Breaking: Obama Tells Companies They Can't Fire Anyone Unless IRS Gives Them Approval

[Mad_Cabbie]

If an employer cannot be profitable complying with ACA unless they reduce their work force, the company will just close up. This is part of the democrat war on work.

No, that's incorrect. If they can show lack of profit, they would be exempt from paying they fine or having to provide coverage.

If they don't make a profit, they go out of business, numskull.

You show on paper that you can't afford to keep people on - it's called a budget. You base it on accounts receivable verses accounts payable.

 

[RDD_1210]

If an employer cannot be profitable complying with ACA unless they reduce their work force, the company will just close up. This is part of the democrat war on work.

No, that's incorrect. If they can show lack of profit, they would be exempt from paying they fine or having to provide coverage.

If they don't make a profit, they go out of business, numskull.

LOL. Look who has no clue what they're talking about. I guess Twitter and Amazon are both doomed and out of business.

 

[jknowgood]

Another laser like decision on the economy made by obama. This is really going to help unemployment.

 

[RDD_1210]

Well prove him wrong then sparky!! sounds like it would be simple to do!

I just did pops.

Hardly!! bashing a source??!!! with nothing to prove your point. Yep you nailed him!!

The source needs no rebuttal. The source itself is it's own rebuttal.

 

[RDD_1210]

The Democratic war on capitalism. Obama hates it and has the DOJ in his pocket to keep things corrupt.

Weird, Obama hates Capitalism but the DOW has reached all time highs in the past year and corporate profits are reaching all time highs. Those companies must really be hurting with all that money they have since Obama hates capitalism.

It's almost as if you people don't actually look at reality before making your asinine statements.

 

[depotoo]

Yeah, I heard it, too. Bloomberg has a little about it-
Employers with fewer than 100 workers will have to certify to the government that they haven’t fired workers to get under the threshold and qualify for the delay until 2016.

 

[Mad_Cabbie]

I just did pops.

Hardly!! bashing a source??!!! with nothing to prove your point. Yep you nailed him!!

The source needs no rebuttal. The source itself is it's own rebuttal.

Dismissing a source out of hand is a bogus way of making your case. Who cares what the source is; It's either correct or it isn't. If the source is wrong - show us why.

We can say that any source is biased and should not be taken seriously. That is just a cheap way to avoid any meaningful discussion on the matter.

 

[Steve_McGarrett]

No, that's incorrect. If they can show lack of profit, they would be exempt from paying they fine or having to provide coverage.

If they don't make a profit, they go out of business, numskull.

You show on paper that you can't afford to keep people on - it's called a budget. You base it on accounts receivable verses accounts payable.

Yes but what if you need to do a quick firing? How long do you think it will take the IRS to go through the red tape before it authorizes it's decision to approve or disapprove your request?

 

[Mad_Cabbie]

If they don't make a profit, they go out of business, numskull.

You show on paper that you can't afford to keep people on - it's called a budget. You base it on accounts receivable verses accounts payable.

Yes but what if you need to do a quick firing? How long do you think it will take the IRS to go through the red tape before it authorizes it's decision to approve or disapprove your request?

If indeed the IRS is going to act, it will not be until tax time. They aren't a preemptive police force.

 

[depotoo]

My question. Is this not interferring with a companies ability to do business? With the recent revelations of Irs interferring with groups someone has decided they don't like, I can just imagine the harassment they will give companies (owners) they also don't care for. There are no rules of what they will consider reasonable reduction in hours or workforce. It will be subjective.

 

[depotoo]

Small Businesses Get Further Delay for Obamacare Coverage - Bloomberg

if you click on rule within that article it will give you the 227 page pdf

 

[RDD_1210]

Hardly!! bashing a source??!!! with nothing to prove your point. Yep you nailed him!!

The source needs no rebuttal. The source itself is it's own rebuttal.

Dismissing a source out of hand is a bogus way of making your case. Who cares what the source is; It's either correct or it isn't. If the source is wrong - show us why.

We can say that any source is biased and should not be taken seriously. That is just a cheap way to avoid any meaningful discussion on the matter.

Not every source deserves respect. This is one of them.

 

[chikenwing]

The Democratic war on capitalism. Obama hates it and has the DOJ in his pocket to keep things corrupt.

Weird, Obama hates Capitalism but the DOW has reached all time highs in the past year and corporate profits are reaching all time highs. Those companies must really be hurting with all that money they have since Obama hates capitalism.

It's almost as if you people don't actually look at reality before making your asinine statements.

See this is whats a hoot with people like this,one day its wall street is just so good what an example,but the day befor it was evil

You people are a joke.

 

[chikenwing]

The source needs no rebuttal. The source itself is it's own rebuttal.

Dismissing a source out of hand is a bogus way of making your case. Who cares what the source is; It's either correct or it isn't. If the source is wrong - show us why.

We can say that any source is biased and should not be taken seriously. That is just a cheap way to avoid any meaningful discussion on the matter.

Not every source deserves respect. This is one of them.

Based on what your opinion??

Ya that's a line drive over the right field fence

Prove its wrong!

 

[depotoo]

Mods when this was moved whybwas a shadow not left in the other forum, showing it was moved. This is a current event. Also, makes me question if someone didn't want this last fiasco readily seen.

