stockingfull wrote:Richard, let me be as clear about this as I can.
That's Obama's line... second time. LOL
Two tax breaks for one corporate expense is cheating. I'm against subsidizing corporate retirees -- or anybody -- by giving a double handout to a big corporation.
Got it now?
I already got it a long time ago, you'd bite off your nose to spite your face. So in conclusion you support removing a tax break that doesn't benefit the corporation but instead benefits the US taxpayer and the retiree.
stockingfull wrote:it'll just accelerate the process of taking those benefits -- and the leverage they create -- away from the corporations.
It's all about control, is that it?
stockingfull wrote:he next step will be to give access -- and the funds for it -- directly to individuals.
You're missing the entire point, I'll go over it again as this doesn't seem to be seeking in. For arguments sake and to keep it simple I'll use nice round numbers so it's easy to understand. The coverage AT&T is providing cost $2K and so does the equivalent Medicare D. The subsidy covers let's say $500 so the corporation is now paying $1500, the tax break takes what amounts to another $500.
Total cost to AT&T is $1K, the total cost to the government is $1K instead of paying the $2K for medicare. This is the key as the US taxpayer is netting $1K in savings.
By removing the tax break the incentive for the corporation to continue coverage is much smaller, the US taxpayer will now pick up the entire $2K tab for those that drop the coverage.
Here's simple question, what benefit does AT&T derive from keeping these people covered with or without the tax break?