Quote:
Originally Posted by dc_dux
Ace...why should companies like CAT and ATT continue to receive tax credits for subsidies paid by the federal government for retiree drug benefits....particulary when the bill provides a direct $250 payment to those seniors to help close the Medicare donut hole and better drug benefits down the road for those seniors?
Those companies can simply pay those retirees $250 less and save that cost.
|
There are multiple concerns, but I agree corporations should not get tax deductions that individuals can not get in the area of health care. I would support either no deductions or deductions for everyone.
---------- Post added at 09:35 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:34 PM ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tully Mars
I again assert why not just remove employers from the loop of health all together. Why should your health care be linked to your job? Move it all to a single payer system and stop these pay out and kick backs.
|
I would support this.
---------- Post added at 09:51 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:35 PM ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by dc_dux
Under the 2003 Medicare prescription drug program, companies that provide prescription drug benefits for retirees have been able to receive subsidies covering 28 percent of eligible costs. But they could deduct the entire amount they spent on these drug benefits - including the subsidies - from their taxable income.
The new law allows companies to only deduct the 72 percent they spent.
|
Finally some meat.
The benefit to retirees offered by these companies was better than the Medicare prescription plan. The retirees wanted to maintain what they had.
The federal government would have incurred added costs if the employees under these plans converted, everyone knew that.
Companies had been taking a deduction for 100% of these costs, but the costs were and are voluntary. The subsidy was to give incentive for the companies to keep these plans, most did. And there still is a net cost.
This illustrates my point. The government creates these complex entanglements rather than relying on simple systems. And the folks in Washington don't know or don't care about the consequences of these entanglements. Like I have been saying either, single payer or true "free" market systems. The hybrid systems are inefficient, ineffective, unpredictable, and far too complex. To think CBO or anyone can predict the impact of this legislation 10, 20 years down the road is a joke. So, why do they pretend otherwise?
---------- Post added at 09:56 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:51 PM ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by dc_dux
ace..I dont understand why you are opposed to closing corporate tax loopholes.
|
Because you don't read what I write. I support single payer or true "free" market. In a true "free" market there would be no special subsidies, loopholes, or anything else from government.
Quote:
Why should companies like CAT and ATT be able to deduct the entire amount they spent on retiree drug benefits - including the govt. subsidies - from their taxable income....and not just the 72 percent they spent on those benefits?
able i
Isnt that like double dipping...getting a 28% govt subsidy and also deducting that subsidy from their taxable income.
|
You are looking too closely at the trees and can not see the forest. Re-read the OP, the issue presented is a little broader than your post here suggests.
---------- Post added at 10:04 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:56 PM ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tully Mars
Anyway if this is correct then we don't have national health care for our citizens but the US tax payer is providing just that for both Iraqis and Afghans. Makes sense, right?
|
I was recently talking to a person from China, the way he described health care in China was: "you get sick, you die".
Thinking about most of the countries in Africa a question comes to mind, what is the difference between national health care and no national health care when the country has no doctors and medical facilities? Answer: There is no difference.