• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • News
  • Topics
    • Common Sense
    • Congress
    • Debt
    • Government waste
    • Millenials
    • QuizCap
    • Taxes
  • Tools
    • Agencies
    • Memes That Matter
    • Research Library
    • Scavenger Hunt
  • Shop
  • What We’re About
  • Multimedia
  • What We’re About
  • Contact Us
  • Newsletter signup
  • Give to the Cause

A Eulogy for the Cadillac Tax

By Alex Muresianu | January 10, 2020

The end-of-year budget deal passed by the House and Senate repealed the so-called “Cadillac Tax.” While never implemented, the Cadillac Tax would have placed a 40 percent excise tax on employer-sponsored health insurance with especially broad coverage—plans valued at $11,200 for individuals and $30,150 for families. While an imperfect policy, if the Cadillac Tax had been allowed to go into effect, it would have helped reduce a major bias in the tax code: the exclusion for employer-sponsored health insurance.

Popular Posts
  1. Social Security: Good Intentions, Unintended Consequences
  2. What Sam Adams Can Teach Us About the Corporate Tax Revamp
  3. The Pentagon Cooks the Books Kevin Malone Style

Under current law, health insurance provided by an employer as a form of compensation is not subject to the income tax, while normal, cash-based compensation is. This asymmetry creates an incentive for employees to prefer more expansive health insurance plans and lower monetary compensation relative to more basic health insurance and more cash.

In a recent paper from the Mercatus Center, researchers Yevgeniy Feyman and Charles Blahous explained the history of the tax exclusion and its negative consequences.

× Follow us on Facebook and never miss a story.

This policy originated in a World War II-era labor market, which was heavily regulated with controls on wages and prices. As companies weren’t able to attract workers with higher wages, they had to get creative, and one of the things they did was offer broad non-cash benefits, such as health insurance. After the war, Congress strengthened the link between health insurance and employment by exempting health insurance received through their employers from taxation.

This imbalance has numerous deleterious effects on the healthcare system in the United States. The American healthcare system relies heavily on comprehensive insurance, or insurance that covers a broad set of procedures and features a low deductible. However, comprehensive insurance obscures the original purpose of insurance in any role: as a way to manage risk for extreme, catastrophic scenarios.

learn about our mission Artboard 1

Making employer-sponsored insurance exempt from taxes leads people to favor more comprehensive plans. This increase in demand leads to higher prices of health insurance and overconsumption of healthcare. Furthermore, higher healthcare prices lead to slower real wage growth, as total compensation has grown, but more of that compensation is coming in the form of non-cash benefits like health insurance and less in the form of cash wages.

The Weekly Chaser

Get the latest content, first.

Additionally, connecting health insurance to employment leads to something called job lock. If a worker would like to move to a better job or start their own business, they might be dissuaded from doing so because it would lead to a lapse in health insurance coverage. Workers are therefore incentivized not to shift jobs or start their own businesses, leading to slower wage growth (thanks to a less competitive labor market) and fewer new businesses.

Lastly, the tax exclusion costs a lot of government revenue. The Treasury Department projects that the tax exclusion will reduce federal revenue by $2.786 trillion over the next decade. For comparison, the Congressional Budget Office found that all itemized deductions will reduce federal revenue by only $1.3 trillion over the next decade.

The Obama administration, along with economists on both the left and right, saw some of these problems, and included the so-called “Cadillac Tax” as a revenue provision in the Affordable Care Act in 2009.

The Cadillac Tax would not have been a full solution to this problem. It only targeted the most expansive health insurance plans, so it would only have addressed the tax bias for a small percentage of employer-based plans. As the Wall Street Journal noted, only about twenty percent of workplaces provide health insurance plans valued above the Cadillac Tax threshold ($11,200   and $30,150 for individuals and families, respectively). And as the nonpartisan Tax Foundation argued, a simple cap on the value of health insurance that can be excluded would be a better way to reform the exclusion than imposing an excise tax.

However, for its faults, the Cadillac tax would have helped bring down a politically popular, yet economically foolhardy, tax break. As such, it’s unfortunate that Congress chose to repeal it without finding a different way to address the tax bias against normal compensation. Additionally, Congress repealed the tax without any corresponding revenue increases or spending cuts: axing the Cadillac tax costs the federal government $200 billion in revenue over the next decade.

× Follow us on Twitter.

Policymakers shouldn’t give up on fixing the tax treatment of employer-sponsored health insurance. Instead of just repealing the Cadillac Tax, they should further cap the exclusion, or in an ideal world, eliminate it entirely.

sidebar

sidebar-alt

If you liked this, you’ll love these

Peter Rabbit Travels the Country on Taxpayer Dollars

Read all about it Artboard 1

Obamacare Repeal and Replace, Explained

Read all about it Artboard 1

The Graham-Cassidy Proposal Won’t Pass, But Maybe It Should

Read all about it Artboard 1

Support Our Work

Federal agencies go largely unchecked, spending at will making use of inflated budgets. While some do very important work, we need to hold them accountable. You can do this by donating, emailing your legislator, or signing our petitions.

Donate Now

Sign Up for Pursuit Updates

Privacy Policy

Powered by the Foundation to Restore Accountability

Search
UNCOVER SOME GOVERNMENT WASTE?
share your opinion

Can you believe the US Government spends more money on it’s cable bill than on disaster relief?

NO! I’M FURIOUS! Eh, sounds right