See the history of the Stabilization Act of 1942 [1] and Executive Order 9250. Wages were frozen by law, but not benefits, so companies began offering benefits, including health insurance [2] The next year the IRS decided these were nontaxable, until it changed its mind in 1953, only to be overruled by Congress in 1954 [3].<p>[1] <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stabilization_Act_of_1942" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stabilization_Act_of_1942</a> [2] <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/05/upshot/the-real-reason-the-us-has-employer-sponsored-health-insurance.html" rel="nofollow">https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/05/upshot/the-real-reason-th...</a> [3] <a href="https://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/07/30/the-question-of-taxing-employer-provided-health-insurance/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0" rel="nofollow">https://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/07/30/the-question-o...</a>
The conventional explanation blames WW2 wage controls for creating the benefit as a differentiator.<p>The more cynical among us suffer it as cost of satisfying capital by way of employee job lock, particularly when coupled with the soon-to-return preexisting condition exclusions, and even though the locks disincentivize entrepreneurship and other sorts of beneficial risk tasking.