3 ms·

Author doesn't seem to have a clue about how benefits are taxed or that an employer can buy insurance or other benefits for 1000 people cheaper than any of the

Author doesn't seem to have a clue about how benefits are taxed or that an employer can buy insurance or other benefits for 1000 people cheaper than any of the individuals can. And are not Employer DC pensions better because that contributions on both sides are pre tax - let alone if you go in for sacrifice schemes where you can save the NI (social security) as well. and this guys supposed to be a partner reads like some summer interns work to me

prostoalex 11y ago
> an employer can buy insurance or other benefits for 1000 people cheaper than any of the individuals can. Does that still hold true with the exchanges, which in large states supposedly pool millions of individuals?
- dzdt 11y ago
  I think so, and here is why it makes sense. Maintaining a steady employment is a pretty strong indicator of not having debilitating health problems and of having enough income to avoid poverty-driven health problems. The employee pool of a major corporation is probably a healthier pool than the one exchanges serve.
- mauricemir 11y ago
  Yes a Company with 1000's of employees can drive a better bargain than a single individual.
a3n 11y ago
Only because employers are buying benefits for 1000 people. I would love a world where the only thing we get from an employer is pay and experience, and where there are no tax breaks for anything except being a poor human.
- mauricemir 11y ago
  So there would be no incentive for people to save into a pension or take equity over $ If you tax income and capita gains the same there is NO incentive to invest in equity as there is no risk premium.
  - a3n 11y ago
    Yes, people would still save out of necessity. And maybe people wouldn't take equity over dollars, or maybe they would, but it would be done for reasons other than tax policy. The market would have to work harder to prove that it's a good investment. Income vs capital gains taxation: again, the market would have to work harder to prove that it's a good investment. Or to put it another way: "there is NO incentive to invest in equity [without preferential tax treatment]." Then maybe investment in equity isn't actually a good investment in and of itself.

prostoalex 11y ago

> an employer can buy insurance or other benefits for 1000 people cheaper than any of the individuals can. Does that still hold true with the exchanges, which in large states supposedly pool millions of individuals?

dzdt 11y ago
I think so, and here is why it makes sense. Maintaining a steady employment is a pretty strong indicator of not having debilitating health problems and of having enough income to avoid poverty-driven health problems. The employee pool of a major corporation is probably a healthier pool than the one exchanges serve.
mauricemir 11y ago
Yes a Company with 1000's of employees can drive a better bargain than a single individual.

a3n 11y ago

Only because employers are buying benefits for 1000 people. I would love a world where the only thing we get from an employer is pay and experience, and where there are no tax breaks for anything except being a poor human.

mauricemir 11y ago
So there would be no incentive for people to save into a pension or take equity over $ If you tax income and capita gains the same there is NO incentive to invest in equity as there is no risk premium.
- a3n 11y ago
  Yes, people would still save out of necessity. And maybe people wouldn't take equity over dollars, or maybe they would, but it would be done for reasons other than tax policy. The market would have to work harder to prove that it's a good investment. Income vs capital gains taxation: again, the market would have to work harder to prove that it's a good investment. Or to put it another way: "there is NO incentive to invest in equity [without preferential tax treatment]." Then maybe investment in equity isn't actually a good investment in and of itself.