Unions & Cadillac Tax

[Genx87]

Yep, there are likely many jobs that the insurance is 30% I know when I was younger and worked as a grocery manager the insurance was a huge chunk for us full time employees as we had a great plan that the company picked up most of the tab for. Why do you think any of this is different for unions?

It isnt that is the disgusting part of their lie. How many Union jobs actually pay less than the private market? Especially govt union jobs? So their rational was Union and govt workers have given up compensation increases in lieu of helath coverage? Yet they are still better paid for the same work. What a terrible life and a terrible lie. Fucking democrats in congress are disgusting pigs for repaying political favors with healthcare. Who is going to pick up the Union's share of health costs now? Doesnt it amount to about 60 billion? That is right, the middle fucking class.

When will the middle class realize both parties are fucking them in the ass and demand a 3rd party already?

 

[Ozoned]

Wishing they could have health benefits like the unions the article describes? Maybe health benefits from their employers at all...

What do you mean? Under Obamas plan it will be better;

"If you already have insurance, the only thing that will change under my plan is that we will lower premiums. If you don't have health insurance, you'll be able to get the same kind of health insurance Members of Congress get for themselves".

--Barack Obama, "Closing Argument" speech, Canton, Ohio, October 26, 2008

 

[Ozoned]

It appears the Unions are going to get a bit of a break on the insurance tax until 2018.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nation-and-world/la-na-health-congress15-2010jan15,0,5584496.story
It is good to be the President's friend.

Wonder how the rest of America feels about it?

WOW! Another big score for Nelson of Nebraska. Just the railroads alone here employ nearly 20,000 union workers. This will make the medicare bribe look like play money.
The next collective bargaining session for my union (UTU) will be interesting. We have outstanding health/ dental/ vision/ insurance benefits.

 

[Hacp]

Really, this is stupid. Why is America so noncompetitive? Why are we not producing jobs? Because unions raise the cost of doing business. Only in the US(and europe) do you pay janitors 60k a year(including overtime, SS contributions,401ks,healthcare). That is ridiculous! When you need to pay janitors and other bureaucracy 60k a year, that screws up all the margins.

Just an example, in NY patterson is raising tuitions of the state colleges. If you look at the biggest costs many of these colleges have, it is the bureaucracy! Janitors, counselors, bill collectors, and many more heads all collecting high union wages. Cut their wages by 1/3 and you wouldn't need to raise tuition at all!

 

[Ozoned]

Really, this is stupid. Why is America so noncompetitive? Why are we not producing jobs? Because unions raise the cost of doing business. Only in the US(and europe) do you pay janitors 60k a year(including overtime, SS contributions,401ks,healthcare). That is ridiculous! When you need to pay janitors and other bureaucracy 60k a year, that screws up all the margins.

Just an example, in NY patterson is raising tuitions of the state colleges. If you look at the biggest costs many of these colleges have, it is the bureaucracy! Janitors, counselors, bill collectors, and many more heads all collecting high union wages. Cut their wages by 1/3 and you wouldn't need to raise tuition at all!

The railroads haul freight from point a to point b with nearly all of the work being performed by union workers. The industry has a very good profit margin. They do it at a price that is a lot cheaper than the trucking industry can do it for. Truckers, for the most part, are not union workers.

I am sure there are other examples that can prove you wrong.

 

[Genx87]

The railroads haul freight from point a to point b with nearly all of the work being performed by union workers. The industry has a very good profit margin. They do it at a price that is a lot cheaper than the trucking industry can do it for. Truckers, for the most part, are not union workers.

I am sure there are other examples that can prove you wrong.

There is a lot of other variables involved with trucking vs trains. One of them being a train hauls a lot more product per fuel mile. But it has a lot less flexibility in where it can go and when it can arrive. I wouldnt say profitbility of either can be pinned on union vs non-union. They are simply too dismilar imo.

