Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Just the Facts, Ma'am: A Compendium of Liberal Fiction -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: mph who wrote (53506)	11/15/2006 12:04:31 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 90947

Charity analogy holds up just fine. It isn't an analogy to government tax deduction for charity, and has nothing to do with such a deduction. You said - " It's government subsidizing the employer's operation by assuming the costs the employer failed to cover or remit." But assuming X's cost isn't subsidizing Y. If you contribute to charity (assume some of the charities costs) that doesn't mean that your subsidizing some third party. Employee's medical care costs are not an inherent part of doing business. If I hire workers and I pay for their health care as part of their compensation, and the government gives me the money for that payment, then I am subsidized by the government. If on the other hand I don't pay for health care of health insurance, if it isn't part of the employees compensation, and if someone else pays for the health care, they are subsidizing the employee. They are not subsidizing me.