December 06, 2009

POPULISM

Via The Corner:

[Blanche] Lincoln will have another day in the spotlight tomorrow when her own amendment — to cut the tax breaks on the salaries of health-insurance company executives — will come up for a vote. The money saved from her proposal, she says, will go toward Medicare. Her gist: Cut tax breaks for big-bad execs and save Medicare.

How dare she?  I mean, really that's all I can muster on this one.

This is a prime example of why we need a flat or Fair tax.  So Congress can't fiddle with who pays taxes and who doesn't based on their own personal agenda or who it's popular to hate at the moment.  Just because it's fashionable to hate insurance companies right now doesn't mean that their bosses should have to pay more taxes than the bosses of, say, Google, which we've already seen makes more profit than health insurance companies.

Of all the nerve.  Really.  This blatant populism makes me sick.

Posted by: Sarah at 07:17 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 163 words, total size 1 kb.

1

What she has proposed isn't precisely to increase taxes on h/c insurance execs compensation, but rather to limit the tax deductability of these salaries *to the company*.

Unbelievably demagogic statement on her web site:

"The choice on my amendment is simple. Either you support revenues being placed in the Medicare Trust Fund, or you support the IRS sending a check to health insurance companies to subsidize the multimillion dollar compensation packages of their executives."

So, letting people & companies keep the money they've earned is now defined as "subsidizing" them. No one should think that this attitude applies only to senior executives...sooner or later, the Dems will get around to applying it to *you*.

An individual flat tax, though, wouldn't stop this, since it's proposed as part of the corporate tax rather than individual tax. (And I think flat tax for corporations is probably conceptually infeasible) The solution is to get morons like Blanche Lincoln out of Congress.

 

 

 

 

Posted by: david foster at December 06, 2009 11:18 AM (DnrQl)

2 David -- Thanks for clearing that up for me.  The way I understood it was different than you've explained.  But that statement on her website is appalling for different reasons, but no less appalling.

Posted by: Sarah at December 06, 2009 12:32 PM (gWUle)

3

If CongressCreatures want to focus on excecutive salaries, how about they start with the "nonprofit" industry--which includes, but is not limited to, education. These institutions get *a lot* of tax benefits, and many of them also get lots of $$$ in direct government funding.

And a lot of their executives are VERY well-paid...indeed, it seems like the present definition of a "nonprofit" organization is simply that there are no pesky shareholders with whom one has to share the loot...

 

 

Posted by: david foster at December 06, 2009 05:48 PM (XkP51)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Comments are disabled. Post is locked.
43kb generated in CPU 0.14, elapsed 0.2262 seconds.
48 queries taking 0.1785 seconds, 170 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.