[News] Texas wants to give tax breaks to companies that don't provide full health insurance

[Mr. X]

Texas may consider rewarding companies for violating a key Obamacare provision.

State Rep. Jonathan Stickland (R) introduced a bill in the Texas House of Representatives on Thursday that would give tax breaks to companies that don't cover emergency contraception such as the morning-after pill, the Austin American-Statesman reports. Under Obamacare, company health insurance plans are required to fully cover employees' contraception costs, and companies must pay a federal fine if they do not.

The Texas bill, if it becomes law, could help wipe out the financial disincentive for some companies to not cover emergency contraception. The state tax break would be up to the total amount that companies pay in state taxes or the total amount of the federal fine, according to the Austin American-Statesman.

Obamacare's contraception mandate has faced a number of court challenges. A federal judge ruled in November that Hobby Lobby must cover employees' contraception costs after the company filed a lawsuit requesting an exemption, claiming that the contraception mandate violated their religious freedom. Federal judges have dismissed several several similar lawsuits. The Supreme Court declined to block the contraception mandate in December.

Some companies' opposition to the contraception mandate may hurt their bottom line. Hobby Lobby's vocal opposition to covering contraception has spurred a backlash, with a petition to boycott the company garnering more than 70,000 signatures.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/0...n_2568596.html

It only covers contraceptives right now, but everything starts somwhere. How long before they get rewarded for denying other aspects of healthcare?

[Scarf]

We did the wrong thing by not putting down this contraception exclusion talk when it first surfaced. Like a bad weed it's grown too large and it going to be much harder to uproot. It is not a violation of someone's religious freedom for a company to provide health care that includes contraception. That is just ridiculous. And now this ridiculous notion is going to be another attempt to kill healthcare, or at least, as Mr. X said, take one more stab at it.

[Mr. X]

Originally Posted by Scarf

It is not a violation of someone's religious freedom for a company to provide health care that includes contraception.

I never understood why Republicans didn't get this point.

It's not a violation if the government requires them to include this. It's a violation if the government forces them to use it. As long as the government is only requiring them to give their employee's the option of contraceptives, and not forcing them to use them, then it's legal.

[Elendil]

So wait a minute, is this implying that whoever is not providing a basic right that federal law requires to be given, is to be exempt from receiving a certain percentage of taxation? Cause if it is, good lord does even considering the implications of this give me a headache. I mean this is a serious breaking point kind of thing.

[Livewire]

Giving tax breaks to companies that break the law. Just how low are we willing to go?

[TRIFORCE89]

I don't like it, because basically what Livewire said, but I understand it.

Since the supreme court said that Obamacare is technically a tax (I don't agree with that though), then it is a federal tax. And a state, perhaps to bring business there, would offer tax relief with which to remain competitive against other states. Like when states give the film industry tax breaks to film there.

That clearly isn't the actual rationale though.

I checked out Stickland's website and this is to apply only to religious companies (I guess this is a "companies are people" thing), but... is this needed then? Did something change that I missed? I thought Obama said religious companies were exempt anyway.

Hobby Lobby, who Stickland is trying "save", is supposedly looking at fines of over $1million a day. I really doubt (or hope, rather), that no matter how Republican-dominated Texas may be, that this wouldn't pass. There was a time when being a Republican meant being fiscally conservative, don't know what happened to those principles but dishing out millions of public dollars everyday to companies is certainly not prudent or sustainable

[Mr. X]

Originally Posted by TRIFORCE89

There was a time when being a Republican meant being fiscally conservative, don't know what happened to those principles but dishing out millions of public dollars everyday to companies is certainly not prudent or sustainable

The definition of being fiscally conservative, for Republicans, is "Take money from the people, even though they don't have money to spare, and give it to corporations, even though they have ever increasing profits."

Basically, they follow the trickle down theory - Which is, essentially, the belief that the poor, who must survive on table scraps, would be best served by giving the rich bigger meals.

[FreakyLocz14]

I am all for the Texas plan! We must encourage business growth, not hamper it.

[TRIFORCE89]

Originally Posted by FreakyLocz14

I am all for the Texas plan! We must encourage business growth, not hamper it.

Yes, but by bankrupting the state? Millions of dollars a day, for just one company alone. How would they be able to afford that?

I think a better (and cheaper) method would be some kind of state-side incentive (so, tax credit) to counter the federal corporate tax (I think there should be a tax, but like taxes for citizens it should be fair/smart. We live in a global economy and you should be competitive. Canada's federal corporate rate is 15%, for instance. The US is 35%) and bring business and investment to Texas, for example. But, Texas already doesn't have a state corporate tax, so I don't think you could make it much lower than it already is.

[Scarf]

Originally Posted by FreakyLocz14

I am all for the Texas plan! We must encourage business growth, not hamper it.

If a business wants to grow it shouldn't do something as dumb as trying to tell its workers what they should do with their health coverage. This would be businesses digging their own graves here. Can't go around saying they're being hampered when they're the ones hampering themselves.

[FreakyLocz14]

Originally Posted by TRIFORCE89

Yes, but by bankrupting the state? Millions of dollars a day, for just one company alone. How would they be able to afford that?

I think a better (and cheaper) method would be some kind of state-side incentive (so, tax credit) to counter the federal corporate tax (I think there should be a tax, but like taxes for citizens it should be fair/smart. We live in a global economy and you should be competitive. Canada's federal corporate rate is 15%, for instance. The US is 35%) and bring business and investment to Texas, for example. But, Texas already doesn't have a state corporate tax, so I don't think you could make it much lower than it already is.

A lot of businesses are moving to Texas because of their business-friendly laws. They generate revenue of revenue, and offsetting the Obamacare penalties will ensure that even more businesses will move to Texas.

Originally Posted by Scarf

If a business wants to grow it shouldn't do something as dumb as trying to tell its workers what they should do with their health coverage. This would be businesses digging their own graves here. Can't go around saying they're being hampered when they're the ones hampering themselves.

Except that Texas isn't doing anything of the sort. If employers chose to provide health insurance for their employees, then they can do so. What Texas is looking to do is offset the federal tax penalty that businesses will incur for not providing health insurance by giving them a state tax break.

[TRIFORCE89]

Originally Posted by FreakyLocz14

A lot of businesses are moving to Texas because of their business-friendly laws. They generate revenue plenty of revenue, and offsetting the Obamacare penalties will ensure that even more businesses will move to Texas.

Yes, but it's a temporary boom (however, short or long "temporary" may be). We're seeing that here in Canada. The province of Alberta is very much Texas culturally, politically, economically. They even have cowboy hats XD Very low taxation and lots of business investment. Oil dependent.

When they started this years ago, it was terrific.

But, it's catching up with them now. Despite reducing spending every year since starting on this path many years ago, it appears to no longer being prosperous. They're looking at increasing taxes in some form. Which is just unheard of there. They now need revenue.

So, in the long-run I think this would be bad for Texas.