4 ms·
The article is mysteriously silent regarding the savings to employers and employees by eliminating the need for employer-supplied health insurance. Without figu
by vannevar 5y ago
The article is mysteriously silent regarding the savings to employers and employees by eliminating the need for employer-supplied health insurance. Without figuring that in, it's hard to take the article seriously as anything other than a typical anti-tax rant. Hardly something worthy of a source that calls itself Reason.
- ___q 5y agoIt's no mystery, the Reason Foundation is a libertarian think tank. This is the same purposeful omission made previously by The Tax Foundation's "California Considers Doubling Its Taxes" article on the same topic. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29843784 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29843784
- ghawk1ns 5y agoDoes that "savings" outweigh the increased cost from the tax? Because it's less important how much that value is and more important that overall cost and burden will increase. Will California outlaw company provided health plans? If the company option is better, why would an employee want a worse Government solution? In other, completely unrelated news, Meta just leased out the tallest building in Austin, Tx.
- vannevar 5y ago>Does that "savings" outweigh the increased cost from the tax? That would be a great topic for an article. It would also be a lot more work than just blustering about high taxes, so "Reason" took the easy way out. Complaining is a lot easier than reasoning, it turns out.
- whoknew1122 5y agoLike others pointed out, Reason is a libertarian rag with the tagline 'Free minds and free markets'. It's not mysterious at all why they hew to a laissez faire position to the exclusion of counter-points.