Within our HR portal/employee profile, my employer used to show a pie chart for total compensation... x amount for salary, x amount for bonus, x amount for 401k matching, x amount for healthcare. This went away a few years ago. However, fact remains that most major companies are shelling out big money every year for their employees' healthcare. My question... I'm middle class. My taxes are gonna go up. The idea is that my overall costs will go down due to less premiums, deductibles, copays. Ok. Maybe that works out for some percentage of the population. But there will be a whole lot of people where increased taxes might be equal to or more than previous healthcare costs. And our salaries just stay the same??? What happens to the employers & big corporations? They just magically get a MASSIVE reduction in operating expenses with no strings attached? Why wouldnt there be some law or provision ensuring all that money would go toward salaries & compensation? To help us offset increased taxes? Does anyone have insight here? I'm all for some type of national system to ensure affordable primary care for all citizens... but not without understanding this aspect. ๐ซโ๏ธPlease let's keep politics, partisanship, good/bad judgments, and inflammatory rhetoric OUT of this discussion. I am trying to understand from true policy & economics perspectives.โ๐ผโ๐ผโ๐ผ
Market forces would make comp go up if healthcare costs were shifted to income tax. The mechanism is that at first demand for employees would go up and supply would go down, which would lead to a comp increase. However highly paid workers like us might not break even, since we would be subsidizing healthcare for the less fortunate (although we already do that through taxes which pay for medicare and obamacare subsidies I guess). But Warren's and Bernie's plans are to do this with a wealth tax right? Unless Warren's new proposal says something different.
i like your explanation using ISLM model/traditional macroecon. i dont understand/maybe dont agree that having more cash on hand would drive corporations to hire more people. they will just pay shareholders bigger dividends, contribute to PACs, pay off any high interest debts, pay themselves bonuses, increase benefits for executives... and maybe, if theyre feeling generous, spend a little on some bullshit like "training" or "charitable contributions" that is zero-impact to employees, but tax-deductible for the books.
Companies' cost per employee would decrease at first due to not having to pay healthcare, leading to companies hiring more employees. Some employees might choose to take a break because their effective comp would be lower. These two effects would create a shortage of employees, so employers would raise their comp to compete for employees.
USA government already spend ~11k per year on health care for every person living in US. Literally healthcare costs/population. That being said, universal healthcare does it necessary mean increase in taxes. The goal here to take money already spend to pay for ER visits and emergency coverage of uninsured and rudiment those funds to the beginning of pipeline to provide more preventive and timely care for people and as a result save money overall.
I GET IT. but what happens to the massive windfalls that will hit corporations?
They probably pencil it in as a profit
Tech Industry
8h
464
The new Tesla Model 3 P goes from 0-60 in 2.9 seconds
Tech Industry
15h
3782
11 offers to laid off[UPDATE]: 5 offers
Tech Industry
6h
1508
TESLA UP 14% AFTER HOURS ๐๐๐๐
Software Engineering Career
Yesterday
650
anyone else out there give super gentle interviews?
India
23h
407
Let's talk about insane WAQF act
Tbh I think that pie chart idea is total ๐ฎ๐ฉ, just a way for The Man โข๏ธ to convince you to pay you less
exactly my point