## Public Pensions

 Quote by DoggerDan Did the retirees pay into the system, or was their retirement and health care part of their work/retirement compensation? If so, then companies and government must honor those promises, period. Yanking it away because it doesn't seem fair would be the height of unfairness to those to whom it was promised.
This issue seems to have been placed on the back burner. The reality is millions of retirees face the loss of company paid health coverage due to the elimination of a tax credit. These people will be forced onto original Medicare, a Medicare Advantage plan or a Medigap plan (if they can afford the premium). This will also increase the burden on the Medicare system.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/30/bu...30subsidy.html
"An association representing 300 large corporations urged President Obama and Congress on Monday to repeal a provision of the health care overhaul that prompted AT&T, Caterpillar and other companies to announce substantial charges for the current quarter.

Times Topic: Health Care Reform
The association, the American Benefits Council, said the provision — which reduces the tax deductions for companies with drug coverage for their retired employees — would deal a significant blow to corporate profits and would discourage companies from hiring more workers.

AT&T announced last week that it was taking a $1 billion charge because of the provision. Deere & Company announced a$150 million charge, Caterpillar a $100 million charge, and 3M a$90 million charge.

Many companies said they were taking these charges now, before the current quarter ended, to comply with accounting rules. But some corporate critics asserted that the companies’ rapid response to the health legislation was aimed at pressing the administration to repeal the provision.

James A. Klein, the president of the American Benefits Council, called the provision “a serious mistake that is having negative and unintended consequences.”

White House officials defended the provision, saying it was a deliberate effort to eliminate what they said was an unusually generous tax loophole."

my bold
Given the current discussion of "jobs" and eliminating "tax loopholes" (consider consequences) - this is an important topic.

Recognitions:
Gold Member
 Quote by MarcoD Infant mortality is very clearly defined as the number of children dying in their first year. Numbers are here.
You missed the point. The question is about what constitutes a live birth, and that definition varies by country.

 Quote by mheslep You missed the point. The question is what is about what constitutes a live birth, and that definition varies by country.
Ah. I doubt it, the definition, really varies between the developed countries, but point taken.

 Quote by WhoWee White House officials defended the provision, saying it was a deliberate effort to eliminate what they said was an unusually generous tax loophole."[/I]
Hmm... So it's ok for the government to raise public debt by trillions, but it's not ok for corporations to use an intentionally-created tax break valued in the millions.

Apparently, it's also ok for the Obama administration to falsely slight those who created it by wrongly referring to it as a "loophole."

I agree with the points you make, WhoWee.

 Quote by DoggerDan Hmm... So it's ok for the government to raise public debt by trillions, but it's not ok for corporations to use an intentionally-created tax break valued in the millions. Apparently, it's also ok for the Obama administration to falsely slight those who created it by wrongly referring to it as a "loophole." I agree with the points you make, WhoWee.
I think calling this a "loophole" is very deceptive. Likewise, calling it a "tax break" implies the companies are receiving some type of benefit. This tax deduction is designed to account for payments made by the employer for the retiree benefits. If the companies have to pay taxes on the funds they've spent - they will stop paying. This (IMO) should be a legitimate business expense.