1985-06 June IBEW Journal.pdf - International Brotherhood of ...

EDITORIAL
COMMENT
Taxing Life
Support Benefits
Should Not Be A
Pa rt of Tax Reform
Last year during the Presidential
election campaign when the candidates
of the two major polincal
parties, President Ronald W. Reagan
and former Vice PresJdent
Walter F. Mondale, were campaigning
hard to win the hi ghest
political office in the land, both
candidates were naturally espousing
their individual attributes and
campaign promises to the American
public all across the nation.
Both candidates agreed, while rusading
on radio or TV and in press
interviews, that something had to
be done to lowerthefederal budget
deficit. However, each ca ndidate
had a different approach on tbe
Same issue of income taxes in
regard to helping lower the defiCit.
Walter Mondale told the citizenS
he was going to raise their
taxes to help lower the deficit.
President Reagan, on the other
hand, emphatically said, "] wlll
not raise your taxes" and made it
a major campaign slogan. However,
President Reagan should have
included the word direcLly in that
statement; and he also should have
made it clear which pan of our
society he wa referring to. Wa ltcr
Mondale, no doubt, meant every·
body because in his statements he
was alway referring to fairness
and cquality. II appears that Presldent
Reagan meant only the
wealthy and the corporate sector
in reference to his statement. This
is evidenced by President Reagan's
and his Admirusuation's proposals
to Congress on lowering
the budget deficit.
Under the gUI e of a so-called
"tax-simplification" pJan, the
Reaga n Admilli tration has taken
a course of action in its attempt
to red uce the budget deficit that
would increase the tax burden of
working Americans. Part of the
scheme to reduce the deficit is to
tax cmplnyce hcncfi ts as income,
which would cost ,'lorkers who
have these protections higher federal
taxes each year; and since
many Slates follow federal tax laws,
workers would pay an additional
higher state tax. The 10 s 01 taxfavored
status for employees' benefi
rs hould nOt be included in or
be justified by ngress as pan of
a tax revenue-raising plan. The
employer-paid benefits were legislated
as a preferential tax treatmen<
as needed prutectitJll for
workers and their families for income
security. These health and
insurance protections were gained
for workers by ha rd-Iougb t labormanagement
relations. Worker
sacrificed higher w3ges and payrelated
job conditions in settlements
with their employers that
enabled them to have li fe SlippOrt
benefits.
Taxing employer-paid We sup­
POrt benefit would lead to the
loss of group life and health insurance.
It would lead to cutting
out preventive ca re, prescription
drugs, denial Care and vision carc.
[t would also mean the loss of
education aSSistance, pre-legal
coverage and would cause undue
hardships by the loss of workers'
unemployment insurance and
wurkers' CUUlpeUSilllO.D. By l axing
benefits, the direct or indirect COSts
would encourage companies to cut
all benefits; and workers would
not be provided wlth baslc health
and economic security at the mOSt
efficient possible cost. 1.£ Congress
taxes workers' collectively bargai
ned life support programs as
income, that would put wo rkers
un a higilci income bracket Without
a hJgher income; and therefore,
workers would pay morc ta.~es
and havc les take home pay and
a lot less health protection fo r
themselves and thei.r families.
ongress is now wre tling wi th
ways and means to lower the fed ­
era l budget. As with rna tissues
before Congress, the toxi ng of employee
benefits will most likely
appear as part of a package, either
as part of a budget bill or a tax­
Simplification bH I. Write to your
Representative or Se nator and let
them know that you are opposed
to taxing employees' fringe benefit
programs as part of a. trade-off 01
an overall reduction in taxes or
lowering the budget defi ci t. By
acting now and adding their voice,
union membcrs can help t ward
the effort of preven ting taxing of
benefits which would mean that
mill ions and millions 01 workers
would lose income and health security
in the long n lll. America
needs tax reform, but it is not fair
to try to balance the budget deficit
by penalizing needed bcalth pTOtections
of the workingpcoplc and
thClf fami He .
Charles H. Pillard
International President