The Pelosi Jobs Tax

Status
Not open for further replies.
Feb 19, 2001
20,158
20
81
Text

Even many Democrats are revolting against Speaker Nancy Pelosi?s 5.4% income surtax to finance ObamaCare, but another tax in her House bill isn?t getting enough attention. To wit, the up to 10-percentage point payroll tax increase on workers and businesses that don?t provide health insurance. This should put to rest the illusion that no one making less than $250,000 in income will pay higher taxes.

To understand why, consider how the Pelosi jobs tax works. Under the House bill, firms with employee payroll of above $250,000 without a company health plan would pay a tax starting at 2% of wages per employee. That rate would quickly rise to 8% on firms with total payroll of $400,000 or more. A tax credit would help very small businesses adjust to the new costs, but even a firm with a handful of workers is likely to be subject to this payroll levy. As we went to press, Blue Dogs were taking credit for pushing those payroll amounts up to $500,000 and $750,0000, but those are still small employers.

So who bears the burden of this tax? The economic research is close to unanimous that a payroll tax is a tax on labor and is thus shouldered mostly if not entirely by workers. Employers merely collect the tax and then pass along its costs in lower wages or benefits. This is the view of the Democratic-controlled Congressional Budget Office, which advised on July 13: ?If employers who did not offer health insurance were required to pay a fee, employee?s wages and other forms of compensation would generally decline by the amount of that fee from what they otherwise would have been.?

To put this in actual dollars, a worker earning, say, $70,000 a year could lose some $5,600 in take home pay to cover the costs of ObamaCare. And, by the way, this is in addition to the 2.5% tax that the individual worker would have to pay on gross income, if he doesn?t buy the high-priced health insurance that the government will mandate. In sum, that?s a near 10-percentage point tax on wages and salaries on top of the 15% that already hits workers to finance Medicare and Social Security.

Even Democrats are aware that his tax would come out of the wallets of the very workers they pretend to be helping, so they inserted a provision on page 147 of the bill prohibiting firms from cutting salaries to pay the tax. Thus they figure they can decree that wages cannot fall even as costs rise. Of course, all this means is that businesses would lay off some workers, or hire fewer new ones, or pay lower starting salaries or other benefits to the workers they do hire.

Cornell economists Richard Burkhauser and Kosali Simon predicted in a 2007 National Bureau of Economic Research study that a payroll tax increase of about this magnitude plus the recent minimum wage increase will translate into hundreds of thousands of lost jobs for those with low wages. Pay or play schemes, says Mr. Burkauser, ?wind up hurting the very low-wage workers they are supposed to help.? The CBO agrees, arguing that play or pay policies ?could reduce the hiring of low-wage workers, whose wages could not fall by the full cost of health insurance or a substantial play-or-pay fee if they were close to the minimum wage.?

To make matters worse, many workers and firms would have to pay the Pelosi tax even if the employer already provides health insurance. That?s because the House bill requires firms to pay at least 72.5% of health-insurance premiums for individual workers and 65% for families in order to avoid the tax. A Kaiser Family Foundation survey in 2008 found that about three in five small businesses fail to meet the Pelosi test and will have to pay the tax. In these instances, the businesses will have every incentive simply to drop their coverage.

A new study by Sageworks, Inc., a financial consulting firm, runs the numbers on the income statements of actual companies. It looks at three types of firms with at least $5 million in sales: a retailer, a construction company and a small manufacturer. The companies each have total payroll of between $750,000 and $1 million a year. Assuming the firms absorb the cost of the payroll tax, their net profits fall by one-third on average. That is on top of the 45% income tax and surtax that many small business owners would pay as part of the House tax scheme, so the total reduction in some small business profits would climb to nearly 80%. These lower after-tax profits would mean fewer jobs.

To put it another way, the workers who will gain health insurance from ObamaCare will pay the steepest price for it in either a shrinking pay check, or no job at all.

So you're going to enact a new tax, essentially taking money from companies, and then you're going to force them to pay the same amount? When you start fixing prices and hoping people can cope with this, you will drive businesses into huge losses. They have to make concessions here or there. So if you want the same pay, I suppose your company will have to make cuts in R&D or product/service quality or some sort of cut that makes the company worse off.

Of course the worst part is that we're going to tax employers even if they already provide insurance--insurance that is CLEARLY better than ObamaCare. Sigh. Toyota, please pay GM. The Prius is doing too well, and the Volt hasn't even made 1 sale yet. Let's help them out.
 

IndyColtsFan

Lifer
Sep 22, 2007
33,656
687
126
Originally posted by: DLeRium

--snip article contents--

Of course the worst part is that we're going to tax employers even if they already provide insurance--insurance that is CLEARLY better than ObamaCare. Sigh. Toyota, please pay GM. The Prius is doing too well, and the Volt hasn't even made 1 sale yet. Let's help them out.

