Democratic Primaries

Autumn

(48,964 posts)

19. I agree it is written poorly. But if she is having $15,000 withheld from her check per year

Sun Nov 3, 2019, 11:08 AM

Nov 2019

for her share that would bring her takehome pay up to 61 thousand since she no longer has to pay that that share and she would see a tax increase on her wage of $4000 for MFA resulting in a savings of $11,00. The article should have made the distinction between what she pays and what her employer pays. A $15,000 share of your employee provided insurance is not unreasonable if you insure a family. I paid my share of $6,000 a year for myself.

If I were to vote in a presidential
primary today, I would vote for: Undecided

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

82 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Medicare for All Would Give Workers 'Biggest Take-Home Pay Raise in a Generation' [View all] Buzz cook Nov 2019 OP

It's Time SterlingPound Nov 2019 #1

Indeed. calimary Nov 2019 #2

Agreed Sienna86 Nov 2019 #7

And if was made retroactive Cartaphelius Nov 2019 #56

Way PAST time! Why Bernie & Elizabeth, united together, will smoke the competition & roll to victory InAbLuEsTaTe Nov 2019 #79

The first sentence in the excerpt identified this as article as bologna. TexasTowelie Nov 2019 #3

But taxes would replace your premiums and co-pays, not add to them. mjvpi Nov 2019 #30

Employeers will voluntarily give the medical expenses as additional income? brooklynite Nov 2019 #4

That is such a pipe dream zeusdogmom Nov 2019 #10

This might be a net saving for companies as well. Buzz cook Nov 2019 #65

There was another article on that very point here this AM. Apparently many employers are getting JudyM Nov 2019 #73

Millions with employer and retirement benefits provided insurance do not pay 15,000 per year, emmaverybo Nov 2019 #5

It will cost me $1,050 /month for COBRA Abnredleg Nov 2019 #11

Seems high for one policy. My employer paid three and four hundred a month, the employees emmaverybo Nov 2019 #23

It's a Platinum +++ Plan Abnredleg Nov 2019 #24

It often depends on the size of the company Fiendish Thingy Nov 2019 #28

Yes, I see how that would work. And your question is the one to ask. Problem is that not emmaverybo Nov 2019 #29

PUBLIC OPTION! wasupaloopa Nov 2019 #44

Did you mean public option? Nt Fiendish Thingy Nov 2019 #48

yes sorry wasupaloopa Nov 2019 #55

As a first step, how about if employers are required to quantify "benefits" packages on payday. mjvpi Nov 2019 #31

Medicare for All will help so many Sienna86 Nov 2019 #6

LONG overdue actually... how anyone can be so unaware as to oppose M4A is beyond me. InAbLuEsTaTe Nov 2019 #80

Bingo......................... turbinetree Nov 2019 #8

Thank you thank you AOC. Wake up people. YOHABLO Nov 2019 #57

Another reason AOC's political future is so bright... a future President in the making!! InAbLuEsTaTe Nov 2019 #81

Only if the employer is actually spending that and willing to give it to you dsc Nov 2019 #9

Do you pay nothing towards your employee provided health insurance? The woman given as Autumn Nov 2019 #13

No the woman in that example does no such thing dsc Nov 2019 #14

No, that $15,000 is what she pays out of pocket for HER share of the health insurance her Autumn Nov 2019 #15

No it isn't dsc Nov 2019 #16

"She is currently contributing $15,000 through her employer to an insurance company." Having paid Autumn Nov 2019 #17

It is written poorly dsc Nov 2019 #18

I agree it is written poorly. But if she is having $15,000 withheld from her check per year Autumn Nov 2019 #19

It's not coming out of her check... AncientGeezer Nov 2019 #20

I'm going on how my insurance contribution worked. My share of $500 for my insurance benefit Autumn Nov 2019 #21

I was an employer..my employees paid $50/pay period($100per mo) AncientGeezer Nov 2019 #22

