on the table,” said Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, who will play a major role in writing the legislation to revamp the U.S. healthcare system as promised by President Barack Obama.

“It’s too aggressive. It skews the system,” he said of the tax benefit.

Most U.S. workers with health insurance get it through their employers — 160 million of them — although recent surveys have shown that number is declining as businesses try to cope with the rapidly rising cost of insurance.

The employer-provided benefit is not taxed as income and critics say the tax break encourages workers to seek a more generous benefit package than they might want if it was taxed.

You shouldn’t be getting as “generous” a benefit as you now have, you see – government decrees it and will remedy the “problem” with a tax. You skew their cobbled together system as if it is “the” system, not your welfare, which is most important.

Result – more money out of your pocket at the Doctor’s office (as you scale back the benefit to reduce the tax) and more money out of your pocket to the government.

And you wondered what you’d spend that $13 a week windfall on didn’t you?

This may never come to pass, but understand that when it comes to taxes, the “tax cut” promised is mostly smoke and mirrors – whatever income it preserves will be gotten some other way, mark my words.  The government wants revenue and there’s only one large pool available too it.  It may not be income, per se, that’s taxed, but government will manage to find a way to get what it needs from  you in the coming years.  It has bridges to build and signs to make.

UPDATE: If you need more proof of this, here it is:

Despite President Obama’s promise that “If your family earns less than $250,000 a year, you will not see your taxes increase a single dime. I repeat: not one single dime,” his new budget raises 45 percent of its revenue from energy taxes that will be paid by everyone who fills a gas tank, pays an electric bill, or buys anything that was grown, shipped, or manufactured.

Who in the world do you think will actually end up paying the “cap-and-trade” bills?  It’s the “excise tax” of the ’30s and will have the very same effect.  Read the whole article.

~McQ

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUponShare on RedditPin on PinterestEmail this to someone

10 Responses to About Those Tax Cuts (Update)

  • OK, OK,OK!  This has been very amusing for the past few months, but I think the experiment of having pre-school children run the country has gone on long enough.  Can the adults come out now?  Please?!?!?!

  • Although Obama has said all along he is not for a single payer system, his intent is to get there without being blamed for it.  How?  By offering a system that purportedly is as good as that offered to civil servants at a “reasonable” cost, subsidized by the government (translated to mean “Paid for by Tax Revenues”).  Once in place, most employers will drop this costly benefit program which will force employees to seek the government solution.  Ultimately we will have a single payer system by default.  The only thing remaining is for the Obama crew to figure out how to force those recalcitant few who choose not to have insurance into opting for what they do not want.

  • I have to wonder how a person gets to the point where this is considered rational, reasonable thought:

    “I think that tax provision should be on the table,” said Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, who will play a major role in writing the legislation to revamp the U.S. healthcare system as promised by President Barack Obama.
    “It’s too aggressive. It skews the system,” he said of the tax benefit.

    So… the fact that my employer is generous with our health insurance “skews the system”, eh?  And, hence, the government must levy a tax to effectively punish my employer for its generosity?  Which, in turn, will drive up my health care costs?  I thought the object of the exercize was to REDUCE the cost of health care.  But I guess it’s more a question of equalizing the misery: when we all pay the same, nobody is paying too much.  When we all* have the same crappy benefits, waiting periods, and denial of benefits due to age or life-style or obesity or smoking or whatever other sins the government decides are so egregious that it won’t pay for procedures to fix our problems, we’ll all be equal.

    Somehow, I don’t think that’s what the Founding Fathers had in mind when they wrote that all men are created equal.

    —–

    (*) Well, except for members of Congress, who will (I’m sure) maintain their current, VERY generous health care system.  Because some pigs ARE more equal than others.

  • jj murphy you just got my words…

  • jjmurphy, intentionally or not, has hit upon the problem: We’re now electing people to run the country, not people to run the government.  The difference is both subtle and huge.  I remember something George Will once wrote, to the effect that we don’t live in a country where the president is responsible for handling the economy, and we wouldn’t want to.  Neither proposition is true any longer.

  • This may never come to pass, but understand that when it comes to taxes, the “tax cut” promised is mostly smoke and mirrors – whatever income it preserves will be gotten some other way, mark my words.

    Fixed that for you, McQ.

    de nada

  • Whoops, that didn’t work. I was trying to strikeout “mostly” from “mostly smoke and mirrors.”

    • It still works;  “whatever income it preserves will be gotten some other way”.

  • Has anybody seen this story about the Fiscal Responsibility Summit ? It seems that Obama was saying something like .. Repubs ought to take part in budget negotiations .. then a Repub Rep said they would if they could get Pelosi to give them a seat at the table .. Obama responded with some stuff about obstructionism (i.e. “The Won” wasn’t going to tell Pelosi to give them a seat). This seems to be the ultimate “Catch-22″ when it comes to the Republicans position on the Hill. It also undermines the story as put forth today by Plouffe.

    There is still time for Washington Republicans to join some of their colleagues outside the Beltway and become partners in progress. As Americans, we should all hope that happens.
    But if the GOP sticks with its strategy of failure as the only option, further eroding its brand with the people who decide elections, we may find out what it means for a political party to hit rock bottom.