Casey Mulligan on the ACA and Employment

Some highlights:

the ACA’s [Obamacare] generous assistance to part-time workers for health insurance premiums and out-of-pocket expenses offsets much of the income they forgo by working fewer hours. The lack of this insurance assistance for full-time workers amounts to a tax on full-time work.

…For 20 percent of the labor force—some 33 million workers—their family’s eligibility for exchange subsidies hinges entirely on their employment status. In any month they work part time or not at all, they can obtain subsidized coverage; in any month they work full time, they do not qualify for these subsidies. Members of this group would, on average, have to work an additional 5.5 hours per week to make up for the subsidies they forgo by working full time.

Because of the penalty on employers who do not offer health insurance, 5 percent of the workforce faces a new implicit income tax. These workers, who are left to obtain coverage from the ACA exchanges, would have to work at least four hours a week for free if they were to compensate their employer for the $2,000-per-employee penalty the ACA imposes.

An additional 21 percent who work for employers not offering coverage will find that their employers are less willing or able to pay their workers because of the ACA’s employer penalty. These workers, on average, would have to work four hours a week for free if they were to compensate their employers for the non-coverage penalty.

See also this NBER paper, although at the moment it is not coming up on the NBER site.

3 thoughts on “Casey Mulligan on the ACA and Employment

  1. A good reason to make coverage universal and allow those who want to pay more to do so at their own cost.

  2. ObamaCare is supposedly a tax on employers, but it is really a tax on employees. Employment is dropping as a result. If you require an employer to pay $4,000 more per employee for health insurance or a $2,000 penalty, then the employer must pay the employee that much less, fire the employee (or not hire another), charge more for the product, or some combination of these.

    Even if the employer can charge more for his products, he will sell less, and his employment will shrink. It is the employees who will receive less take-home pay (with better insurance) or be out of work in part or all.

    If the employer pays the penalty, say $2,000 per employee, that must still be reserved from the offered pay. It does not show up on the pay stub. Then, the employee can buy insurance from an exchange with after-tax money. The employee gets less salary, buys insurance without an implicit tax deduction, and pays more for “better” insurance. His only hope is an exchange subsidy, if his salary is low enough. The huge outlays in subsidies will soon become apparent.

    This is a huge redistribution of wealth from the middle class to the poor. Did people think the money was going to come from the rich? Worse, the Dems expect the public to blame their employers, not the policies of the caring and heart-feeling Dems.

    Company Paid Health Insurance is Part of Your Salary

Comments are closed.