What are you talking about? Of course, it had a great deal to do with it. It gave employers the ability to give something to employees that cost the employer less than it was worth to employees. that's why it grew so rapidly, it was a give away by the government.
So you're attributing the rise in employee benefits not to the easy workaround on wage controls, but on the tax free status (a tax, by the way, that would have been a relative pittance to all involved).
The point is that the tax free status resulted in (a) employers being the conduit for health care and (b) the fact that it became so prevalent.
That's not supportable by the historical record, then.
Credits & Style Info
Talk Politics. A place to discuss politics without egomaniacal mods
![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 18/11/10 23:10 (UTC)So you're attributing the rise in employee benefits not to the easy workaround on wage controls, but on the tax free status (a tax, by the way, that would have been a relative pittance to all involved).
The point is that the tax free status resulted in (a) employers being the conduit for health care and (b) the fact that it became so prevalent.
That's not supportable by the historical record, then.