• The Heritage Network
    • Resize:
    • A
    • A
    • A
  • Donate
  • Employment Discrimination in the Senate Health Care Bill

    The Senate health care bill includes a well-known “employer mandate” provision that would require employers to offer “qualified” health plan and pay 60% of the premium, or pay an annual tax penalty of $750 per full-time employee.

    What is less well-known is that the provision would also tax companies even if they do offer insurance – but only if they hire people from low- and moderate-income families who qualify for, and elect to accept, premium subsidies. And the tax penalty for hiring those employees – arguably the people who need jobs the most – would be a whopping $3000 per year.

    Who would qualify for such a subsidy?
    There are two criteria. First, family income – not how much this employee is paid by this company, but total family income – would have to below four times the federal poverty level (FPL). The FPL depends on family size; for 2009 four times the FPL would be $43,320 for a single adult with no children and $88,200 for a family of four (regardless of whether it’s a single parent with three children or two parents and two children).

    Second, the premium share to be paid by the employee would have to be more than 9.8% of family income. Note that in both cases, whether a company has to pay the $3,000 tax depends not on how much that company pays its employee, but on the total income of all the employee’s family members from all sources. (Normally employers don’t know the income of their employees’ family members, but the Senate bill calls for the IRS to tell employers which employees fall into this category on a monthly basis.)

    The combination of this tax penalty and the rules for determining who qualifies for premium subsidies would encourage companies to engage in some new and repulsive forms of employment discrimination. Here are some examples.

    The Single Parent vs. The “Second Income”
    Suppose an employer is faced with two applicants for the same job at the same pay: a single parent of three children, and a married parent with two children and a working spouse. In this case, the “4 times FPL” threshold is the same for both applicants, since they both have the same family size. However, once hired, the applicant with the working spouse will have a higher family income, so the single parents is more likely to qualify for a premium subsidy – which means the company is more like to face a $3,000 penalty if they hire the single parent. This means, of course, that they are more likely to hire the applicant with the working spouse.

    The Teenager vs. The Adult
    Now suppose company has an entry-level job, and the two applicants are a teenager and an adult. Suppose the teenager has one or two working parents, and is still a dependent on their tax return. In this case, the teenager may have a larger family size (unless the adult has children), but most likely has a much higher family income. The teenager may be covered under a parent’s health plan, but even if not, the teenager’s “family income” includes the parents’ income. The teenager is not likely to generate a $3,000 tax penalty for the employer, but the adult is – especially if the adult has children to support. So the employer’s incentive is clearly to hire the teenager rather than the adult – especially if the adult is a single parent.

    The Illegal Alien vs. the Legal Resident
    The bill contains provisions that bar illegal aliens from receiving premium subsidies. Putting aside the controversy over whether those provisions would be enforceable in practice, let’s take them at face value and assume that an employer faces two applicants, one of whom is an illegal alien and the other of whom is a U.S. citizen or legal resident alien. Of course, the employer is not supposed to hire the illegal alien in the first place, but the presence of millions of employed illegal aliens means we already know that this is not effectively enforced. However, if one must prove legal residents to receive a premium subsidy, the illegal alien is not likely to apply, much less receive, the subsidy. If there is no subsidy, there is no $3,000 tax penalty for the employer. If the job is low-paying and any (legal resident) employee likely to qualify for a subsidy, the employer’s incentive is to hire the illegal alien, rather than pay a $3,000 tax penalty for hiring a U.S. citizen or legal immigrant.

    The Double Layoff
    Suppose an employee has a working spouse, and their combined income is high enough for their family size that they don’t get a subsidy and don’t generate a $3,000 penalty for each employer. Then, suppose one spouse loses his or her job and with it the family’s health insurance – and the other spouse’s income is, by itself, low enough to qualify the family for a subsidy. In that case, the IRS will notify the other spouse’s employer that they now have a subsidize employee and they have to start paying the $3,000-a-year tax (monthly, at the rate of $250 per month). This sudden increase in employment cost will encourage the other spouse’s employer to lay off the second spouse as well, leaving both of them unemployed. The only way for the couple to avoid this outcome would be to go without insurance – but that would require them to pay an individual tax penalty of $1500 a year for both of them going uninsured (more if they have children, up to a maximum of $2250 per year) – and with one less job, they’d have less money available to pay the penalty.

