Should Health Care Tax Rich Income or Rich Plans?

More

Whether we get the House or Senate version of health care reform, the tax man cometh. But in what form? The House health care plan unveiled today leans on a surtax on rich people to pay for the expansion of Medicaid and insurance subsidies for less fortunate Americans. The Senate Finance plan dreamed up an excise tax on richer insurance plans. Those might sound similar because I described them both using the words "tax" and "rich," but they're very different ideas, for a couple reasons.



The first major difference is that the 5.4% surtax is simply slapped on individuals making more than $500,000 and couples earning more than $1 million. The excise tax on expensive insurance is designed to impact more plans every year to persuade an growing swath of employers to switch to cheaper coverage. But even at the start, the excise tax will impact a lot of Americans who we wouldn't consider rich. Plenty of unions have organized to increase their compensation in the form of health care benefits, as opposed to taxable income, which is precisely why I get email every week from some union PR person with an argument against eliminating the tax subsidy on these benefits. The unions might be right that the excise tax reverses compensation gains they've spent decades earning, but the Senate Finance bill's architects have an ulterior motive.

That leads to the second difference between these tax schemes. The surtax isn't really about changing behavior. It's just a tax on high income included for the sole purpose of making the bill deficit neutral. The excise tax is actually designed to have a specific incentives: To encourage employers to switch to cheaper plans and move more of their workers' compensation into wages. In fact the Joint Committee on Taxation estimates that up to 80 percent of the revenue from the excise won't come from the excise tax, but from income taxes on wages that increase as a result of that switch. (Whether that works of course is a matter of substantial debate.) In that sense, I guess you could say both houses of Congress sic the tax man on your income.

Jump to comments

Derek Thompson is a senior editor at The Atlantic, where he oversees business coverage for TheAtlantic.com. More

Thompson has written for Slate, BusinessWeek, and the Daily Beast. He has also appeared as a guest on radio and television networks, including NPR, the BBC, CNBC, and MSNBC.

Get Today's Top Stories in Your Inbox (preview)


Elsewhere on the web

Join the Discussion

After you comment, click Post. If you’re not already logged in you will be asked to log in or register. blog comments powered by Disqus

Video

Miami: The Next Big Start-Up City?

How the city became a center for innovation

Video

Video

A Brief History of Romantic Comedies

From The Atlantic's Chris Orr

Video

Life in 'the New Arctic'

A moving portrait of a fading landscape

Video

Video

The Rise of New York City

A fascinating look at Manhattan in the 1940s

Video

What Is Methane Hydrate?

"Flaming ice" is a vast natural energy source

Video

NASA's Time-Lapse of the Sun

Now with epic dubstep music

Video

Shaken Not Tuned: Cocktail Experiments

Can a tuning fork improve a cocktail?

Video

Video

Is He Cheating? A 1950s Guide

'That little blonde secretary from the office?’

Video

New Yorkers: Vintage Vacuum-Tube Amps

Risking electric shock to restore old amplifiers

Video

The DIY Piano-Bicycle

Everybody needs a hobby

Video

What Does It Take to Make Real Craft Gin?

Tour the Green Hat Gin distillery

Video

Letter From the Editor

The June 2013 issue

Video

What Straights Can Learn From Same-Sex Couples

New insight from decades of research

Video

The End of the Mall Rat

A tribute to that pillar of teen culture

Writers

Up
Down

More in Business

In Focus

Picking up the Pieces After the Tornado in Moore, Oklahoma