Thinking Outside the Box

@LisaS961881 

Of course, those who would be involved - employers and employees would be losing something - EMPLOYERS & EMPLOYEES would have to pay more into the systems - however, employees would be getting something back - higher SS benefits and a better financial stable Medicare Part A.  But sometimes seeing something so far out that it is hard to see.  Plus, Americans seems to always want somebody else to pay for something, than themselves.  

So actually we are agreeing on the dislike of the plan but actually it would work GREATLY.

I believe since the ACA was enacted that employers are suppose to report how much they pay for this employer provided coverage on each employee’s W-2 as a memo.  So it would be very easy for the employee and the employer to see how much this would cost them - 

• the added income tax an EMPLOYEE would have to pay on this benefit amount 
• the added SS and Medicare tax the EMPLOYEE would have to pay on this benefit amount
• the amount the EMPLOYER would have to pay to match the SS and Medicare tax of the employee

This proposal has been around for a very long time - it isn’t new but it is getting BIGGER. 

Bipartisan Policy Center: Paying the 2025 Tax Bill: Employer-Sponsored Health Insurance 

ESI = Employer Sponsored Health Insurance

from the link ~

As ESI premiums rise at a consistent clip—up 7% from 2023 to 2024 alone, and 24% from 2019 to 2024—so has the cost of the ESI tax exclusion. Currently, it is the third largest expenditure in the sprawling federal tax code, behind only retirement tax advantages and reduced capital gains tax rates. Large tax preferences narrow the federal income tax base and require higher tax rates to bring in sufficient revenue.

Some of the proposals have some limits - or they limit it in the interim and build to 100% coverage.  WHY?  That’s only because our legislators need that cushion period so they don’t lose their job, IMO.

They say it is because (same link)  . . . the exclusion tends to be regressive, benefiting upper-middle and high-income households more than low- and middle-income households. According to the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service (CRS) and the Department of Treasury, around 60% of the benefit of the exclusion went to households making above 400% of the federal poverty level (FPL) in 2018 (or more than $50,000 in income for a single person and $100,000 for a family of four in the same year).

But isn’t that the way it always is when we have a program based on earnings and benefits - I am of the persuasion that we should keep it simple and treat everybody the same.  Simplicity has advantages in explaining it and what everybody would get out of it or in the case of employers how much more they would have to pay.

As an aside, it would PERHAPS also be beneficial to many progressive ideas since some employers would drop ESI plans or perhaps would only provide it for those who make less in earnings.  And this would be just another step in perhaps moving to some single payer type system - what better way than to remove the reason why so many people want to keep the ESI as it is now - 

@gs13323272 

We are already there - The decline of workers to beneficiaries has been going on since the beginning but your are right, it is getting a lots more severe now because of technological changes.  

SSA.gov - Social Security History- Ratio of Covered Workers to Beneficiaries 1940 - 2013 

You maybe right that we have to end up taxing some forms of technology to make up for the loss of workers.  But the problem is even more severe than the Social Security Trust Funds - What are all those people gonna do when they have been replaced by some AI form?