There is no link to the article so I read what was in the OP. The rest of my posts are, as I said, Autumn Nov 2019 #25

It's the employer payment to the insurance co. ... will not go to employees. AncientGeezer Nov 2019 #34

If I don't chose to have the insurance it wouldn't be deducted from my check. I know that for a fact Autumn Nov 2019 #38

Double talk! You are going to tax the companies to pay for M4A then you say they offer M4A which wasupaloopa Nov 2019 #42

I'm not doing anything of the sort, I am stating what I have heard Liz and Bernie say. Autumn Nov 2019 #43

That's you share of the plan....I suspect that the employer pays another AncientGeezer Nov 2019 #52

She isn't though dsc Nov 2019 #49

The employer treats their share of the insurance as part of paid compensation on their taxes. mjvpi Nov 2019 #32

Because part of Warrens plan is to take the employer contributions AncientGeezer Nov 2019 #35

Employers do not have to provide benefits! So they do not have to pay money to the government! wasupaloopa Nov 2019 #41

Question for you. What makes employers decide to provide benefits at the current time? nt Autumn Nov 2019 #46

To attract and keep good employees AncientGeezer Nov 2019 #50

Exactly. Health insurance is not required by law but they offer it as part of a benefits Autumn Nov 2019 #51

We are talking about this article in the OP from commodreams. AncientGeezer Nov 2019 #53

As I told you. The article in the OP wasn't clear on that and there is no link to the article Autumn Nov 2019 #60

Your share of the insurane cost is not the issue..it's the EPLOYER's that is. AncientGeezer Nov 2019 #62

Because you can't mandate a wage forthemiddle Nov 2019 #59

Compensation is compensation Buzz cook Nov 2019 #67

No it isn't dsc Nov 2019 #71

So a company would cut pay by thousandz of dollars? Buzz cook Nov 2019 #72

a few things dsc Nov 2019 #74

Labor compensation Buzz cook Nov 2019 #75

Wouldn't count on pay raise, Warren's funding plan calls for a hefty tax on businesses. And Hoyt Nov 2019 #12

How can she find a way to pay for the twenty plus additional, highly expensive plans she proposes? emmaverybo Nov 2019 #26

Companies treat employee benefits as employee compensation on their taxes. mjvpi Nov 2019 #36

They could, but I think Warren is already talking about forcing employers to pay what they pay now Hoyt Nov 2019 #37

Because it is not legal. You can't just make up shit then call it a new law. wasupaloopa Nov 2019 #40

Compensation other than wages is taxable. Buzz cook Nov 2019 #68

It would also... Snackshack Nov 2019 #27

Yes, it would encourage bootstraps capitalism. mjvpi Nov 2019 #33

It would also be good for unions. Once insurance is removed from the bargaining table, Autumn Nov 2019 #47

No....under Warren's plan they are paying that insurance money to the Govt. AncientGeezer Nov 2019 #54

I'm basing my opinion on Bernie MFA which allows people to buy it or employers can offer it Autumn Nov 2019 #61

And I'm basing it on what they need to pay for M4A AncientGeezer Nov 2019 #63

There were never so many people pushing for MFA or so many politicians talking it up... Autumn Nov 2019 #66

So did I.....employers will not save a penny. And still massive funding shortfalls, AncientGeezer Nov 2019 #69

Why should people trust someone who twists the truth like this? wasupaloopa Nov 2019 #39

The biggest benefit if M4A besides public health, and large savings for the middle class andym Nov 2019 #45

Giving Americans a raise is the right way to frame this issue. Aaron Pereira Nov 2019 #58

Garbage analysis that doublecounts premiums mathematic Nov 2019 #64

Exactly...as I said above... AncientGeezer Nov 2019 #70

That is a hell of an assumption The Mouth Nov 2019 #76

But insurance lobbyist and paid off republicans duforsure Nov 2019 #77

It will cost us the election, bottom line. redstatebluegirl Nov 2019 #78

"The secretary pays the same amount as the executive" SoCalNative Nov 2019 #82