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 : A US National Health Care System? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (4314)	2/5/2008 5:12:18 PM
From: TimF	Respond to of 42652

Ideal for me would be to get rid of all sorts of tax breaks, including the one for employer provided insurance. Edit - But in the process lower rates to prevent the net tax hit from increasing.

To: Lane3 who wrote (4314)	2/5/2008 5:20:40 PM
From: Joe NYC	Respond to of 42652

Lane, I'm still left guessing about what would be optimum for you. Make employer provided insurance taxable to the employee and be done with it? I think that would be a start. Both sides, the employee payment and emloyer payment. That means that there would be a lot more income to tax and more revenue for the government. Then, there would be a personal deduction of a tax return of the taxpayer (employee) where he would deduct his insurance payment (up to certain limit). That would break the link of employer provided insurance, and many people would personally start shopping for insurance - something that suits them. This would give those who are not insured by their employer a level playing field. As far as employment provided benefits, you could choose to take cash or the health insurance benefit. It is more transparent, IMO, because the employer benefits favor older married employees with dependants over younger, single employees. So another playing field would be leveled. Joe