Reality Check wrote:Reality Check wrote:gerald wrote:
Why should employers pay for health care and retirement and not the employee?
Employers in the United States did so voluntarily.
The government encouraged it for the public good through tax deductibility of corporate payments for employee health care costs.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well not exactly -- government intervention again --
http://www.ebri.org/publications/facts/ ... a=0302fact
1943—War Labor Board rules wage freeze does not apply to fringe benefits.
During World War II, the number of persons with employment-based health insurance coverage started to increase for several reasons. When wages were frozen by the National War Labor Board and a shortage of workers occurred, employers sought ways to get around the wage controls in order to attract scarce workers, and offering health insurance was one option. Health insurance was an attractive means to recruit and retain workers during a labor shortage for two reasons: Unions supported employment-based health insurance, and workers' health benefits were not subject to income tax or Social Security payroll taxes, as were cash wages.
And lets not over look the government's debasement of the dollar and it's impact on society.
For example, my first full time job ( 40 hours a week and above minimum wage ) was in a factory in the mid 1960's my weekly take home pay after taxes and social security was $35 and some change. Those on the assembly line commuted to work, bought food and shelter and had a little left over for some entertainment. What will $35 buy you today?