So you think that making people completely dependent on their employers for those cushy group rate discounts is a wise economic policy? You think that government subsidies to encourage people to stay at ****ty, dead-end jobs that they hate and that they suck at - instead of getting a better job or going back to school - is a wise economic policy? No offense, but WTF kind of retarded idea is that?Originally Posted by rivrrat
Then let's not pretend that this has anything at all to do with taxing health benefits specifically, when in reality you just don't like paying any taxes on anything.Originally Posted by rivrrat
That is absolutely the opposite of how economics works. Employer-funded health insurance means that everyone who ISN'T employed (or is employed by someone who doesn't provide health insurance) can't get it at all, because it drives up the costs of individual plans since group rate discounts are the norm. It makes people dependent on their employers and unwilling to change jobs. And it makes people extremely vulnerable if they suddenly get laid off or get fired or whatever.Originally Posted by rivrrat
What infuriates me to no end is when people who obviously have no understanding of economics try to pose as experts on economic policy.Originally Posted by rivrrat
Suppose I was earning $100K in income and was sick of paying taxes on it. So my employer agreed to not pay me anything, but just give me a $100K house each year as a "gift" or a "benefit." Do you think the government would look fondly on THAT? How is this any different?