Nice article. Sums up what many of us have been saying all along.
 

ayabe

Diamond Member
Aug 10, 2005
7,449
0
0
Please define ObamaCare and how's it's CLEARLY worse than what we have.

Might sound catchy and/or clever, but what's being kicked around Congress right now isn't close to what Obama wants or what's needed, thus it's not ObamaCare.

 

TheSkinsFan

Golden Member
May 15, 2009
1,141
0
0
I've been arguing these exact points for days around here, and they have gone mostly ignored by the bill's die-hard supporters.

One poster here, Sandorski, even went so far as to suggest that such losses for a business could somehow be good for the business... seriously. :confused:

The questions I've been asking for days:

1) What are the most likely steps small companies will take in order to pay for the new 2% to 8% fines?
a. Job cuts
b. Increased prices consumers pay for their products/services
c. Decreased profits
d. Other reduced employee benefits
e. All of the above.

2) If larger companies determine that the fines are cheaper than what they currently pay for health coverage, will they
a. Suck it up and continue to offer coverage, or
b. Drop the coverage benefits, pay the new fines, save a few dollars, and force their employees to find a new form of coverage, thus increasing the number of persons enrolled in the "public option," which would dramatically increase the taxpayer costs for such a program.


So far, all I've heard in response are crickets...
 

senseamp

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
35,787
6,195
126
Sounds like a good idea. Either get insurance, or pay a tax to offset the risk taxpayers and ratepayers bear to cover you or your employees.
 

TheSkinsFan

Golden Member
May 15, 2009
1,141
0
0
Let's not forget this wonderful letter written by three of the largest and most respected small business organizations in the country:

July 15, 2009

As lawmakers work to address the healthcare affordability crisis facing our country, our organizations are writing to urge you to remember that our nation?s small businesses and the self-employed share a problem that plagues all of our members: the soaring cost of healthcare. Similarly, our members share the strong desire to enact reforms that improve access and affordability for themselves, their employees and their families.

For too many small business owners, healthcare is one of their fastest growing and most unpredictable costs. Since 1999, health insurance costs for small firms have increased 113 percent. In spite of the increases, the ever-escalating cost does not correlate with increased healthcare benefits. Instead, employees in our nation?s smallest firms pay an average of 18 percent more in health insurance premiums for the same benefits as the largest firms.

Congress can take immediate action to increase access to quality, affordable health insurance. As both purchasers and consumers of care, small businesses and the self-employed believe reform should achieve at least four goals:

* Instituting insurance market reforms that increase access, expand choice, and spur competition for private insurance;
* Creating marketplaces that provide greater transparency and efficient approaches for purchasing insurance;
* Providing equity in tax treatment ? regardless of how or where insurance is purchased; and
* Improving affordability and providing for sustainable cost containment by eliminating wasteful spending in the overall healthcare system.

While our organizations and the members we represent agree that the status quo is unsustainable, it is critical to emphasize that not just any reform will do. As the country?s largest, oldest and most respected small business associations, we are dedicated to bringing the kind of reform small businesses truly need and will support reforms that improve, rather than worsen, the current situation for our nation?s job creators. During these challenging economic times, we are especially concerned about employer mandates, including those veiled as pay-or-play and payroll tax approaches. These tactics will seriously impair the capacity of small businesses to create jobs ? and would do so at the very moment the country struggles to climb out of a deep recession. Some studies suggest that an employer mandate would result in roughly 1 million lost jobs occurring in the small business community, creating even greater economic harm to our country.

Congress can provide tools to create a competitive, innovative healthcare system that brings private, affordable coverage within reach of all Americans. That system can be created by instituting meaningful reforms that both preserve and promote the viability of America?s entrepreneurs. We are eager to work with you and your colleagues and are hopeful that the policy priorities put forth in the healthcare reform debate will reflect the priorities of America?s job creators.

Sincerely,

Robert Hughes
President, National Association for the Self-Employed

Dan Danner
President, National Federation of Independent Business

Todd McCrackin
President, National Small Business Association
 

TheSkinsFan

Golden Member
May 15, 2009
1,141
0
0
Originally posted by: senseamp
Sounds like a good idea. Either get insurance, or pay a tax to offset the risk taxpayers and ratepayers bear to cover you or your employees.
regardless of the horrible impact doing so will have on businesses?
 

senseamp

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
35,787
6,195
126
Originally posted by: TheSkinsFan
Originally posted by: senseamp
Sounds like a good idea. Either get insurance, or pay a tax to offset the risk taxpayers and ratepayers bear to cover you or your employees.
regardless of the horrible impact doing so will have on businesses?

