Excessive Outrage on Retiree Subsidy Accounting

So as blogged yesterday, the new health care plan changed the tax treatment of a subsidy for retiree prescription drug benefits, which caused those companies who had received the subsidy to announce a charge against their deferred tax assets.  Conservatives gleefully pointed out that this was probably going to change peoples' drug benefits.  Liberals leaped into the fray, arguing that all the law had done was 'closed a loophole", and accusing the companies of "double dipping".


All this moralizing seems to me to be extremely overwrought.  (To be fair, I haven't actually seen any of the conservative moralizing; only liberal blogs claiming it exists.  Which is not to say that it doesn't, only that I don't read the frothier bits of the conservative blogosphere or media world where such moralizing might have been done).  The government gave a subsidy; it can take it away.  I don't have much of an opinion either way, except, as I said yesterday, if by increasing the cost of retiree prescription drug benefits (which is what "closing the loophole" does), we encourage companies to cancel their benefits and dump retirees into the public system, at higher cost to the taxpayer.

But liberals have now taken to making it sound as if the companies were engaged in some dodgy practice.  Here's the thing:  health care benefits are tax deductible.  Deducting the cost of the benefits is standard practice.  And subsidies usually aren't taxable, because there's no point, really.  This wasn't a loophole.  It was the natural result of the current tax code.  And there's no evidence so far that the "loophole" was unintentional; legislators may have decided this was the optimal bribe to get companies to keep their seniors on the drug program rolls.  It would hardly be the first time that tax subsidies were thrown in as a sweetener.

Now we've changed it, we have made retiree health benefits more costly for the companies.  That means that some of them will probably drop their benefits.  Fine, if you think that's good policy, but let's not pretend this is some righteous campaign against dastardly companies.  We were paying them to take expensive seniors off our hands.  Now we want to reduce the payments.  

Am I outraged that they've been feasting at the public purse excessively?  Only to the extent that I want Medicare Part D eliminated.  Paying the companies was cheaper than putting beneficiaries on Part D, and gave the retirees more generous benefits.  What am I supposed to be outraged about, again?
Presented by

Megan McArdle is a columnist at Bloomberg View and a former senior editor at The Atlantic. Her new book is The Up Side of Down.

Saving the Bees

Honeybees contribute more than $15 billion to the U.S. economy. A short documentary considers how desperate beekeepers are trying to keep their hives alive.

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

How to Cook Spaghetti Squash (and Why)

Cooking for yourself is one of the surest ways to eat well.

Video

Before Tinder, a Tree

Looking for your soulmate? Write a letter to the "Bridegroom's Oak" in Germany.

Video

The Health Benefits of Going Outside

People spend too much time indoors. One solution: ecotherapy.

Video

Where High Tech Meets the 1950s

Why did Green Bank, West Virginia, ban wireless signals? For science.

Video

Yes, Quidditch Is Real

How J.K. Rowling's magical sport spread from Hogwarts to college campuses

Video

Would You Live in a Treehouse?

A treehouse can be an ideal office space, vacation rental, and way of reconnecting with your youth.

More in Business

Just In