Discussion:The reason for unions

From TaxAlmanac, A Free Online Resource
Note: You are using this website at your own risk, subject to our Disclaimer and Website Use and Contribution Terms.

From TaxAlmanac

Jump to: navigation, search

Discussion Forum Index --> Basic Tax Questions --> The reason for unions
Discussion Forum Index --> Tax Questions --> The reason for unions

Actionbsns (talk|edits) said:

26 January 2008
We just opened my husband's W-2 last night and it is substantially less than the gross wages shown on his last pay stub for 2007. I've reviewed it and what this company is doing is making health insurance a pre-tax benefit. It helps them enormously because it decreases their payroll tax expenses. But, when an employee goes for a loan, unemployment, workers comp, TDI, or any other reason he/she might want to prove income, the lower amount is what would be reported via the W-2. Once any form of social benefit would be in place, that employee still has to pay for health insurance from a benefit that is reduced by this type of payroll reporting. I don't prepare payrolls like this and I know there are some benefits that are pre-tax, but this is the basic, dependent health insurance. Can they legally do this? And I've been thinking for a long time now that unions had outlived there usefulness. I'm beginning to re-think that.

Jctmstx (talk|edits) said:

26 January 2008
Yes, but his W-2 still shows the higher wages in box #3 and #5, as well as the state wages. The big benefit is it reduces his income subject to federal tax.

Death&Taxes (talk|edits) said:

26 January 2008
This has become so standard today; you are paying for your health insurance but with before tax dollars, meaning that if you are in a 25% tax bracket, $8,000 of health insurance costs $6,000.

More than likely 10-15 years ago, the employer paid the health insurance but then began to make employees contribute, but to help this medicine go down, they created the before tax plan. Employer pensions were replaced with 401Ks (which became 201Ks when the market fell in 2000-2002) and benefits such as insurance went the way of the dodo.

Bottom Line (talk|edits) said:

26 January 2008
Did anything show up in box 12 or 14?

The advantage with having this paid with pre-tax dollars is that the cost is reduced by whatever tax bracket you're in thus keeping more dollars in your pocket. AND your husband's lucky his company is still even offering dependent health insurance even if you have to pay for it. My husband's a fireman (yes-there's a union). He's grandfathered so he has the ability to get health insurance for me which we pay for. It's not even offered for the new kids that are being hired now. The only benefit that he gets from the union is that they are nice enough to take $500 a year (after-tax) from him. If the local has a grievance, they have to do a special assessment to pay the national fire union to "review" it. Then if the national thinks there's a case, there's another assessment. (Do unions drive me nuts? YES)

Kevinh5 (talk|edits) said:

26 January 2008
Norma Rae for Susie

Bottom Line (talk|edits) said:

26 January 2008
Unfortunately I don't have speakers on this computer Image:sad.jpg

My laptop died for the fourth time and Best Buy is sending me a new one but it won't be in until Wed or Thurs.

Actionbsns (talk|edits) said:

26 January 2008
JC - nope all boxes are the same lesser amount and no notation in box 12 or 14. In addition, I will be willing to bet that most of these employees are deducting the dependent health insurance on schedule A, when it's already been deducted from the wage on the W-2.

Bottom Line (talk|edits) said:

26 January 2008
If they're not paying FICA on this, sounds like they're doing it wrong. But your husband's also not paying the FICA on it thus saving him 7.65% plus the income tax.

Yes the others are probably claiming the health insurance but you know better Image:wink.jpg And they'd have to have some pretty hefty expenses to be able to take medical.

Fsteincpa (talk|edits) said:

26 January 2008
Neither the employee or the employer pay FICA on the pretax deductions for health insurance. They should not show up anywhere on the W-2. If the W-2 is prepared by a payroll processing company, they will often show true wages, less deductions on a summary sheet.

also, your weekly paystubs should reflect true wages and then the reduced taxable wages. As an employee, you are not required to have this deducted pre-tax. You may request that they withhold this amount after tax, thus giving you higher W-2 wages and higher social security wages as well. some older folks sometimes opt out of pre-tax scenarios in an attempt to up their SS benefits. I have never done an analysis of benefits gained or lost due to pre-tax deductions, but would be interested to know the breakeven point.

Death&Taxes (talk|edits) said:

26 January 2008
Go to Publication 15-B and you may find Accident & Health Benefits under certain plans are not taxable for FICA. In fact I find this often happens when clients claim health insurance for Sch A.....ADP & Paychex W-2 forms usually break this out, and also for clients in Philadelphia, I believe the City taxes this.

