How my married colleagues cash in on health care

My employer, like many, subsidizes health insurance for full-time employees. The company pays 85% of the cost, leaving each of us to pay 15%. In my case, that amounts to about $8,000 a year that the company pays so that I am more financially secure. Very generous. Thank you.

But in the case of my married colleagues, the company comes up with twice that. Not because they contribute any more or have more valuable skills. Only because they are married and want their spouses (and in some cases, their children) to come along for the ride. 

MARRIED?  LET US PAY YOU MORE!

The financial security of my married colleagues in the plan is subsidized to the tune of $15,000 a year; those with children receive a subsidy of more than $22,000 a year. That's a lot of extra security accorded to some, denied others.

To balance the equation, my company could provide single employees with an equivalent benefit--say a contribution to a 403b account (one potential advantage of working for a non-profit) that is equal to the "excess" subsidy. 

Or, the company could make coverage for an employee's spouse or child/ren available but let the employee pay their way.  All possible, all proposed, all denied.

Yes, I tried to convince my employer how patently unfair this practice is for single employees. No matter how widespread or entrenched, investing more in married employees is simply unjust, I argued. 

My well-supported proposal for any one of several equitable plans needed due-diligence review by the higher-ups. Fair enough. 

Eight moths later, yes, all my calculations were correct. Yes, my alternative plans were feasible. But they were all deep-sixed on the basis that any change would be unfair to married staff. 

What the...?

We have a new CEO on the way soon and I plan to re-make my case later in the year. I'll let you know how it goes. 

WHERE'S MY REBIRTH OF WONDER?

In the meantime, as I have been when I first read Lawrence Ferlinghetti's awesome "Coney Island, I remain "perpetually awaiting a rebirth of wonder." You can listen to "Coney Island" read by A.M. Homes, courtesy of PEN.

Why employers should be nervous about tax reform

If Representative Paul Ryan (R-WIS), chairman of the House Budget Committee, is able to sell his approach to tax reform, the dirty little secret about employer-subsidized health care will soon be out of the closet. And single employees will be very unhappy.

HEALTH CARE SUBSIDIES MAY BE TAXED...

Ryan's tax reform plan, deftly reported by Floyd Norris in the March 23, 2012 New York Times, calls for the elimination of any number of what he terms tax preferences: income that is excluded from income under current tax law. According to a nifty chart that Mr. Norris provides and credits to the Joint Committee on Taxation, employer contributions for health insurance is the biggest of these preferences, worth $147.8 billion in untaxed income--about twice the value of Medicare benefits. 

WHY THE MARRIAGE WINDFALL?

If you've never had to foot the bill for your health insurance--or your employees' health insurance--you likely have little awareness of just how much money we're talking about even at the household level. And what employers pay at the household level is the dirty little secret few employees are aware of. 

In a nutshell. married employees get a double dose of ancillary financial security on top of regular wages, just for showing up with a spouse. And it's more than just a few bucks.

I'll tell you how it works at my company in my next post.