BA's Bus. Tax Plan Will SOOOO Pi$$ Off Small & Medium Business Owners!

[elehhhhna]

Remove the deduction for employer-paid insurance premiums and OUCH! The employer who drops coverage gets to be the bad guy. Gets the recruiting and retention headaches. OR gets to keep insuring employees and takes an immediate hit of, what, 15% on top of double-digit premium increases. Remember that's also THEIR health insurance. Oftentimes the owner &/or spouse are the oldest, hardest to insure employees in the company pool. If they elect to dump group coverage, many of them will be LUCKY to find themselves insurable under individual policy rules.

God the BA is stoopid. Morans.

[VivaKerry]

1. I think employers will start looking at that EVIL LABOR FORCE

as the problem.

the employer will feel he has justification to cut medical insurance benefits... "sorry, sam, wish I could give this to you.. but you see, I can't."

Employer creates a health savings account for him and his family,.... deducts the ENTIRE expense (100%) as a business expense... gets a major medical policy for him and his family.... sings and skips to the bank.

Losing the tax deduction won't be anything to the employer, 'since none of the other businesses in town are competing against him for labor since no one is giving insurance bennies to employees.'

It will hurt in the short-term for the employer, but the GRAND PLAN.... lowering expectations of american workers will pay off handsomely. The business owner will jive with this just fine.

why the heck is karl marx starting to make so much sense to me all of a sudden, and so late in life?

[shoelace414]

2. Dyalisis is around $8000 a month

tell he how a health savings account will help with that.

[tsuki]

27. Thank you, Mr. Dittohead.

I depend on my employees to help me build a successful business. I pay 100% of their health coverage to the tune of 40K a year. They pay for their families. Paying for the families has become a hardship this past year with the ReThuglicans raising the premiums a whooping 40%.

My personal assistant works because her husband has cancer and MS, and believe me, after working for a lifetime, they were told he did not qualify for SSI becaus SSI was a welfare program. They would have to sell their house to qualify for SSI. So much for taking care of the family if you become disabled.

I depend on that tax deduction to be able to provide. If I have to declare it as income and pay taxes on it, it will be a hardship.

I guess "the paint everyone with the same tarbrush" is what caused me to leave the "thinking" democrats in the first place. Maybe I was better off with third party candidates who actually do think.

[HootieMcBoob]

3. It would knock another 10 million people into the uninsured

At least I would think. I hope they do it. Maybe it's what all of these morans(sic) who voted for the chimp need. Personally, I'm already among the uninsured and have been for two years.

[indepat]

7. That's what it is all about: making the people responsible for their own

health insurance and retirement. The business of business is making money and nothing else.

[HootieMcBoob]

17. but there are many more employees than employers

and many of those employees were Bush voters. Maybe when those people loose their health insurance they'll wake up. That's the point I was trying to make.

[indepat]

25. Those people who lose their health insurance will have gotten the govern-

ment they so richly deserve.

[Mister K]

4. This is going to be a problem for me

I am a consultant and pay for my own health care (about 10K per year). I also deduct this from my corporate profits. If I can't do this, it will cost me about 3-4 K per year in increased taxes.

I will have to look into paying myself in Dividends if Bush eliminates the tax on them.

[tk2kewl]

5. small-business, he "was one"

:+

[Zorra]

6. Bu$h plans to destroy all small businesses. The idea is to create a

corporate slave state by destroying the Middle Class.

He plans to starve the vast majority of Americans so that they will grovel at the corporate foot, and be willing to work for nothing and without benefits.

[ProfessorGAC]

9. A Question About That

Have you actually read anything by any of the economic advisors that indicates that, or is that just your conclusion?

The reason i ask, (nothing toward you), is that i'm curious if there are economic advisors in this adminstration that are that stupid.

The wealth and prosperity data are abundantly clear for the last 100 years. Rich people get the best return on investment, accumulate wealth faster, and the companies they run are far more profitable, when unemployment is low, median income is high, and worker conditions are good.

The larger and more vibrant the middle class, the stronger the economy, and the higher the velocity of money. Greater consumption and low inflation results in equity return at high levels. So, the richer you are, the better off you are making sure the middle class is HUGE, not minimal.

If you've actually seen something from the administration or any of its advisors, i'd sure like to know who would be that stupid.
The Professor

[Zorra]

14. Bu$h plans to make his cuts permanent, Bu$h plan to change the tax

code in favor of the wealthy, Bu$h plan to privatize social security, acceleration of the outsourcing of jobs and means of production....?

And the polarization of wealth that is accelerating at a rapid rate.

It's not like someone is going to say "Hey, we're going to destroy the middle class!"

It is the effect of the policy that makes the deliberate destruction of the middle class evident.

[ProfessorGAC]

19. Well, Then We'll Disagree On The Intended Outcome

It's not evident that a deliberate destruction of the middle class is the goal. It would take more than a single conclusion from a fellow DU'er to convince me that the money men behind the Republicans are that dumb. I don't think they're as smart as they think they are, but they're not that stupid.
The Professor

[leesa]

15. Where have you been lately? The evidence is all around you.

The rich corporation owners are doing great. They don't need us to be doing great. They just need us to work for as little as possible and fight their oil wars. I have a rabid GOPer at work who posts a message "stocks are up" every day on his little greaseboard. Of course they are, it's pure profit when you lay off the vast majority of your high-paid US employees and outsource the jobs. They have no employee expenses, just profit.

