Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Obama's Tax Pledge: Already Broken, Might As Well Stomp on It
Americans for Tax Reform lists the tax hikes in the House health care bill that would violate President Obama's campaign pledge to avoid "any form" of higher taxes on families making less than $250,000 a year. They include an income surtax of 2.5 percent for people who refuse to buy health insurance, a payroll tax on businesses that fail to buy insurance for their employees, and several restrictions on health savings accounts. Even when individuals or employers avoid the penalties for not buying insurance, the forced expenditure also should be considered a tax, as Michael Cannon argues in a recent Cato Institute paper:
President Obama's National Economic Council chairman Larry Summers explains that because employer mandates force workers to purchase health insurance, they "are like public programs financed by benefit taxes." The same can be said of an individual mandate: when government forces people to purchase something they do not value, or pay more than the market would require, that is a tax—even if the money never enters the public treasury. Princeton health economist Uwe Reinhardt writes that "[just because] the fiscal flows triggered by [a] mandate would not flow directly through the public budgets does not detract from the measure’s status of a bona fide tax."
Furthermore, the mandate/tax on employers arguably breaks Obama's pledge not only when the business owner makes less than $250,000 a year but also when any of his employees do. Cannon again:
From a tax perspective, there is little difference between an individual mandate and an employer mandate. Both are a tax on workers.
In a recent survey, 90 percent of health economists agreed with the statement, "Workers pay for employer-sponsored health insurance in the form of lower wages or reduced benefits." The Congressional Budget Office explains that workers would also pay any government-imposed penalties: "if employers who did not offer insurance were required to pay a fee, employees' wages and other forms of compensation would generally decline by the amount of that fee from what they would otherwise have been." An employer mandate should therefore be labeled an employee mandate.
I discuss the president's refusal to call a tax a tax here, here, and here. Lest we forget, Obama first broke his tax pledge a couple weeks after taking office by signing a bill that raised the federal excise tax on cigarettes. White House spokesman Robert Gibbs argued that it didn't really count, because "people make a decision to smoke." In this case, people are being taxed simply for existing within the borders of the United States. That's a decision too, I suppose.
|10.30.09 @ 1:43PM|#
We are screwed if he breaks a pledge here and there. And we are screwed if he keeps most pledges.
|10.30.09 @ 1:56PM|#
In this case, people are being taxed simply for existing within the borders of the United States. That's a decision too, I suppose.
SOCIAL CONTRACT!
Lone Zoid|10.30.09 @ 2:17PM|#
It's a good thing McCain wasn't elected, or we'd be at war with foreigners instead of fellow citizens.
What? We are? Hurray!
robc|10.30.09 @ 2:18PM|#
Any have a link to the restrictions on HSAs? I went to beat someone to death with it.
Death Panelist|10.30.09 @ 2:19PM|#
"But let's not pretend they are taxes the same way CNN is [taxing to watch]."
robc|10.30.09 @ 2:20PM|#
Nevermind, the link above listed them. Not as draconian as I expected but still:
Americans would no longer be able to purchase over-the-counter medicines with their FSA, Health Savings Account (HSA), or Health Reimbursement Arrangement (HRA)
What the fuck?
robc|10.30.09 @ 2:21PM|#
What the fucking fuck is the fucking purpose of a fucking Health Savings Account if you cant buy fucking drugs with it?
|10.30.09 @ 2:22PM|#
They don't like HSAs because that's too much like paying your own way instead of pooling for the benefit of their voters.
robc|10.30.09 @ 2:23PM|#
Nick, I understand that - it is why I expected more draconian restrictions. I figure they are in there though.
Fist of Etiquette|10.30.09 @ 2:26PM|#
If only there was some warning or clue that Democrats in complete control would bring higher taxes.
Gilbert Martin|10.30.09 @ 4:30PM|#
Yeah - what a shock.
Because that's so totally out of character with their behavior for the last 70 odd years or so.
|10.30.09 @ 2:40PM|#
robc,
If you have the time you just might find them. Have fun with all 1990 pages.
http://docs.house.gov/rules/health/111_ahcaa.pdf
And, yo, fuck threaded comments.
|10.30.09 @ 2:49PM|#
If only there was some warning or clue that Democrats in complete control would bring higher taxes.
If only there was some warning that a president would break most of his promises.
Everybody add one of these! We can probably break a few hundred posts!
Dello|10.30.09 @ 2:55PM|#
It's official. The Obama administration has does more to lower the tax burden on Americans than every other administration COMBINED.
By simply calling taxes on "optional" items NOT a tax, he has eliminated all sales tax (don't buy) and income tax (don't work). If health care passes, he will even eliminate the Inheritance tax: The tax will still be there, but nobody will having anything to pass down.
44 Magnum|10.30.09 @ 3:11PM|#
If only there was some warning that SugarFree was going to ask for help with a list of song titles consisting of a single female name.
|10.30.09 @ 3:15PM|#
If only there was some warning that Reason would abuse us with threaded comments...
robc|10.30.09 @ 3:28PM|#
Nick,
Thanks. From searching the pdf, the only thing related to HSAs I could find was those mentioned in the original link. Insulin is the one OTC exception. Fucking diabetics getting all the breaks.
Death Panelist|10.30.09 @ 3:52PM|#
If only the racists wouldn't scrutinize the black man they elected.
|10.30.09 @ 4:41PM|#
If only people knew what "bona fide" meant.
I think one could make an argument that there is no such thing as a "bona fide" tax. I think the phrase the writer needed was "de facto," or something similar.
(Yes, I know the meaning of "bona fide" has been corrupted over the years, but should we really respect redefinitions that arise from ignorance? If a mistake goes on too long, it becomes the accepted status quo -- look at the drug war.)
|10.30.09 @ 6:44PM|#
Lest we forget, Obama first broke his tax pledge a couple weeks after taking office by signing a bill that raised the federal excise tax on cigarettes.
No he did not break his promise, for everybody "knows" that smokers are not people . . .
|10.30.09 @ 6:48PM|#
White House spokesman Robert Gibbs argued that it [the excise tax on cigarrettes] didn't really count [as a tax increase], because "people make a decision to smoke."
I guess then that by that token, any tax on consumption is not really a tax since people "choose" to eat or drink... and income taxes are not *really* taxes because people, after all, choose to be productive. Right?
Fist of Etiquette|10.31.09 @ 10:41AM|#
Rod: Daddy, what do taxes pay for?
Ned: Oh, why, everything! Policemen, trees, sunshine... And let's not forget the folks who just don't feel like working, God bless 'em!"
"Markets Are Magical!"|11.1.09 @ 5:28AM|#
Wow! These Libertarian discussions are so fascinating. If it's not the catty strawman slurs, then it's the well nuanced discussion over the um, human condition.
You guys make me wish that I was stupid, so that I could join in with all the the fun.
Get back to writing code you shiftless twats.
Fist of Etiquette|11.1.09 @ 8:56PM|#
run bliss
10 support what obama says
20 ignore what obama does
30 goto 10
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245