home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
- Path: sparky!uunet!paladin.american.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!wupost!spool.mu.edu!agate!stanford.edu!rock!concert!seq!session
- From: session@seq.uncwil.edu (Zack C. Sessions)
- Subject: Re: Taxing medical benefits ... NOT
- Message-ID: <1993Jan1.020003.23598@seq.uncwil.edu>
- Organization: Univ. of North Carolina @ Wilmington
- References: <1992Dec19.204114.19752@netcom.com> <1992Dec24.184603.16096@jcnpc.cmhnet.org> <1992Dec29.094913.403@hsh.com>
- Distribution: na
- Date: Fri, 1 Jan 1993 02:00:03 GMT
- Lines: 57
-
- paul@hsh.com writes:
-
- |In article <1992Dec24.184603.16096@jcnpc.cmhnet.org|, mam@jcnpc.cmhnet.org (Mike A. McAngus) writes:
- || John Switzer (jrs@netcom.com) wrote:
- || : In article <1992Dec19.195620.6688@seq.uncwil.edu| session@seq.uncwil.edu (Zac
- || k C. Sessions) writes:
- || : |
- || : |In my local paper (which is owned by the NYT) today there was a story
- || : |which directly contradicts these assertions. The headline was "Transition
- || : |aide says Clinton won't put tax on medical benefits". In the story, Judy
- || : |Feder, who is Clinton's transition team health policy chief, said that
- || : |President-elect Clinton is not planning to seek new taxes on employee
- || : |medical benefits to pay for health care reform. She said, "That was not
- || : |contemplated in the campaign, and there has been no change in that."
- || :
- || : Another example of Clinton talking out of both sides of his mouth, because
- || : Friday's Wall Street Journal quotes Clinton as saying he is considering endin
- || g
- || : the tax exemption on at least part of a company's health care costs. End of
- || : exemption translates into more taxes being paid and thus higher taxes. This
- || : translates into a defacto tax on a person's benefits that are above the
- || : basic minimum which Clinton and his advisers have yet to settle on.
- |
- ||
- || Another example of a consevative putting the worst spin possible on what
- || Clinton says. Removing tax exemptions for health care costs is a tax increase
- || on businesses not an increase on middle class tax payers. Thus, the statement
- || by Clinton and the statement by Judy Feder do not contradict each other.
- |
- |Another example of a liberal who does not understand How Business Works.
- |Let's see if Mr. Switzer was paying attention in Economics 101. Attention,
- |class: When you greatly increase the cost of doing business, most
- |companies will A) absorb it, or B) pass on that increase in the form of
- |higher prices. Anyone? Anyone?
-
- Yet ANOTHER example of Conservative spin. Yes, I would admit that if you
- increase the cost of doing business, this increased cost usually gets past
- down to the consumers. And one thing which Clinton is CONSIDERING is putting
- a cap on the deduction companies can claim on medical benefits costs. So,
- the only way a company's cost would go up is if they increase the level of
- their coverage, and then the only part which would be taxable would be
- the increase.
-
- However, Krueger's original point was that he felt that Clinton was really
- saying was that he planned to tax INDIVIDUAL health insurance benefits,
- which would result in the dreaded middle class tax increase. Problem is
- that Clinton is NOT planning on doing that, and increasing one's individual
- tax burden is NOT comparable in any way to an increase in costs to consumers
- due to the cap in business's deductions.
-
- Try again.
-
- --
- Zack Sessions
- sessions@seq.uncwil.edu
- University of North Carolina at Wilmington (Alumnus)
- "Good health is merely the slowest form of dying."
-