Death&Taxes (talk|edits) said:

26 January 2008
Fstein posted while I was reading my Publication 15......

Fsteincpa (talk|edits) said:

26 January 2008
lol. That's cause I don't read.

Bottom Line (talk|edits) said:

26 January 2008
I stand corrected.

RJM (talk|edits) said:

26 January 2008
My understanding is that for a S125 premium-only plan, mandatory participation is at the option of the employer. But the employer is also required to notify employees that such a plan is being implemented. So your husband probably received some notice of this change way back when it was implemented.

Fsteincpa (talk|edits) said:

27 January 2008
Putting the plan in place is entirely at the employers discretion. If the employee has any sort of contribution towards health insurance, it is a no brainer that at least a POP <premium only plan> be implemented. Costs only a few hundred dollars to implement, no real filing requirements to worry about and everybody saves. In NY, employee saves almost 28% when they are in the 15% tax bracket. It's almost criminal to not have one. They have been around forever and banks know and understand these when giving loans. It usually doesn't make sense to opt out. the only reason would be for the purpose of increasing your SS payments at retirement and I am not so sure the opting out is worth the increase that might be received.

If employees have day care expenses and a lot of co-pays, the savings can be even greater. but there are more filing requirements when instituting these aspects.

Actionbsns (talk|edits) said:

27 January 2008
I need to read the S125 premium only plan requirements. That sounds like something other than regular group health insurance, but I'm not sure. What we have here is the long provided type of health insurance - two choices, Kaiser or HMSA (BlueCross/Blue Shield), 80/20 with deductibles and co-pays. Maybe it doesn't matter because in Pub 15-B the first entry on their grid is Accident and Health Benefits. I just thought of that type of insurance as the ancilary stuff employers provide like AD&D, Catastrophic Illness, and others like that, not Group Insurance, which is the term I'm used to seeing for this type of benefit. Anyway when we go for our permanent loan on our new house, I'm going to be sure the check stubs are provided because the income is so very different than the W-2.

CrowJD (talk|edits) said:

27 January 2008
So medical is truly a tax free fringe benefit: no SS or Medicare, or income tax withholding? But with the 401(k), it's salary reduction but still Medicare & SS?

Actionbsns (talk|edits) said:

27 January 2008
I just read S125, and it deals with Cafeteria Plans. It defines a cafeteria plan as one in which all participants are employees (they are, the organization is an S Corp) and there are two or more benefits. "The benefits which may be chosen may be nontaxable benefits, or cash, property, or other taxable benefits" (Sec.125(d)(1) amended). BTW: This is the same type of group health insurance that has been giving us grief for 2% S Corp owners. The only choices are the two different carriers, add a dependent or don't add a dependent, that's about it. The one thing that they may be hanging their hat on to qualify as a Cafeteria Plan deals with the cash issue. Hawaii requires businesses to provide health insurance to any employee who works in excess of 20 hours per week. If you opt out of the plan because your spouse has coverage or for any other reason, I believe they will still give you the cash equivalent of your premium cost to offset your costs elsewhere. Not sure on that, but the formula they use is to subtract the premium for us ($330 per paycheck) from the gross, and add back the value of the employee's premium. Paycheck is then calculated on the remaining amount. So it's the dependent coverage that is the non-taxable benefit. I'm still thinking this is weird.

Natalie (talk|edits) said:

January 28, 2008
Action, your last sentence bothers me. What, exactly, do you mean by "and add back the value of the employee's premium"? First of all, it sounds like your husband's employer has a POP plan in place as Fred suggested. Second, as you mentioned, the employer is required to provide health insurance for all employees who work > 20 hours per week for four weeks in a row. The employer may deduct only 1.5% of the weekly gross wages from the employee to cover this part of the insurance. Coverage on spouses and other dependents is optional, and the employer may withhold the full premium for this portion from the employee. Now, when a Sec. 125 plan is in place, even if it is only a POP, all portions of the health insurance that are deducted from the employee are covered under the plan. So, if the employer withholds the 1.5% and the dependent portion, then that is the amount that should be pre-tax. (Pre-tax means before FICA/medicare and state and federal income taxes.) As someone (was it Fred again?) noted, this really is a no-brainer plan, and I recommend it for ALL of my clients who have 10 or more employees.


Third, I don't think an employee has the option to participate in the plan. Even if the employee had the option, how would he/she convince the employer to let him/her opt out? That would cost the employer more in payroll taxes.


Crow, yes FICA/medicare is still paid on the gross when 401(k) deductions are involved. The tax benefit there is on the income tax side.


Fred, I would make one slight correction to your first post. You stated that the pre-tax health insurance should not show up on the W2. I suggest to my clients that they put the amount in Box 14. That way anyone can calculate the true gross pay the employee receives.

To join in on this discussion, you must first log in.
Personal tools

Discussion Forums