Discussion:The reason for unions
From TaxAlmanac
| Revision as of 20:01, 26 January 2008 Bottom Line (Talk | contribs) (I stand correcte) ← Previous diff |
Revision as of 20:11, 26 January 2008 RJM (Talk | contribs) (My understanding) Next diff → |
||
| Line 39: | Line 39: | ||
| {{ForumReplyPost|UserID=Bottom Line|Date=26 January 2008|Text=I stand corrected.}} | {{ForumReplyPost|UserID=Bottom Line|Date=26 January 2008|Text=I stand corrected.}} | ||
| + | |||
| + | {{ForumReplyPost|UserID=RJM|Date=26 January 2008|Text=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.}} | ||
Revision as of 20:11, 26 January 2008
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. | |
| 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) | |
Bottom Line (talk|edits) said: | 26 January 2008 |
| Unfortunately I don't have speakers on this computer 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 | |
| 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...... | |
Bottom Line (talk|edits) said: | 26 January 2008 |
| I stand corrected. | |
| 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. | |


