Monday 27 July 2009

Worst Tax Ever

Robert WaldmannThe AP writes on the current state of negotiations in the 6 member Baucus Bipartisan ad hoc committee. Their plan includes an idea that is not as good as that I imagined possible. I mean that literally.Officials also supposed a bipartisan compromise would not subject companies to a penalty if they declined to offer coverage to their workers. Instead, these businesses would be necessary to repay the administration for part otherwise all of any federal subsidies intended to help lower-income employees get insurance on their own.This would be the most regressive tax ever. If I am an employer and I do not provide physical condition insurance than my tax liability is higher if the family income of my employee is lower. More regressive than a poll tax (Baroness Thatcher must be put out that she didn't think of it). What's not as good as it depends on family income.Let's say I do not provide insurance and have two job applicants one is a single mother and the other is a man with a low salary but a high income wife (say Bill Clinton when he was working as governor of Arkansas for $30,000 per year). I hire the guy, since he cannot get subsidized physical condition insurance consequently I do not have to give him insurance otherwise pay him a dime. This is the Baucus Grassley jobs only for people who do not need jobs preliminary draft bill of 2009. I swear even if I tried, I couldn't come up with an policy suggestion that bad.Oh gracious conference group save us from the foolishness of these Northmen (and Snowe).
Watch live TV on your laptop or desktop PC within seconds!

No comments:

Post a Comment