Little-Known Project 2025 Policy Would Tax Benefits for More Than 15 Million Workers | Common Dreams
www.commondreams.org
"Organized conservative constituencies for the corporate class got everything they wanted in the first Trump administration," wrote one economist. "There's no reason to expect this time to be different."

Project 2025, the right-wing policy blueprint spearheaded by the Heritage Foundation and co-authored by more than 100 former Trump administration staffers, has been denounced for several of its tax proposals, including slashing the corporate tax rate and the capital gains tax to benefit wealthy Americans—but a research group on Wednesday warned that one economic policy that hasn’t gotten much attention could “greatly increase” financial hardships for millions of working families.

EPI Action, a nonpartisan research and advocacy organization affiliated with the Economic Policy Institute, published an analysis of a proposal that appears on page 7 of Project 2025’s section on the Treasury Department—whose authors include at least two people who served on Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump’s campaign and transition team for his term in office.

The proposal calls to tax employers on workplace benefits that exceed $12,000 per worker annually—which would undoubtedly “lead to employers cutting back on these benefits,” wrote Josh Bivens, chief economist for EPI Action.

Based on health insurance benefits that are provided to more than 150 million Americans through their employers, Bivens found, more than 15 million workers would see their benefits taxed under the Project 2025 plan.

Those workers would collectively pay over $12 billion more in taxes if their employers shifted away from providing benefits as a cost-cutting measure.

  • dhork@lemmy.worldEnglish
    69·
    3 months ago

    The proposal calls to tax employers on workplace benefits that exceed $12,000 per worker annually—which would undoubtedly “lead to employers cutting back on these benefits,” wrote Josh Bivens, chief economist for EPI Action.

    Funny how even the Heritage Foundation would advocate for a tax increase (on their corporate masters, even!), as long as the end result is screwing over the rest of us.

  • Optional@lemmy.world
    23·
    3 months ago

    Do you know that Trump spent many hours in front of the mirror, working on his “Clint Eastwood” face? Y’know the sort of squinty, vaguely threatening one he does a lot as a gun-toting rebel authority?

    That’s not conjecture, it’s been reported by people in his orbit in the 90s. Yeah he uses it like on his mug shot - that’s him doing it extra hard cause he’s so tough or whatever.

    Anyway, the picture in this article is not that face. This is his “punchable” face. He just has it. Didn’t need to practice it.

    • ThePowerOfGeek@lemmy.worldEnglish
      17·
      3 months ago

      I think it’s even more malicious than that.

      As is so often said around here, “the cruelty is the point.” Fleecing the working and middle class is definitely a huge goal, probably the main goal. But they want to do it in a way that demoralizes the average American. The backers of Project 2025 want to break the spirit of the majority of Americans so we are more subservient, to both their continued fleecing and to their oppressive authority. And the best way to do that is to install division and self-hatred, and take away our voice.

  • Aviandelight @mander.xyz
    11·
    3 months ago

    These people are so fucking stupid and greedy. They are so busy chasing ways to steal more money that they haven’t even thought out all the possible outcomes of their actions. They want to gut employee sponsored healthcare by removing tax benefits that companies enjoy by providing healthcare all while taxing the average person for paying for healthcare. But unless they can do away with ACA people will just start moving to public options. I mean why stick with the shitty plan your company provides if you’re just going to get taxed on it all anyways. So the working people get screwed and companies will lose the largest bit of leverage they have over employees. Sounds like a winning plan to me! (/s)

    • chakan2@lemmy.worldEnglish
      7·
      3 months ago

      If you get stuck with a public option, but are over the income threshold, you will be much more reliant on being employed.

      They are devastatingly expensive. The plan I’m on is more than all my other bills combined including my mortgage.

      • Aviandelight @mander.xyz
        6·
        3 months ago

        I believe it. I looked into it this past year because the company I currently work for has mediocre health insurance. I honestly don’t know how anyone can afford any of the current public options. In theory these options should be better but in practice they’re just as rigged as everything else.

        • chakan2@lemmy.worldEnglish
          2·
          3 months ago

          Honestly, it’s a blemish on Obama’s legacy. It’s not sustainable. We need Universal Healthcare or Single Payer.

          The ACA is just dragging out the vampism of big health.