 

[Ozoned]

The collective bargaining agreements that union workers agreed to, to increase railroad profitability were in most cases, a direct response to the overwhelming competitive edge that trucking once held. The 2 industries, as dissimilar as you think they are, are tied together.

 

[shira]

Sweet! Government employees being exempt means this won't affect me and the future wife with her incredible insurance so I'm loving this. /sarcasm

I'm not a "it's fine if my bull isn't getting gored. This tax is a tax on ones compensation of which insurance is a part of, and 40% at that. It's wrong.

As usual, your writing is confused and you've got the proposed legislation wrong:

The proposal is that the portion of the premium of employer-sponsored health plans in excess of the defined threshold amount (still to be determined) will be taxed at a 40% rate. So, for example, if the threshold is $24,000 for a family plan, and the total premium is $25,000, than a $400 tax would be assessed.

Frankly, I think excluding any group from the tax - and/or raising the threshold - is a terrible idea. Already, one major strategy for controlling costs - the public option - has been sh!tcanned. And now another major cost-control strategy - one that also helps keep the plan revenue-positive - is being hugely watered down.

 

[JS80]

Can you name a non-union job where benefits, such as health insurance, are 30% or more of the compensation? Regardless, I don't think it's fair to have any tax on health insurance benefits. Medical expenses are & should be tax exempt. This is little different.


wtf are you talking about? The rest of the world increases the effective tax by 20% on a group of people?

Um, ok, let's take our company for example. Anyone in the company can get our insurance plan. Our lowest salaried employee is $38k. A family plan, after employee contribution costs the company $1700/mo or ~$20k/year. 20/38 = 53% of total compensation.

 

[palehorse]

Welcome to politics. Organization and money are two ways to get power. They have organization, the healthcare industry has money, and Republicans and some Dems are for sale.

Unions have organization. They've already gotten mostly trashed by the compromises. This is just a bone thrown their way because they are poitcally important enough to get it.

Remember what I quote? "Politicians have to look good to voters, and do good for donors." You get the pat on the back. The unions get a bone.

ahh, so that's what Obama meant by "change"... cool, got it now.

typical Craig.

Since such bullshit is the status quo in Washington, you should at least have the decency to condemn it, even when it's your own party. Between this and the Democrats' willingness to sell out to Big Pharma, it's quite clear that they're no different than the scum on the other side.

 

[spidey07]

As usual, your writing is confused and you've got the proposed legislation wrong:

The proposal is that the portion of the premium of employer-sponsored health plans in excess of the defined threshold amount (still to be determined) will be taxed at a 40% rate. So, for example, if the threshold is $24,000 for a family plan, and the total premium is $25,000, than a $400 tax would be assessed.

Frankly, I think excluding any group from the tax - and/or raising the threshold - is a terrible idea. Already, one major strategy for controlling costs - the public option - has been sh!tcanned. And now another major cost-control strategy - one that also helps keep the plan revenue-positive - is being hugely watered down.

I know that. Doesn't mean that some part of your compensation isn't getting taxed at a rate higher than the highest tax bracket there is regardless of income. This means it hits the middle class the worst because they gave up in salary to get better benefits.

It's wrong. Exempting certain people or groups from this tax is even more wrong and like I said me and wifey will be exempt because technically the state provides her insurance which I will move to.

 

[Zorkorist]

What blows me away is people spending (combined employer/employee) $24K per year in health INSURANCE! These aren't health costs, they are insurance (protection against health costs).

Cadillac Plan, for sure.

I guess if anyone has Cadillac Plans, it would be Unions.

But still... $24K/year in INSURANCE?

Outrageous.

-John

 

[Darwin333]

The railroads haul freight from point a to point b with nearly all of the work being performed by union workers. The industry has a very good profit margin. They do it at a price that is a lot cheaper than the trucking industry can do it for. Truckers, for the most part, are not union workers.

I am sure there are other examples that can prove you wrong.

Your comparing hauling freight with trains to trucks???

Ships are generally cheaper than planes too, it doesn't matter who is union or who isn't and it still doesn't explain why they should get special treatment.