So, I had this Idea

I’m going to form a union (if the “union exemption” for taxes on healthcare gets passed). Some features of my new union:

  1. The dues will amount to the price of your employer’s healthcare, which we will pay for on their behalf … but get that nice loophole thing.
  2. Management is welcome to join.
  3. We will not take up any wage/workplace or other similar issues.
  4. We will not collectively bargain with management, our truck is not with them, but with regulatory burdens.
  5. Will will take full advantage of government tax shelters and perks for unions. 
  6. We will dissolve immediately when it is no longer advantageous to exist.

Seems like these simple steps will set the course in motion. Whaddya think? We have Blue Dog dems, RINOs (DINOs?) why not tea party unions.

Are there other perks and benefits to unionising that I don’t know about? I’ve spent so many years despising unions that I hadn’t realized all those reprehensible government perks to buy votes can and should be subverted and used by the rest of us.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


  1. Boonton says:

    Since employer provided health coverage is already exempt from income tax what would the be the purpose of this ‘union’? Do you currently enjoy a high end plan?

  2. Boonton says:

    This combined with your ‘cash for clunkers’ scheme merits you for a nomination for the new Bottle Deposit Award. It’s given for coming up with convoluted get rich quick schemes that are highly unlikely to generate much money for the amount of work involved. This new Award is named after The Bottle Deposit Episode of Seinfield where they try to make a killing buying bottles from homeless people in NYC and then turning them in in Maine where the deposit is $0.10 instead of $0.05

  3. Mark says:

    Uhm, then what is the point of giving the unions a tax break for “two years” as touted by the recent “agreement” between the WH negotiators and the unions? Why didn’t someone like you just inform them that their health coverage won’t be taxed.

    I’ll tell you why, the point was that their health plans, like most … and likely yours, will be taxed now to pay for the health care expansion.

    Or perhaps there was another point. You can let me know that that was. Why is this tax break in the news?

  4. Boonton says:

    From the radio this morning the health care plan would have to be the result of collective bargaining to avoid taxation for two years. The cost of the plans impacted, though, are $24,000 a year or more. That would mean your scheme is highly unlikely to work as your employer no doubt will inform you that they are just as happy giving you a $12K a year plan or less with no taxes and they aren’t doubling that unless you’re willing to take a pay cut….at which time you may want to rethink your unions stance on taking no stances on workplace issues.

    Why the deal? Because unions do negotiate plans of $24K or more and the tax will impact them.

  5. Mark says:

    Why don’t you think my company has a good healthcare plan? As the news noted, “more and more plans” are impacted by this cap. Do you know the value/cost of your companies healthcare plan?

  6. Boonton says:

    Yes and it is less than $2K per month for an individual. I didn’t say your company has a bad plan, I’d guess its probably ok. Union plans tend to be excessive and that probably does drive health care costs. so taxing the top end plans as is a good idea IMO. Politically, though, it’s a tough sell.

  7. Mark says:

    “Top end plans” when provided by unions will not be taxed. You don’t find that problematic?

  8. Boonton says:

    I’d rather see it done in two years than not at all….as would seem to be the choice we are facing.

  9. Boonton is spinning like a top.

    I think that most liberals are quite disgusted with this deal, just as they were with what Sen Ben Nelson did. Why should unions get an exemption? It’s ridiculous.

    So much for Obama bringing a “new kind of politics” to town. It’s the same old deal making.

  10. Boonton says:

    Unfortunately since Republicans decided they were going to put politics over what was best for the country they made each and every Democrat a king in this process. This is what happens when you have a disloyal opposition.

    On balance I’m not offended by ‘deals’. We live in a Democracy and that is part of politics. If you think ‘real change’ cannot happen unless ‘deals’ are abolished then you are either very ignorant of the last few centuries of history or you are pining for some system other than Democracy. Perhaps something like Putin’s Russia where one party owns all the major TV stations and opposition figures seem to have a high propensity for getting into car accidents or getting arrested for tax evasion. On balance the bill is pretty good, esp. since its critics seem unable to articulate coherently what is wrong with it. Try to think beyond the next election cycle and over the next decade or two….a two year exemption becomes a blip in the big scheme of things.

  11. Mark says:

    So … then why criticize the notion of others crashing the deal?

  12. Mark says:

    And the tax break was for $8,900 individual policies getting the break not $24k (the $24k figure was for family coverage). There other breaks for elderly coverage for unions as well.

  13. Boonton says:

    Actually my criticism is of Republicans not making a deal thereby making any and every single Democrat a mini-King able to demand the most trivial of ‘sweetners’. If Republicans were not committed to 100% obstruction and 100% partisanship at all costs you could have had a slightly better bill.

    I agree on the $23K-$24K. That was for family coverage not individual. The other break is for plans who have a large portion of elderly in their insurance pool. Naturally they will experience higher costs and have higher premiums even if they aren’t exceptionally generous in their benefits so the break in that area makes much more sense.

  14. Mark says:

    Yes, but that means your $2k/month plan would benefit from a union escape clause to avoid taxes. It’s not just the “union cadillac” plans.

  15. Boonton says:

    Are you saying Union plans are not ‘cadillac plans’? If not then why all the union bashing back when the bailiouts of the automakers were being discussed? I thought the your guys had your Fox News marching orders saying the automakers failed because union’s had demanded excessive benefits?

    Or are you saying the plans are ‘cadillac plans’ and therefore should be taxed right now rather than two years from now? If that’s the case then a handful of Republicans could certainly make that happen by offering to support the bill in exchange for ditching the Union benefit. The majority of the GOP could still vote against the bill.

    Or are you going to refuse to commit to any particular stance so you can attack the bill from multiple, contradictory angles (“taxing plans is wrong”, “union plans should be taxed immediately”)?