 

[Mad_Cabbie]

Dismissing a source out of hand is a bogus way of making your case. Who cares what the source is; It's either correct or it isn't. If the source is wrong - show us why.

We can say that any source is biased and should not be taken seriously. That is just a cheap way to avoid any meaningful discussion on the matter.

Not every source deserves respect. This is one of them.

Based on what your opinion??

Ya that's a line drive over the right field fence

Prove its wrong!

I've had people tell me that I couldn't use the Washington Times. I had to finally ask the mods to close the thread because it got completely derailed.

Left wingers are never going to believe some right leaning news source and vice-verca.

 

[Mad_Cabbie]

Mods when this was.......

Always ask stuff like this via a PM. The Mods will love you fot it and you won't get a va-ca.

 

[Jroc]

I can understand the law being written this way. If a company had 53 employees and suddenly fired 4, would that not be an obvious effort to circumvent the law? Any company doing so, will be fined - they will not be forced to re-hire the already terminated employees. This is mostly to prevent the working class from becoming casualties of the ACA. Employers will pull any stunt they can pull if left to their own devices.

Where do you guys get this shit?

Unfortunately for Obama, the law isn't written that way. Obama is making the law himself, despite the fact that the Constitution doesn't give him such authority.

It's just one more example of Obama wiping his ass on the Constitution.

????

Sounds like you are offering this up without any due diligence.

Obama does not "make laws himself" he is part of the process to get bills passed into law.

I know that's not what people think, but I saw it on TV when I was a kid.

Cool stuff.

Obama must of missed that program because he ignores and amends laws at will. "Constitutional law professor" What a joke that is

 

[Steve_McGarrett]

Here is another link:

Thought Police: Firms must swear ObamaCare not a factor in firings | Fox News

the latest delay of ObamaCare regulations politically motivated? Consider what administration officials announcing the new exemption for medium-sized employers had to say about firms that might fire workers to get under the threshold and avoid hugely expensive new requirements of the law. Obama officials made clear in a press briefing that firms would not be allowed to lay off workers to get into the preferred class of those businesses with 50 to 99 employees. How will the feds know what employers were thinking when hiring and firing? Simple. Firms will be required to certify to the IRS – under penalty of perjury – that ObamaCare was not a motivating factor in their staffing decisions. To avoid ObamaCare costs you must swear that you are not trying to avoid ObamaCare costs. You can duck the law, but only if you promise not to say so...

[“That's the good thing about being president. I can do whatever I want.” – President Obama joking about getting a restricted-access tour of Thomas Jefferson’s Monticello.]

 

[emilynghiem]

Good news bad news. If this helps prove the IRS relations with the executive is uncheckable and unconstitutional, that system could go down together with ACA.

Let's replace both, with something taxpayers from all parties will welcome.

If party members only have to pay taxes to their own parties, unless there is 100% agreement what to fund on the federal level, this will reduce federal taxes and govt. And shift the majority of programs to where people feel directly represented anyway, by their own parties. Everyone will get what they want, without arguing or conflict. Automatic by payment and representation by party and you have it.

that would solve conficts of interest between parties and IRS and federal health care policies. just separate to each his own and make everyone happy funding their own beliefs.

For this and for businesses with 50-100 employees, the answer is yes. Buried deep within the IRS regulations pertaining to Obamacare, section 4980H of the IRS Code seemingly tells business to affirm the reasons why they are reducing their workforces to qualify for transitive relief from Obamacare. Many businesses are cutting jobs to avoid having to comply with the employer mandate, here though, these business are being told they cannot reduce the sizes of their staff without having a "bona-fide business reason" for doing so. If they somehow fail to meet this requirement or provide a sufficient reason to the IRS, they could be seemingly slapped with perjury charges.

This law is an overreach, simply telling employers they cannot drop below the 50 employer threshold to avoid the law and qualify for an exemption is the creation of a crime, something a neither a sittubg President nor any other branch of government (except for the legislative) may do.

(1) Limited Workforce Size. The employer must employ on average at least 50 full-time employees (including full-time equivalents) but fewer than 100 full-time employees (including full-time equivalents) on business days during 2014. (Employers with fewer than 50 full-time employees (including full-time equivalents) on business days during the previous year are not subject to the Employer Shared Responsibility provisions.) The number of full-time employees (including full-time equivalents) is determined in accordance with the otherwise applicable rules in the final regulations for determining status as an applicable large employer.

(2) Maintenance of Workforce and Aggregate Hours of Service. During the period beginning on Febr. 9, 2014 and ending on Dec. 31, 2014, the employer may not reduce the size of its workforce or the overall hours of service of its employees in order to qualify for the transition relief. However, an employer that reduces workforce size or overall hours of service for bona fide business reasons is still eligible for the relief.

Questions and Answers on Employer Shared Responsibility Provisions Under the Affordable Care Act

https://s3.amazonaws.com/public-inspection.federalregister.gov/2014-03082.pdf pp. 123-25

I tell you now: this is a pure act of desperation on the Obama Administration's part. Government has no right micromanaging the affairs of private businesses. So, is the Government telling you how to run your business?