    The Marriage Penalty
    In 2009 four times the FPL would be $43,320 for a single adult with no children, and $58,280 for a family of two. Consider a couple with no children, each earning $30,000 a year. If they marry, their income will exceed four times the FPL; they will not be eligible for a subsidy and will have to pay the full cost of health insurance, which could be over $10,000 for two single policies or over $13,000 for a family policy. On the other hand, if the “live in sin,” they would both be eligible for subsidies, and would be required to pay a maximum of 5.8% if their income for health insurance. This amounts to $3470 for the two of them. In other words, marriage cost them a health insurance penalty of over $6500 per year.

    Posted in Obamacare [slideshow_deploy]

    7 Responses to Employment Discrimination in the Senate Health Care Bill

    1. Bobbie Jay says:

      Seems the intelligence of the intelligent are out numbered by the intelligence of STUPID!

    2. Roger S., Ma. says:

      All of these schemes need to go. They always end with being discriminatory of somebody. They can't be any other way. There is no way to straighten out a basically screwed up and unjust system by increasing its "screwiness" and injustice. That is simply both, a metaphysical and a real fact! (Reality NEVER permits contradictions to work.)

    3. DavidE says:

      The healthcare plan mirrors the income tax provisions such as earned income credit and the childcare credit that penalize marriage.

      The biggest problem with the Congressional proposal that is not a problem in a VAT funded healthcare system is that the Congressional plan encourages the development of creative ways of obtaining subsidies.

      Here are some clear problems with the subsidy portion of the plan:

      (1) Divorce decrees often require the father to cover his child with health insurance. If the mother qualifies for large subsidies from the government and the father doesn't, then it makes sense for the mother just to ask for more child support and have the government pick up the health insurance tab for that child.

      (2) If two unmarried parents are living together without being married, the parent who qualifies for subsidies rather than the parent who doesn't qualify for subsidies is likely to be the parent who puts the child on his or her health insurance plan.

      (3) Asset rich individuals with low AGI qualify for subsidies under the plan. Graduate students over 23 from wealthy families presumably qualify. Conceivably, Paris Hilton could qualify in a year when her investment income was low.

      (4) A huge incentive would be created for self-employed individuals to underreport their income more than they do currently. The less income you report, the more you are subsidized.

      (5)Isn't there a huge incentive for someone to work "under the table" under this system? And, for employers to pay people under the table? And, how does this subsidy provision affect the real marginal tax rate when you consider other provisions such as the earned income credit?

    4. Stirling, Huntingdon says:

      OMG, What the..? I'm starting to feel like I live in Canada, China, Britian, France, Germany, etc. I'm going to need a CPA, and full time lawer if all of these bills pass and are signed into law just to understand if I can "pass wind" without being taxed for it. Speaking of "wind" I'm sure if we as a nation are shackeled to this government prison sentence of rules and regulation that there is going to be loads of "blowback." this is America and we deserve better then what the rest of the world just settles for. We Expect success, not leftovers from someone elses meal.

    5. Allen Quist, St. Pte says:

      This is a good article, but we need to realize that the marriage penalty is actually much worse than this. Because this hypothetical couple will not only have subsidized insurance, but will also be under premium caps imposed by law, and depending on whether we are looking at the House bill or the Senate bill, their actual combined insurance cost will be in the range of $1300 per year–creating an actual marriage penalty of over $10,000. per year.

    6. Terry Pratt, Portlan says:

      Looks like Democrats are throwing low-wage workers under the bus.

      What will they do or say when these workers scream bloody murder?

    7. Pingback: USA Today Ignores Obamacare Created Employment Discrimination | National Review Institute Blog

    Comments are subject to approval and moderation. We remind everyone that The Heritage Foundation promotes a civil society where ideas and debate flourish. Please be respectful of each other and the subjects of any criticism. While we may not always agree on policy, we should all agree that being appropriately informed is everyone's intention visiting this site. Profanity, lewdness, personal attacks, and other forms of incivility will not be tolerated. Please keep your thoughts brief and avoid ALL CAPS. While we respect your first amendment rights, we are obligated to our readers to maintain these standards. Thanks for joining the conversation.

    Big Government Is NOT the Answer

    Your tax dollars are being spent on programs that we really don't need.

    I Agree I Disagree ×

    Get Heritage In Your Inbox — FREE!

    Heritage Foundation e-mails keep you updated on the ongoing policy battles in Washington and around the country.

    ×