• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Unions’ Health Benefits May Avoid Tax Under Senate Proposal

Goobieman

Goobieman

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 2, 2006
Messages
17,343
Reaction score
2,876
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Unions’ Health Benefits May Avoid Tax Under Senate Proposal

June 26 (Bloomberg) -- The U.S. Senate proposal to impose taxes for the first time on “gold-plated” health plans may bypass generous employee benefits negotiated by unions.

Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, the chief congressional advocate of taxing some employer-provided benefits to help pay for a $1 trillion overhaul of the U.S. health system, says any change should exempt perks secured in existing collective-bargaining agreements, which can be in place for as long as five years.

The exception, which could make the proposal more politically palatable to Democrats from heavily unionized states such as Michigan, is adding controversy to an already contentious debate. It would shield the 12.4 percent of American workers who belong to unions from being taxed while exposing some other middle-income workers to the levy.
Click to expand...

Other than the The Obama and the Democrats trying to protect their union buddies and guarantee that the union membership will vote for said same, can anyone come up with a reason why union health-care benefist should not be taxes like everyone else's?

This, folks, is the "change" that The Obama and the Dems have brought to DC.
 
Last edited:
Goobieman said:
Unions? Health Benefits May Avoid Tax Under Senate Proposal - Bloomberg.com

Other than the The Obama and the Democrats trying to protect their union buddies and guarantee that the union membership will vote for said same, can anyone come up with a reason why union health-care benefist should not be taxes like everyone else's?

This, folks, is the "change" that The Obama and the Dems have brought to DC.
Click to expand...

You cannot fabricate the level of denial, naiveté' and lies that represents the current administration and its attempts to usurp the Constitution and make us all dependent wards of the state.

The most frightening part of all this largess is that while bankrupting the Federal Government in a vast sea of red ink, it is also sinking our economy.

The notion that if only the Government intrudes more on our liberties and spends us into a vast sea of debt can we all be better off requires more than JUST the willing suspension of disbelief, but blatant and profound ignorance.
 
Goobieman said:
Unions? Health Benefits May Avoid Tax Under Senate Proposal - Bloomberg.com

Other than the The Obama and the Democrats trying to protect their union buddies and guarantee that the union membership will vote for said same, can anyone come up with a reason why union health-care benefist should not be taxes like everyone else's?

This, folks, is the "change" that The Obama and the Dems have brought to DC.
Click to expand...

the same reason smoking bans in my state exempted casino's....powerful lobbyists.
 
Goobieman said:
Other than the The Obama and the Democrats trying to protect their union buddies and guarantee that the union membership will vote for said same, can anyone come up with a reason why union health-care benefist should not be taxes like everyone else's?
Click to expand...

Nope. If there is such a tax then no one should be exempt from it. Though I think it should be able to be absorbed at certain levels of the health care hierarchy. Such as if, as an employer, I wanted absorb 50% of the tax burden that my employees might face.
 
Every administration has unfair tax proposals.

For example, Bush's tax cuts for the rich.

Obama is exempting union workers from health care tax. If you want to be exempted, join a union.
 
Democrat4life said:
Every administration has unfair tax proposals.

For example, Bush's tax cuts for the rich.
Click to expand...

Bush's tax cuts effected everyone, they were not just for the rich.

Democrat4life said:
Obama is exempting union workers from health care tax. If you want to be exempted, join a union.
Click to expand...

Government coercion in this manner has no justification.

If you want more of your money, you earned join a union.

If you don't want to join a union you will be punished with higher taxes.
 
Democrat4life said:
Every administration has unfair tax proposals.
Click to expand...
So... does that mean that this is OK with you?

For example, Bush's tax cuts for the rich.
Click to expand...
You mean his tax cuts for everone that paid taxes.
Bit hey -- since "every administration has unfair tax proposals". you had no issue with those cuts.
Right?

Obama is exempting union workers from health care tax. If you want to be exempted, join a union.
Click to expand...
Gee...you don't figure that's part of the plan, do you?
To bolster union membership by forcing people to choose between joining a union or pay higher taxes -- that is, through coercion?
Nah. That just can't be.
:doh

So, what's the "good reason" to exempt taxes on health care benefits from unions?
 
Last edited:
Harry Guerrilla said:
If you want more of your money, you earned join a union.

If you don't want to join a union you will be punished with higher taxes.
Click to expand...

You wont be punished with higher taxes, your just wont be lowered as much. This is also an incentive for workers to join unions. I think its good.
 
Democrat4life said:
You wont be punished with higher taxes, your just wont be lowered as much. This is also an incentive for workers to join unions. I think its good.
Click to expand...

Why should someone be coerced into joining a union?

If the union is so great they can offer their own incentives outside of government privileges.
 
Goobieman said:
So... does that mean that this is OK with you?
Click to expand...
I don't have a problem with it.

You mean his tax cuts for everone that paid taxes.
Bit hey -- since "every administration has unfair tax proposals". you had no issue with those cuts.
Right?
Click to expand...
His tax cuts for the rich. And I did have a problem for that, the rich have no reason to get tax cuts, they have plenty of money, the could be a little bir productive to society and pay for things.

Gee...you don't figure that's part of the plan, do you?
To bolster union membership by giving someone a reason to join?
Nah. That just can't be.
:doh
Click to expand...
I damn well know its being used as an incentive for workers to join unions, and I don't have a problem with that.

So, what's the "good reason" to exempt taxes on health care benefits from unions?
Click to expand...

