In a new oped at National Review Online, I ding the McCain campaign for not proposing a better tax credit -- while making it sound like they had. (My last NRO oped got me lots of hate mail. Will this one??)
It appears that McCain's actual proposal, um, may lose some relevance by this Wednesday. Thus, I'll share an excerpt from my oped that has more enduring relevance. The following explains how just about any revenue-neutral tax reform that levels the playing field between employer-sponsored health insurance and individual-market coverage would be a huge tax cut for everyone:
If employers no longer hold the keys to the tax break, workers would have the freedom to buy their own coverage and demand cash from their employers rather than health benefits. For workers with family coverage, that would shift an average of $9,000 of compensation from a form workers don’t control (health benefits) to a form they do control (wages). The labor market would force employers to fork that money over.
That shift would effectively cut taxes even for workers who see a nominal tax increase. Suppose a working mother’s health benefits cost $15,000 and her tax rate is 40 percent. Taxing her benefits costs her $6,000. After receiving McCain’s $5,000 credit, she would be among the very few who would pay more in taxes ($1,000).
If her employer gives her that $15,000 in wages instead of health benefits, however, then after taxes she would control $14,000 that she previously did not. Even if her employer continues providing health benefits, competing employers would offer her the $15,000 in cash, which likewise increases her control over her earnings, her health care, and her life.
Over 10 years, workers would control some $6.6 trillion dollars of their earnings that employers would otherwise control, which swamps the $3.6 trillion tax increase Obama claims is hidden in the McCain proposal.
Of course, that ain't gonna happen under McCain's proposal. To learn why, read the whole thing.