[ProfessorGAC]

20. It Was A Simple Question. No Need To Insult Me

There are hundreds and hundreds of corporations who are NOT cutting people, benefits, & salaries. We hear about the slimy ones who are doing it. Corporate profits are NOT rising in this economy, so they're not cutting benefits and people and making more money. They're cutting and STILL making less.

You are thinking with emotion rather than looking at the econometric facts.

I do NOT believe for a moment that anyone believes that a minimal middle class will be good for business. You folks have concluded this without any evidence.

You say it's all around me, but i actually do look at the econometric data and the financial situation of major, mid-size and small corporations routinely. The data does not support your conclusion, and my examination of said data does not support your insult.
The Professor

[uncle ray]

21. sometimes a person can get tangled up with facts

emotion is good too.

corporate profits per se may not be up across the board, but corporate ceo profits ARE. you'll have to excuse us DUers who don't communicate as well, but i think the point is that there are obviously a proportionally small amount of people making huge amounts of money at the expense of the working person, who will stop at nothing to have more, regardless of how much they already have. this is true regardless what some economic data claims.

[ProfessorGAC]

23. The Data Claim Nothing

I'm claiming it. In addition, there is no evidence that the middle class is smaller.

I don't disagree that CEO is, in general, too high. However, once again, if you had some facts, which you clearly do not, you would note that >90% of CEO's are paid the same multiple of the average line worker as they were in 1960. The other 10% is where the extremists exist. You will get no argument from me about excessive CEO pay, where such derision is deserved. But when the vast majority of companies are not overpaying their CEO's at the expense of the workers, then your "emotional" conclusion isn't equally valid. It would be wrong.

And, don't kid yourself. Facts NEVER get in the way. That sounds like something a Bushbot would say.
The Professor

[uncle ray]

24. re: that 10%

so we just shouldn't worry about them then? wehn does their excessive pay for poor pefromance become an issue? when X percentage are overpaid? 10% isn't too many overpaid execs?

nitpicking over percentages to invalidate someones arguement about their concerns about things like executive vs worker pay is a good reason why blue collar people flock to the rethug party not the dems, they see it as being all elitist with those facts and stuff. it was meant to sound like bushbot speak. they're winning while dems worry about semantics and specific numbers.

[patcox2]

8. Eliminates the incentive to give workers coverage.

Most of the current rules governing the deductibility of employee health benefits are designed to ensure that employees are treated the same as the management and owners. All of the emphasis is on equality for all employees.

Its one of those cases where the then-liberal congress used the IRS Code to encourage people to do something that it could not simply order them to do. The policy is to encourage coverage for all workers by telling the employers, the business owners, that they could not deduct the costs of their health coverage unless they also gave coverage to their employees.

The primary point under the old rule was that you could not deduct health insurance payments for the owners or the managers, unless you gave the same benefit to all employees.

This change eliminates this.

Under the new rule, the owner can give himself a health benefit, through the unlimited health savings thing, buy himself health insurance, the cost will be deductible, and he can give the employees squat. That is preferable to the current situation, under which, if an enployer gives himself health insurance benefits, but doesn' give them to his employees, his benefits are not deductible.

[FlaGranny]

10. To tie health insurance to

businesses is stupid to begin with. How much better for a national system that covers everyone according to their ability to pay. That is just too democratic and fair for the US I guess.

[leesa]

13. I agree. However, now we have nothing. They will destroy any federal

coverage, their will be no job-related coverage and the stae coverage will be crushed with the load and also become unavailable. We will have NO way to pay for health care.

[leesa]

11. Well, it's a good thing. The mythology of the GOP being good for

small business has to end.

[AP]

12. It will kill small businesses because only huge businesses will be able to

afford health insurance and remain competitive. It will mean that small businesses will have to compete with big businesses for labor on a much less level playing field than they already have. (And then when the only businesses left in America are the big businesses, they can collectively reduce the quality of health insurance without having to worry that their employees will go anywhere else.)

This is no accident. Everything the Bush Admin. does is to make big companies wealthier, whether that money comes out giving employees less or out of destroying competition. Small businesses are competition for big businesses. I can't wait for the day they realize that.

[oneighty]

16. It seems to me

that the fewer members of an insurance plan of any type would reduce the plan's ability to pay for whatever it is being insured and as I understand these insurance plans only work because not all contributors ever use the benefits.

Soon the medical industry will not have an ever growing slush fund to pull great quantities of monies from and then they will have to work for less same as the ditch digger. They will not be liking that.

Do not get sick in America.

180

[jdj]

22. why is there not a pool or union of small business employees

and owners to join together and get group rates, they could get them on the cheap with so many million insured this way.

Even pet-sitters have a pool to get group rates on health insurance.

[seabeyond]

18. already there

yup

not the first i told you so i am going to be able to say to a lot of people around me. in the mere three weeks of this bogus election.

[oldlady]

26. will there be wage increases then?

since so many employees have had to accept limited and no-raise because of rising health care costs for the past several years -- will employers then increase wages? All of the unions I know have had to carry that message to the rank and file for several years' worth of contracts.

nah...I think I know the answer to that one *sigh*