It's going to have no impact on businesses that provide healthcare to employees. They will actually get a break on rates, because there will be less unpaid care being priced into paying user's premiums.
It is going to have an impact on businesses who chose to not provide their employees with care, but even that impact would be limited to 10% of payroll, which is less than most companies spend on benefits. Now if you support the current employer based health care system, wouldn't you want to create incentives for employers to cover more employees, instead of incentives for them to ditch coverage?
 

themusgrat

Golden Member
Nov 2, 2005
1,408
0
0
Any new taxes right now will cause Americans to lose jobs, but the hardcore left doesn't really care. For them, it's a black and white choice between higher taxes (which they'd love to confine to the upper class of course) and no health care, which they see as letting people go unattended and dying every day, insurance companies dropping people who develop cancer, which of course doesn't happen hardly at all.

They have a point, if UHC is what our country wants, then it will have to come at a price. Unfortunately, so far there's way to raise taxes without affecting the middle/lower classes in some way, whether that's by taxing them directly or taxing their employers more, which will cause them to lose their jobs completely. The obvious solution is to place all the taxes on the wealthy, but it's simply not right to force 1% of the population to pay for 100% of the population's health care. Some middle ground will have to be found, but I'm sure we can do better than what the OP quoted.
 

Fingolfin269

Lifer
Feb 28, 2003
17,948
31
91
Originally posted by: TheSkinsFan
Originally posted by: senseamp
Sounds like a good idea. Either get insurance, or pay a tax to offset the risk taxpayers and ratepayers bear to cover you or your employees.
regardless of the horrible impact doing so will have on businesses?

And this only addresses the business side of the penalty without even getting into the individual WORKER. (That's directed at the idealistic college super libs who are not working yet enjoy posting on these subjects.)
 

TheSkinsFan

Golden Member
May 15, 2009
1,141
0
0
Originally posted by: senseamp
Originally posted by: TheSkinsFan
Originally posted by: senseamp
Sounds like a good idea. Either get insurance, or pay a tax to offset the risk taxpayers and ratepayers bear to cover you or your employees.
regardless of the horrible impact doing so will have on businesses?

It's going to have no impact on businesses that provide healthcare to employees. They will actually get a break on rates, because there will be less unpaid care being priced into paying user's premiums.
It is going to have an impact on businesses who chose to not provide their employees with care, but even that impact would be limited to 10% of payroll, which is less than most companies spend on benefits. Now if you support the current employer based health care system, wouldn't you want to create incentives for employers to cover more employees, instead of incentives for them to ditch coverage?
1. I believe the current proposal will encourage all businesses who DO currently provide coverage benefits to drop said healthcare benefits once they determine that paying the fine is significantly cheaper for their bottom line. The new Government safety net -- the public option -- will relieve them of any guilt that might be associated with leaving their employees without coverage.

2. I believe the current proposal will cause the companies who do NOT currently provide coverage to take drastic steps to cover the costs of the new fines levied against them -- ie. job cuts, higher consumer prices for products and services, the reduction of other benefits, etc.

3. At the end of the day, I believe the current proposal was intentionally designed in such a way as to drive the entire U.S. population toward the public option over the next 5 to 10 year period. Any discussion of maintaining our private options has been a facade.

4. I believe the current proposal, as the CBO clearly spelled out, will dramatically increase the percentage of GDP we pay for healthcare -- which is pretty much the opposite of what we need to be doing.
 

Pens1566

Lifer
Oct 11, 2005
11,629
8,114
136
I'm highly skeptical of your projected outcomes considering a few days ago you didn't even know how our income taxes work.
 

TheSkinsFan

Golden Member
May 15, 2009
1,141
0
0
Originally posted by: Pens1566
I'm highly skeptical of your projected outcomes considering a few days ago you didn't even know how our income taxes work.
Thank you for your well thought-out and compelling argument. It has seriously made me reconsider my positions on this issue. Where can I sign up for your newsletter?
 

Pens1566

Lifer
Oct 11, 2005
11,629
8,114
136
Originally posted by: TheSkinsFan
Originally posted by: Pens1566
I'm highly skeptical of your projected outcomes considering a few days ago you didn't even know how our income taxes work.
Thank you for your well thought-out and compelling argument. It has seriously made me reconsider my positions on this issue. Where can I sign up for your newsletter?


You were quite adamant in your defending your positions in that NY Tax thread based on ignorance of the underlying fundamentals, and you could very well be doing the same thing here. Just saying ... pointing it out before it becomes gospel without inspection. :)
 

cubby1223

Lifer
May 24, 2004
13,518
42
86
Originally posted by: senseamp
Sounds like a good idea. Either get insurance, or pay a tax to offset the risk taxpayers and ratepayers bear to cover you or your employees.

You still don't have a clue with what insurance is. "Insurance" and "care" are two separate entities. The sooner you realize this, the sooner we can move forward to some actual discussion. But fat chance of that ever happening :roll:

What you are advocating is a merging of care and insurance (at which point it ceases to be "insurance") into a single socialized system.

If for nothing else, for sanity's sake, recognize what it is you are talking about.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.