| Submit your comments on this article |
| Economy |
| A 70% Tax on Work |
| 2009-10-06 |
| President Obama said today that the debate on health care has gone on long enough, and now is the time to pass something. But does Congress, let alone the public, really understand what these bills would mean for the health sector and the wider U.S. economy? In 1994, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) issued a lengthy assessment of the Clinton administration’s proposal, covering everything from its distributional consequences to the budgetary treatment of its various moving parts. The public should get same kind of thorough review of what Obamacare would mean before Congress takes any further steps toward passage. For instance, there hasn’t yet been a thorough analysis of what the bills moving in the House and Senate would mean for work incentives among low-wage families. A cursory review indicates that Obamacare would impose a massive new implicit tax on low-wage households, effectively penalizing the family that tries to do the right thing by working their way into the middle class. According to CBO, family coverage in 2016 is likely to cost about $14,400 under the so-called “silver option” in the health-care reform plan sponsored by Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus. In the Baucus plan, a family of four at the poverty line (about $24,000 in 2016) would have pay to about $1,400 toward coverage, with the federal government paying the other $13,000 on their behalf. In addition, the government would also provide $3,500 to reduce the family’s deductible and co-payment costs for health services. Thus, the new entitlement provided by the Baucus bill would be worth a whopping $16,500 for a family at the poverty line. As incomes rise, however, the Baucus bill cuts the value of the entitlement. A family with an income at twice the poverty line, or $48,000 in 2016, would get $9,072 in federal assistance for coverage — stilling a substantial sum. But its $7,400 less than the family would get if they earned half as much. The Baucus plan thus imposes an implicit marginal tax rate of about 30 percent ($7,400/$24,000) on wages earned by families in this income range. And that would come on top of the high implicit taxes already built into current law. Low-wage families with children also get the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC). The EITC boosts incomes for those with the very lowest wages, but it is also phased-out as incomes rise. Past a certain threshold (about $21,400 in 2016), the EITC is reduced by $0.21 for every additional $1 earned. Throw in the individual income tax rate (15 percent) and payroll taxes (7.65 percent), and the effective, implicit tax rate for worker between 100 and 200 percent of the federal poverty line would quickly approach 70 percent — not even counting food stamps and housing vouchers. The more Obamacare is rushed through Congress, the more likely it is to produce highly regrettable unintended consequences. Surely even the Democrats in Congress can see how damaging it would be to send signals to low-wage breadwinners that it no longer makes sense to seek a higher-paying job. |
| Posted by:Beavis |
| #5 If gummint health "care" is so great, why don't /rhetorical question |
| Posted by: Barbara Skolaut 2009-10-06 17:23 |
| #4 If government health care is a right why not propose an Constitutional Ammendment? Uh-huh. |
| Posted by: swksvolFF 2009-10-06 14:50 |
| #3 The more Obamacare is rushed through Congress, the more likely it is to produce highly regrettable unintended consequences. Not unintended. Not at all. I think that the Administration and Congress know full well what the consequences are. And to them its a feature not a bug. The more people are dependent on the Government the better for the DNC. |
| Posted by: CrazyFool 2009-10-06 11:00 |
| #2 A boon underground cash economy. Already underway in Georgia (as it is in most of Europe by the way). CASH IS KING! |
| Posted by: Besoeker in Duitsland 2009-10-06 10:33 |
| #1 the effective, implicit tax rate for worker between 100 and 200 percent of the federal poverty line would quickly approach 70 percent -- not even counting food stamps and housing vouchers. A boon underground cash economy. It's not like the Feds will miss the tax revenue or anything. |
| Posted by: ed 2009-10-06 10:28 |