Kirkland Is Deliberately Vague on Overhaul Plan As AFL-CIO Splits Over Proposal to Tax Benefits

Mr. Brock looked over a statement by Mr. Kirkland that embraced the thrust of the president's plan, vaguely criticized some features and didn't mention whether the labor leader opposed the proposal to tax a portion of insurance premiums paid by employers for 62 million workers with health...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published inThe Wall Street journal. Eastern edition
Main Author By Cathy Trost and Leonard M. Apcar
Format Newspaper Article
LanguageEnglish
Published New York, N.Y Dow Jones & Company Inc 13.06.1985
EditionEastern edition
Subjects
Clothing industry
Congressional committees
Employee benefits
Employers
Insurance premiums
Presidents
Social security taxes
Tax rates
Taxation
Workers
Online AccessGet full text

Cover

More Information
Summary:Mr. Brock looked over a statement by Mr. Kirkland that embraced the thrust of the president's plan, vaguely criticized some features and didn't mention whether the labor leader opposed the proposal to tax a portion of insurance premiums paid by employers for 62 million workers with health benefits. At a hearing of the House Ways and Means Committee yesterday, Mr. Kirkland responded to questions about whether he preferred the Treasury's original plan to tax employee benefits, which would hit industrial unions hardest, or the latest plan, which hurts lower-paid workers more, by saying: "It's a choice between something awful and something very bad. We do not believe benefits should be taxed." Mr. Reagan's plan would tax as employee income the first $10 a month an employer pays for individual employee health-insurance premiums, or the first $25 a month paid for family benefits. That means that auto and steelworkers, whose benefit plans can cost employers between $250 and $300 a month, would pay the same amount in tax as a worker in the apparel industry whose insurance premiums can amount to as little as $50 a month.
ISSN:0099-9660