Some facts, for your consideration:
Federal pay czar Kenneth Feinberg is cracking down on executive pay at the big financial firms where the government has a stake. Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) is mulling a law to apply Mr. Feinberg's governance changes to all publicly traded companies.
The percentage of American adults who have no federal income-tax liability will rise to 49% from 40% under Mr. Obama's tax plan. Another 11% will pay less than 5% of their income in federal income taxes and less than $1,000 in total.
The administration has announced that it would seek to raise revenue for its ambitious spending programs by reducing the charitable deduction for the highest two income-tax brackets by as much as 30 percent. Peter Orszag, director of the White House Office of Management and Budget, seemed to concede proposal would reduce the amount of money given to charity when he offered in mitigation that “contained in the recovery act, there’s $100 million to support nonprofits and charities as we get through this period." So now, THEY decide which charities to fund, rather than us.
To prevent further declines in employer-sponsored coverage, the Obama plan would impose a “play-or-pay” policy. Employers would be required to make a “meaningful contribution” to the cost of their employees’ health plan or pay a tax that would help pay for a new public health insurance plan. Supporters of this approach argue that it is only fair that business carry some of the burden of expensive health care premiums. The only problem with this argument is that workers, and not business, ultimately bear the full cost of their health benefits. Employers offer insurance as part of an employee’s compensation package. The total value of the compensation depends on the employee’s productivity, regardless of the split between wages and benefits. To maintain the same level of health benefits when costs increase, employers cannot increase wages as rapidly as they would otherwise. That helps to explain why productivity has grown faster than earnings over the past decade. The mandate is effectively a tax on labor, and labor
would eventually shoulder the cost.
Monday, October 26, 2009
Friday, October 9, 2009
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
