I think taxes should be levied on cadillac health plans to pay for

[applegrove]

the health care plan. In that way only I am a fiscal conservative (I don't believe in deficites unless you are in a recession). One of the reasons of many why I hate George Bush. The rich should be taxed more than the rest of the population. If you can afford a cadillac health plan you have lots of disposable money and can afford a health care tax. Who is with me.

I'd also like to se a Vat tax for my US neighbours to reduce the deficit in the USA.

[babylonsister]

1. I am. If I made lotsa money, I wouldn't mind paying more taxes.

The people who are whining about this worry me; do they make lots of money? :think:

And if they do, cry me a river. :eyes:

[Hello_Kitty]

4. I am unemployed and I oppose attacks on the middle class.

Sticking it to people making $50K does not help me. Tax the millionaires and billionaires. Go with the House plan of a surtax on people making $500K a year or more.

[applegrove]

7. Why not tax people who make over 200K a year. Anyone who has been making 200k a year for a few years

is already a millionaire.

[Hello_Kitty]

12. I'm going by the House plan, which would raise $460 billion. eom

[Milo_Bloom]

24. WHAT?!?!?!

Making 200K per year for a few years does NOT make you a millionaire!

I am all for progressive taxation, but let's keep the arguments in the realm of reality.

Let's keep in mind when you "make" 200K per year that is your gross BEFORE taxes are taken out... so remove about 35% from that number off the top (more if you live in certain states, but we'll stick with 35%)... so you only ACTUALLY make 130,000. Then let's talk about non-deductible expenses to live, you know like, food, shelter, transportation, medical expenses, college or graduate school loans, etc... IF you live somewhere like NY, LA or SF you are likely paying high expenses. Due to student loans, previous debt and where i live, my family needs to CLEAR 84K per year just to pay the bills.. So, if we are lucky and just pay our bills, we can put away 40K per year... which after TWENTY years of MAKING 200K will make us millionaires.

[applegrove]

6. I know in Canada we have the Goods and Services tax. If you

to the mall with $100, $5 of that will go to the government federally to pay for our universal healthcare. If you go to the hairdresser and spend $70 on a haircut and highlights, some of that will go to the federal government. If you don't have a lot of money and only shop at the grocery store you pay no taxes. And the government gives money back to people who don't have a high income.

People complain about it but then we love our health care. If you can afford a manicure or whatnot, why shouldn't you pay a little to the government. We have good schools. We have lots of great programs. Our banks were regulated cautiously enough that none of them went into crisis last year and all reported a profit last year.

I kinda wish the USA would follow that route. People who decide to constantly spend their money in home decor stores can pay more in taxes than someone who is carefully saving their money. But it would go a long way in the USA to reduce the deficit and pay for the health care plan you do have as well as paying for any social programs in your future.

What Bush did was try to sink the US government in the bathtub as Grover Norquest would say. We have to fight back and get the country on solid ground.

[RC]

2. The problem is the middle class have the so called cadillac plans also.

And most can't afford the $1600 more a year.

[SharonAnn]

3. Most people who will be affected aren't rich. Union workers, white collar workers

who work for companies to provide what used to be the "standard" in employer plans are the ones who'll be taxed.

And, the way it works for the wealthy management is that their companiy will provide them the cash for the manager to pay the taxes on the benefit.

This is a suicide plan for Democrats. The Senate and President, most of whom aren't up for election in 2010, want the House Representatives each of whom is up for election to pass a bill the penalizes their voters. Way to go! Plan for a Republican House? I don't know. It just doesn't make sense.

[nightrain]

5. one problem with your thesis--"if you can afford a cadillac health plan you have

lots of disposable money and can afford a health care tax".

Those two don't necessarily go together--having lots of disposable income because a person has a cadillac plan. More than likely, a person who is a union member (or not), has deferred income and negotiated away raises in order to get one of those plans. Where do you get your association of cadillac with lots of disposable income?

[raging moderate]

8. Multiple meanings?

Does the original poster perhaps mean something different by the term "Cadillac Health Care"? Maybe the unusually luxurious health care enjoyed by the truly rich and famous, with health spas, private nurses and doctors, etc.?

[nightrain]

10. dunno. waiting for OP to respond....

[applegrove]

15. Some upper middle class union people do make enough money to pay a little more in

taxes. Some do not. Obviously if some union person isn't making much an hour but has a great plan they shouldn't be taxed.

[pnwmom]

20. They're not talking about a "little more." I heard it was a 40% tax.

And most of the people with these plans aren't wealthy people, they're regular union workers with excellent health benefits.

