注册 登录  
 加关注
   显示下一条  |  关闭
温馨提示!由于新浪微博认证机制调整,您的新浪微博帐号绑定已过期,请重新绑定!立即重新绑定新浪微博》  |  关闭

基思·亨尼西(Hennessey)的博客

美国前国家经济委员会主任、乔治·布什的首席经济顾问Keith Hennessey

 
 
 

日志

 
 
关于我

美国前国家经济委员会主任

文章分类
网易考拉推荐

众议院真的想要对800万无保险的人提高税收吗?  

2009-07-20 08:26:06|  分类: 默认分类 |  标签: |举报 |字号 订阅

  下载LOFTER 我的照片书  |

 

 [点击查看Keith Hennessey的英文博客]  [Keith Hennessey的中文博客] 

 

总统已经声明他不会允许对那些收入少于25万美金的人增加税收。

今天我们第一次明白了立法语言的用处和众议院民主党打算在8月低迷之前通过的健康保障改革法案的概要。以下的内容基于一个对此法案的初始快速浏览和对几个关键章节的学习研究。我一直质疑法案的起草者过去怎样解决我正准备描写的问题。就现在的情况来看,他们并没有解决它。

和料想的一样,民主党法案会命令个人和家庭具有或者购买健康保险。但如果他们不买会是怎样的情况呢?

这时章节401插足了。任何没有健康保险的个人(或家庭)将会交一种新的税,此类税收大约等于你的年收入的2.5%或一个健康保险计划的价钱。

学术注解:从立法语言来看,可以得出:税收 = 2.5% × (修正后的AGI - 个人免税额))和保费成本这两个值中较小的值。在下面的例子中,为简单起见,我假设修正的AGI = AGI

我设想此法案的作者会这样回答:但为什么你不想买保险呢?毕竟,我们为每个收入低于贫困线400%的予以了补助。

此言不虚。但是如果你是一个收入为44000美金或更高的个人,那么你高出了贫困线4倍。你不会被补助, 但却要因为没有购买健康保险而面对罚金。这个法案在补助和健康保险价值之间留下了一个重要的空缺. CBO面对大约800万的民众做此声明,这个空缺大的难以弥补,他们将会面对交了高税金却仍然没有健康保险的窘境。



案例
1

鲍勃是个单身汉,每年挣5万美金。他的收入超出政府的贫困线4倍多,所以他并不具备在众议院法案下的减税资格。

鲍勃 为一个5个人的小型公司工作,公司并没有为其购买保险。50000美金的工资是这个公司的平均水平,这样的标准因此并不符合新小型企业的税收抵免.

这个公司足够的小,小到他们可以不用去支付IRS由于不给Bob购买保险而带来的任何的费用。(可参照184页的表格)

只有50000的收入,鲍勃支付不起任何的健康保险。在下议院法案下,他不得不支付大约每年1150美金的高税收给政府。这是2.5%的免除(他的收入减去一个3650美金的个人免除)。

我为鲍勃去eHealthinsurance.com逛了一圈。他50岁了而且不抽烟,和我一样住在弗吉尼亚州。他能得到的最便宜的最低限度政策是1620美金一年。大多数的计划都在3000美金到5000美金之间。在税收和最便宜的保险费之间470美金的差距是高于像Bob这样税前年薪在50000美金的人群所能承受的范围的。

归纳起来,在下议院 法案下:

  • 鲍勃是一个50岁的不吸烟者,他受雇于一个小企业每年有税前50000美金的年薪,但是没有健康保险。
  • 鲍勃不能负担一个1600美金的光骨头健康保险政策,远少于一个3000-5000的政策。
  • 鲍勃 在此法案下不会得到补贴, 而且他的雇主也不会因为没有给他买保险而受到处罚。
  • 鲍勃最终不仅没有健康保险,而且还必须支付1150多美金的税收。


案例
2

弗莱迪和凯尔斯结婚而且已有两个孩子。他们的年收入是90000美金。他们挣的高于政府贫困线4倍还多,因此在众议院法案下没有资格享受补贴。

FreddyKelsey在佛罗里达州的奥兰多拥有并管理着一个小型的经营旅行用具的店铺。他们俩同时也是这个商店唯一的雇员。他们的薪水超过了在众议院法案下有资格获得小企业税收抵免的数目。

因为他们的公司太小,众议院法案不会因为没有依照雇主的要求来强加经济上的处罚。即使他们这么做了,那税收的罚金也会跃出他们的底线,因为他们两人就构成了整个企业。

弗莱迪和凯尔斯都是40岁的年纪。他们有一个15岁的儿子和一个12岁的女儿。没有人抽烟。

又逛了一圈eHealthinsurance, 我能为他找到的最便宜的计划是一个high-deductible ppo 计划伴有一个每年6000美金的deductible. 他们将会为此每年花费3800美金。而且这是一个最低要求的计划。

他们支付不起这样的计划。或许他们正从飓风的侵袭中复原,或者他们正在面对佛罗里达房地产的崩盘。

I 如果他们不能支付(至少)3800美金的健康保险金,那么众议院法案会使得他们支付高于2050美金的高额税收。

归纳起来,在众议院的法案下:

