On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 12:42 PM, Max Sawicky <[email protected]> wrote: > Maybe they see a tax on the high cost plans eventually filtering down to them, > especially if they lack medical cost adjustments.
The problem with this line of reasoning is that it can be extended to *any* tax increase of any kind on the rich. We can't have any taxes because in the end, it will filter down to the poor worker! This is a fallacy, pure and simple. The estate tax? Of course the rich guy will make sure to liquidate his small business and lay off all his workers so he can distribute his wealth before his death to avoid taxation! So it is the poor worker who will suffer! If this argument doesn't sound terribly persuasive to you, neither is the other one. > My former colleague at EPI, Elise Gould, pointed out in a paper that a plan > could be high cost because it applies to a small shop (possibly unionized) > with some old folks with expensive ailments. Expensive ailments does not mean higher premiums. It means higher *payouts*. In any case, it is reasonable enough to say that a 'Cadillac plan' should be carefully defined so as not to penalize some class of poor workers. But how do you go from there to opposing the tax entirely? -raghu. -- "The secret of life is honesty and fair dealing. If you can fake that, you've got it made." _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
