In summary, the ACA has three major taxes in it. Two are taxes on full-time employment and the other is a tax on income. They may be implicit, they may be hidden, politicians may not call them taxes, but that’s what they are. Their economic impact on workers varies widely, affecting low-skill workers the most. They create all kinds of productivity problems and will have visible and permanent effects on the economy. I have estimated that employment will be three percent less over the long term because of the ACA, and that national income—or GDP, if you like to think of it that way—will be two percent less. If you look at the productivity costs alone—forgetting the fact that there will be a number of people not working anymore—they come to $6,000 per person who gets health insurance because of the law. And I’m not beginning to count the payments needed for health care providers.
Pointer from Don Boudreaux.
Looking at one side of the equation is the equivalent of not looking at it at all.
Tell that to those who sold this clunker based solely on the other side of the equation. I think Mulligan has finally balanced the discussion…too late.
Thought that said Carey Mulligan at first. I was like whaaat?
Brilliant piece by Mr Mulligan, thanks for posting it.
However it does make me wonder how nations like Germany have very vigorous economies despite very large health care taxes. In Germany every employer must pay in about 7^ of payroll and every employee must pay the same. There are virtually no exemptions for small firms, low wage firms, et al.
Could the answer be that the German taxes have been in place since World War II at least, whereas in America they would be new disruptive taxes?
What say, Arnold?