 


弗莱迪和凯尔斯是一对40岁的夫妻并有两个孩子。他们在佛罗里达州的奥兰多拥有并管理着一家小型的经营旅行用具的店铺。

·    他们是店里为一的雇员·     加起来每年有90000美金的收入。

·    他们支付不· 起即使是不·      昂贵的健康保险计划·       所以the House bill 会让他们支付2050的高额税收。

以上的这两个例子说明了要让个人掌控工作的难度。为了让人们服从这个命令,你不得不对那些不服从的人予以重罚。这样做的话会改变很多之前并没有购买保险的人的想法他们会购买保险,因为购买保险的花费和未购买保险的税收罚金之间的三角洲已经逐渐缩水,所以他们买保险会是一个不错的选择。

这个空缺越大那越少的人群会改变计划。而对于哪些不打算或不能服从这个法案的人来说,他们最终会成为所有世界里最惨的那个组成部分没有保险而且支付高额的税收。

CBO的新政策上看此种举措看起来将会使大约800万美国公民落入这个归类。我估计他们里很少的一部分人能有超过25万的收入,而25万的收入是总统定义的没有税收增长的要求底线。

我期望下议院民主党员会强调他们的法案会在97%美国公民中发挥效用。但那3%,不论怎样,会真正的被改变, 大约是800万的人群。

如果总统会签署这样的法案使之成为法律条款我无法想象他的团队将会怎样调和这么做所造成的结果和他对于中产阶级不征税的承诺之间的矛盾。

众议院法案的起草者做了一个很难的政策选择。国会的成员和公众如何理解他们选择的此种做法所带来的利弊将会至关重要。

 
更新

感谢指出这个问题的一个朋友我们知道总统会考虑这个问题。这里是当时的参议院奥巴马在2009221日和当时的参议院克林顿的一次辩论,奥巴马反对她对于大众的一个强制购买健康保险的提议。

参议院奥巴马第一当参议院克林顿说出命令这不是一个政府提供健康保险的mandate,这是一个对个人购买保险的命令. 参议院克林顿是对的我们不得不弄清楚到底哪个才是公众真正想要的。

. 现在麻省已经做了一个命令。他们已经免除了20%的无保险人群的税收,因为根本无力支付。

在一些案例里有的人正在支付罚金但仍然无力负担但他们的状况要比以前还要糟糕。他们不仅没有健康保险而且他们正在支付罚金。

欢呼

为了让人们购买健康保险你必须具有很严厉的处罚措施。但参议院克林顿已经说了我们不会在他们的薪金的情况下行动。现在这是一个显著的区别。但是必须要看到,我们当中无论谁都想谋求大众的健康维护。只是我有一个和参议院克林顿完全不同的对于如何实现的看法。

(翻译纠错。读者发现任何翻译错误请发邮件给我们,谢谢:caijingblog#126.com 将#改为@)


英文原文(地址:http://keithhennessey.com/2009/07/14/house-taxes-the-uninsured/):

Does the House really want to raise taxes on eight million uninsured people?

The President has said he would not allow taxes to be raised on anyone with less than $250,000 of income.

Today for the first time we see the legislative language for and a summary of the health care reform bill that House Democrats intend to try to pass before the August recess.  The following is based on an initial quick scan of the bill and studying a few key sections.  I have been wondering how the drafters were going to solve the problem I am about to describe.  As best I can tell, they didn’t solve it.


As expected, the House bill would mandate that individuals and families have or buy health insurance.

But what if they don’t buy it?

Then Section 401 kicks in.  Any individual (or family) that does not have health insurance would have to pay a new tax, roughly equal to the smaller of 2.5% of your income or the cost of a health insurance plan.

[ Technical note:  From the legislative language, it appears the tax = min( 2.5% * (modified AGI – personal exemption), average premium cost).  In the examples below, for simplicity I assume modified AGI = AGI. ]

I assume the bill authors would respond, “But why wouldn’t you want insurance?  After all, we’re subsidizing it for everyone up to 400% of the poverty line.”

That is true.  But if you’re a single person with income of $44,000 or higher, then you’re above 400% of the poverty line.  You would not be subsidized, but would face the punitive tax if you didn’t get health insurance.  This bill leaves an important gap between the subsidies and the cost of health insurance.  CBO says that for about eight million people, that gap is too big to close, and they would get stuck paying higher taxes and still without health insurance.


Example 1:

Bob is single and earns $50K per year.  He earns more than four times the federal poverty level, so he does not qualify for subsidies under the House bill.

Bob works for a five-person small business that does not provide him with health insurance.  His $50K wage is average for this company, which therefore does not qualify for the new small business tax credits.

This company is small enough that they do not have to pay the IRS any fee for not providing Bob with health insurance.  (See the table on page 184.)

With only $50K of income, Bob cannot afford to buy health insurance.  Under the House bill, he would then have to pay about $1,150 per year in higher taxes to the government.  That’s 2.5% of (his income minus a $3,650 personal exemption).