For more union membership. Exactly what you stated.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
Why should someone be coerced into joining a union?

If the union is so great they can offer their own incentives outside of government privileges.
Click to expand...

Does anyone think that if the reverse were true -- that only health care benefits from union were to be taxed -- that the supporters of this idea would be happy?

Or would they be the first to scream bloody murder?
 
Goobieman said:
Does anyone think that if the reverse were true -- that only health care benefits from union were to be taxed -- that the supporters of this idea would be happy?

Or would they be the first to scream bloody murder?
Click to expand...

Of course, they would cry.

I work in a non union factory. I do have a few minor complaints about my company but nothing that requires a legal authority to step all over them.

In all they treat us pretty well with benefits and pay.

I'd be violently opposed to a union trying to set up shop here.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
Bush's tax cuts effected everyone, they were not just for the rich.
Click to expand...

Not true. You had to pay taxes to get a tax cut.

Which is the true issue with these people not being honest with us. It was an actual tax cut, not an entitlement program, which is what they would prefer.
 
ARealConservative said:
Not true. You had to pay taxes to get a tax cut.
Click to expand...

You got me there. :doh

ARealConservative said:
Which is the true issue with these people not being honest with us. It was an actual tax cut, not an entitlement program, which is what they would prefer.
Click to expand...

To be more specific it was a tax rate cut, which effected everyone who paid taxes.

I can't remember the specifics but in all it was a good thing until they started spending like crazy asses.
 
Democrat4life said:
I don't have a problem with it.
Click to expand...
Would you hve a problem with it if ONLY union helath care benefotts were taxed?

His tax cuts for the rich.
Click to expand...
He cut taxes for everyone that paid taxes.

And I did have a problem for that... the rich have no reason to get tax cuts
Click to expand...
OK... and so why should union members get a tax break?

I damn well know its being used as an incentive for workers to join unions, and I don't have a problem with that.
Click to expand...
You're OK with the goverment coercing people to join unions.
Noted.
 
Goobieman said:
Would you hve a problem with it if ONLY union helath care benefotts were taxed?
Click to expand...

To be in a union, you obviously work for a living, so I think thats pretty damn easy way and an effective way to weed out the people who sit on their asses on unemployment for 2 years not even looking for a job.

So yes, I would be upset if he only taxed them.

He cut taxes for everyone that paid taxes.
Click to expand...
And look how good everyones doing now.:roll:

OK... and so why should union members get a tax break?
Click to expand...

Because there is definite proof they work for their living, and they are productive to society.

You're OK with the goverment coercing people to join unions.
Noted.
Click to expand...

They are offering incentives to join unions. Not tricking them or offering them no other choice.
 
Democrat4life said:
To be in a union, you obviously work for a living, so I think thats pretty damn easy way and an effective way to weed out the people who sit on their asses on unemployment for 2 years not even looking for a job.
Click to expand...
Given that the issue here is taxing employer-provided health care benefits, this makes no sense.

So yes, I would be upset if he only taxed them.
Click to expand...
Ah yes -- what a surprise.
Gotta protect those good Dem voters!

And look how good everyones doing now.:roll:
Click to expand...
Irrelevantto the issue.
YOU caimed that Bush gave tax cuts to the rich, and so opposed those tax cuts. In fact, he gave tax cuts to everyone that paid taxes -- and so, the reason for your opposition does not exist.

Because there is definite proof they work for their living, and they are productive to society.
Click to expand...
Um... you know that the proposed taxation of benefits are for those who get health care from their employer, right?
So, the difference is...?

They are offering incentives to join unions. Not tricking them or offering them no other choice.
Click to expand...
"Join a union or your taxes will go up".
Thats not an incentive, that's coercion.
 
Goobieman said:
Other than the The Obama and the Democrats trying to protect their union buddies and guarantee that the union membership will vote for said same, can anyone come up with a reason why union health-care benefist should not be taxes like everyone else's?

This, folks, is the "change" that The Obama and the Dems have brought to DC.
Click to expand...

How exactly does one proposal, from one guy, equate to "The Obama" and "the democrats" trying to do anything? Oh wait, it doesn't, and this thread is just another partisan hack job about something that is unlikely to happen.
 
Redress said:
How exactly does one proposal, from one guy, equate to "The Obama" and "the democrats" trying to do anything? Oh wait, it doesn't, and this thread is just another partisan hack job about something that is unlikely to happen.
Click to expand...
Rather than attack me, why don't you opine on the good/bad idea that this is?
 
Goobieman said:
Rather than attack me, why don't you opine on the good/bad idea that this is?
Click to expand...

I did not attack you, I attacked what you wrote. It's probably a bad idea, and I doubt it will pass. Now again, do you want to explain how you blamed Obama and democrats for a proposal from one democrat who is not Obama, or are you going to try and keep avoiding the question?
 
Redress said:
Which is more than I got from you. Keep running from the question, no one will notice, honest.
Click to expand...
I dont feel a particular need to answer the question -- and so, rather than running from it, I'm simply ignoring it. Its not relevant to the discussion.

Of course, YOUR response begs the question:
If the proposal makes the final bill, do you think it will pass, and so you think The Obama will sign it?
 
Goobieman said:
I dont feel a particular need to answer the question -- and so, rather than running from it, I'm simply ignoring it. Its not relevant to the discussion.

Of course, YOUR response begs the question:
If the proposal makes the final bill, do you think it will pass, and so you think The Obama will sign it?
Click to expand...

The question is highly relevant to your OP. Keep cowardly ducking.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom