When I followed public policy in my younger days, I periodically would see stories about legislation that was approved by the House of Representatives with only one dissenting vote.
My memory isn’t perfect, I’m sure, but it seems that Ron Paul was always that lonely member. And my recollection is that he was (as usual) always on the correct side, voting for liberty and against government.
Something similar happened recently, except this time six members of Congress voted against a repeal of the “Cadillac Tax” that is part of Obamacare.
It was an eclectic group, but it included Justin Amash and Chip Roy, who are two of the most committed and principled supporters of free markets and limited government in Congress.
But since the healthcare exclusion is arguably the most damaging loophole in the tax code and a major cause of ever-rising costs (because of “third-party payer“), there’s actually a very strong case – from both sides of the ideological spectrum – for retaining the Cadillac Tax.
From the right, I recommend this analysis from Alan Viard at the American Enterprise Institute.
…employer-provided health insurance gets a big tax break. Workers pay income and payroll taxes on their cash wages, but not on their health insurance benefits. …the tax break is poorly targeted because it applies even to high-cost “Cadillac” health plans. The tax system should not artificially encourage Cadillac plans, which boost demand for medical services and drive up health care costs for everyone. Although the Cadillac tax does not directly change the tax break for high-cost employer plans, it offsets the break by imposing a separate 40 percent tax on those plans. That round-about approach is far from ideal, but it gets the job done. …the Cadillac tax has won support from economists across the ideological spectrum.
From the left, here’s some of what Bruce Bartlett wrote for the New York Times.
Although obviously a form of income to the worker, the Internal Revenue Service nevertheless ruled that it was not taxable, although businesses could still deduct the cost. This anomalous tax treatment was a fabulous tax loophole for both businesses and workers… Congress codified the I.R.S. ruling.. Various tax expenditures for health cost hundreds of billions of dollars in lost revenue per year, according to the Congressional Research Service. Eliminating them could finance a significant reduction in tax rates. …If the Republicans are serious about using tax reform to improve the competitiveness of American businesses, the best thing they can do is reform employer-based health insurance.
For honest folks on the left, they should be motivated by the fact that this exclusion overwhelmingly benefits upper-income taxpayers.
I’m more concerned about the fact that the healthcare exclusion is bad policy. Along with Medicare, Medicaid, and other forms of government intervention, it has crippled free markets and contributed to a very inefficient and costly healthcare system.
Like other loopholes, it should be repealed. But not so politicians get more money.