I went shopping for Bob on eHealthInsurance.com.  He is 50 years old and a non-smoker, living where I do in Virginia.  The cheapest bare bones policy he can get is $1,620 per year.  Most plans are in the $3K – $5K range.  That $470 difference between the tax and the cheapest premium is more than Bob can afford on a $50K pre-tax annual wage.

To summarize, under the House bill:

  • Bob is a single 50-year old non-smoking small business employee who makes $50K per year before taxes and does not have health insurance.
  • Bob cannot afford a $1,600 bare bones health insurance policy, much less a $3K — $5K policy.
  • Bob would get no subsidies under this bill, and his employer would face no penalty for not providing him with health insurance.
  • Bob would end up without health insurance and would have to pay $1,150 more in taxes.

Example 2:

Freddy and Kelsey are married with two kids.  They earn $90K per year.  They earn more than four times the federal poverty level, and therefore do not qualify for subsidies under the House bill.

Freddy and Kelsey own and run a small tourist shop in Orlando, Florida.  They are the only two employees.  Their wages exceed the amounts that would qualify them for small business tax credits under the House bill.

Because their business is so small, the House bill would impose no financial penalty for not complying with the employer mandate.  Even if they did, the tax penalty would come out of their own bottom line, since the two of them are the business.

Freddy and Kelsey are both 40 years old.  They have a 15-year old son and a 12-year old daughter.  None of them smoke.

Shopping on eHealthInsurance, the cheapest plan I could find for them is a high-deductible PPO plan with a $6,000 annual deductible.  That would cost them more than $3,800 per year.  And it’s a bare-bones plan.

They can’t afford that.  Maybe they are recovering from a hurricane, or dealing with the real estate collapse in Florida.  They are also saving for their kids’ college, which is only a few years away.  Even with $90K of income, money is tight for a family of four.

If they cannot afford the (at least) $3,800 in health insurance premiums, then the House bill would make them pay more than $2,050 in higher taxes.

To summarize, under the House bill:

  • Freddy and Kelsey are a 40-year old couple with two kids.  They own and run a small tourist shop in Orlando, Florida.
  • They are the only employees, and earn a combined $90K per year.
  • They cannot afford even an inexpensive health insurance plan, and so the House bill would make them pay $2,050 in higher taxes.

These two examples show the difficulty of making an individual mandate work.  To get people to comply with the mandate, you have to impose a significant tax penalty on those who don’t comply.  This will change the calculation for many who were previously uninsured – they will buy health insurance, because the delta between the cost of having insurance and the tax penalty cost of not having it has shrunk, so they might as well buy it.

The bigger this gap, the fewer people will switch.  And for those who do not or cannot comply with the mandate, they end up in the worst of all worlds – uninsured and paying higher taxes.

From CBO’s new tables, it appears that about eight million U.S. citizens would fall into this category.  I expect that very few of these people would have more than $250,000 of income, the no-tax-increase line defined by the President.

I expect the House Democrats will emphasize that their bill would result in 97 percent of U.S. citizens having coverage.  Those other three percent, however, really get shafted, and that’s about eight million people.

If the President were to sign such a bill into law, I cannot figure out how his team could reconcile this consequence with his pledge not to raise taxes on the middle class.

But without the tax penalty, the mandate isn’t effective, and the number of resulting uninsured goes way up.

The House bill drafters have made a hard policy choice.  It is important that Members of Congress and the public understand the benefits and the costs of the approach they have chosen.


Update

Thanks to a friend for pointing this out: We know the President understands this point.  Here is then-Senator Obama in a debate with then-Senator Clinton on February 21, 2008, opposing her proposal for a universal individual mandate to purchase health insurance (emphasis added):

SENATOR OBAMA:  Number one, understand that when Senator Clinton says a mandate, it’s not a mandate on government to provide health insurance, it’s a mandate on individuals to purchase it. And Senator Clinton is right; we have to find out what works.

Now, Massachusetts has a mandate right now. They have exempted 20 percent of the uninsured because they have concluded that that 20 percent can’t afford it.

In some cases, there are people who are paying fines and still can’t afford it, so now they’re worse off than they were. They don’t have health insurance and they’re paying a fine.

(APPLAUSE)

In order for you to force people to get health insurance, you’ve got to have a very harsh penalty, and Senator Clinton has said that we won’t go after their wages. Now, this is a substantive difference. But understand that both of us seek to get universal health care. I have a substantive difference with Senator Clinton on how to get there.

  [点击查看Keith Hennessey的英文博客]  [Keith Hennessey的中文博客] 

  评论这张
 
阅读(1764)| 评论(5)
推荐 转载

历史上的今天

评论

<#--最新日志,群博日志--> <#--推荐日志--> <#--引用记录--> <#--博主推荐--> <#--随机阅读--> <#--首页推荐--> <#--历史上的今天--> <#--被推荐日志--> <#--上一篇,下一篇--> <#-- 热度 --> <#-- 网易新闻广告 --> <#--右边模块结构--> <#--评论模块结构--> <#--引用模块结构--> <#--博主发起的投票-->
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

页脚

网易公司版权所有 ©1997-2017