[applegrove]

9. I agree it doesn't make sense for most union workers to pay higher taxes.

Especially if they are not making alot an hour. But some Union people are making lots of money. Should they not pay if they are upper middle class?

[nightrain]

11. AFAIK, perhaps with an income >say $200K/year. That's not upper middle class.

what's a lot of money for you?

[applegrove]

16. Depends on the size of the family really. But upwards of 90,000 thousand dollars or something

like that.

[nightrain]

17. sure, on the family size bit. Somewhere in that area would be the

dividing point between upper mid to upper income.

Perhaps you are aware of the growing disparity of income in the US over the past decade or two. Surely someone on this board would have those figures, but something like the top 1% controlling/owning 95% of the wealth. I'd rather tax the upper income folks, who hardly would feel the pinch, than try to get more out of middle income people.

[southerncrone]

13. I am a teacher. I do not make enough money to afford a cadillac plan.

However, I apparently have a "cadillac plan" as part of my compensation package. This is in lieu of a higher salary. It is cheaper for the govt. to pay for better health insurance for us teachers than give us a much needed pay increase. So now, I will have to pay an extra "tax" on my compensation. I DO NOT like this idea at all. I only make $40,000 per year w/Master's degree & 10 yrs experience in the classroom.

This part of the bill is designed to "punish" union workers. A union breaker effort.

Does anyone know if this will be valued by the insurance companies, or based on the premiums paid by the employer/employee? And will it be lumped into income on the tax form, or taxed at a separate rate?

[Hello_Kitty]

18. It's worse than a tax for you.

The tax is on the plan administrator/your employer. What they'll do is get a cheaper plan and you'll be saddled with more out-of-pockets, which can add up to a helluva lot more than a tax.

I agree that it's a thinly disguised union-busting effort, made all the more evident by the divisive rhetoric of the people supporting it.

[southerncrone]

21. Thanks, HKitty. I am completely baffled by this idea in a Dem bill.

So many of us will end up with worse health ins. because of this. Makes no sense.
Compromise is one thing, but this is crap. Once again the winners are corp america. Insurance cos. get millions more customers...by law & businesses get to cut their HR overhead.

Don't get me wrong, I don't begrudge those getting ins. w/this, but it's not EVERYBODY & it's hurting those of us who are NOT rich.

What happened to rolling back the tax cuts for the wealthy? :grr:

[bornskeptic]

25. I take it you don't live in TN anymore,

I saw your handle, and I couldn't help wondering where in the South teachers had a "Cadillac" healthcare plan. I know teachers here in NC have the same healthcare plan which I have as a state university employee, and the higher of the two options available to us is the BCBS Standard w/o vision and dental, which has a total cost of slightly under $11,000 per year for family coverage. Our vision and dental is handled through a cafeteria plan and purchased from different companies, so it wouldn't have anything to do with the excise tax anyway. The BCBS Standard with vision and dental, the insurance coverage which most members of Congress have, only costs the government about $17,000 per year.
So I Googled to see what sort of healthcare plan K-12 teachers in TN have, and I found this:

http://www.state.tn.us/finance/ins/prem_le10.html

These are the total premium costs, including both employer and employee share. So annually the cost is about $5748 for a single individual and $14,345 for a family, well below the "Cadillac" level.
Of course I was originally making an unjustified assumption in assuming you were still in TN, as I have moved across state lines twice since joining DU, and both times a didn't get around to changing my profile for over a year. But others may very well jump to the same conclusion, so I thought it reasonable to make some effort to debunk the notion that teachers in the South customarily have super-expensive health insurance.

[TheKentuckian]

14. If you want to tax the rich then do so. They've got plenty of capital gains, a big chunk of the

income, and nearly every dime of accumulated wealth to go after.

[pnwmom]

19. You don't understand what a "cadillac health plan" is.

Many of them aren't owned by rich people but by regular union workers who negotiated these health plans in exchange for LOWER salaries and other benefits. They wanted excellent health care enough to agree to accept less in other areas.

And, given the rate of inflation, more and more working families could quickly find themselves in the position of having to pay taxes on "cadillac" health plans.

[quiller4]

22. Very few workers union or not have Cadillac plans. I placed a

call to my husband's union and asked if any of their bargaining units would be impacted. Their answer "Not a one."

[Milo_Bloom]

23. I'm sorry, but are you insane?

This entire premise is so surreal to me right now.

The result of taxing "Cadillac" health care plans will be to lower health care costs by DISCOURAGING companies from buying plans with too many benefits. It is just the natural result of what happens when you tax a high price item.

Should the result of ANY health CARE legislation be to DISCOURAGE individuals or companies from buying a plan with LESS benefits?

WTF???????????????????????