making "rich" w/ generous employer benefits subject to taxation is not a tax increase?

[papau]

McCain seems to argue that making health benefits subject to taxation is not a tax increase for those with generous employer benefits - interesting ...


http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/01/us/politics/01mccain.html?ref=health

McCain Health Plan Could Mean Higher Tax

By KEVIN SACK and MICHAEL COOPER

ALLENTOWN, Pa. — Though Senator John McCain has promised to not raise taxes, his campaign acknowledged Wednesday that the health plan he outlined this week would have the effect of increasing tax payments for some workers, primarily those with high incomes and expensive health plans.<snip>

Mr. Holtz-Eakin calculated that workers in the top income tax bracket would have to pay more in taxes if their employers have been contributing at least $14,285 toward a family insurance premium. Nationwide, the average cost of a family policy is $12,106, with employers paying $8,824 of that amount.
<snip>

On the Democratic side, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York also wants to change the tax treatment of employee health benefits, though not as radically as Mr. McCain. She has proposed limiting the exclusion for those earning more than $250,000, about 2 percent of workers. Under her plan, which would raise an estimated $2 billion to support universal health coverage, high earners would pay taxes on the part of employer-provided health benefits that exceed a standard policy. Mrs. Clinton has not defined where that limit would be set.

Her Democratic rival, Senator Barack Obama of Illinois, has not proposed changing the tax exclusion.

[Wapsie B]

1. Similar to the bullshit Ronnie pulled in the 80's eliminating the personal interest deduction.

Just think how valuable that deduction would be to the average middle-income American this day and age?

[papau]

2. true - the GOP bias in favor of the rich and corporate is obvious but "class warfare" talk isn't "OK