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

[g5000]

You are misreading the FAQ. Not surprised.

The FAQ outlines the parameters which define those employers who get financial relief from the employer mandates during the transition period.

You don't have to justify to the IRS why you fired someone. You can fire them. But doing so may put you outside the defined parameters for receiving financial relief from the mandate.

Simple.

Um, yeah. That's what the op said.

No, that is not what the OP said. The OP said you have to get permission from the IRS to fire someone, and that is patently false.

 

[Jarhead]

It doesn't decree that employers can't fire people.

It decrees that theyre disqualified from a healthcare specific subsidy if they fire due to the healthcare law.

Two totally different ideas. wow.

and how does one determine why one fired someone?

 

[TemplarKormac]

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?


On the other hand, if a company can prove that downsizing is necessary, i. e., that laying off employees was unavoidable, then there would be no fine. If a company remained compliant and offered insurance despite laying off workers, the IRS would not even need to be notified.

A business has a right to profit under this law, Cabbie. You cannot sit there and justify government overreach this way. It is a blatant edict which forbids businesses from laying off workers as they deem fit to maintain their profit margin. Where are the limits?

 

[R.D.]

You are misreading the FAQ. Not surprised.

The FAQ outlines the parameters which define those employers who get financial relief from the employer mandates during the transition period.

You don't have to justify to the IRS why you fired someone. You can fire them. But doing so may put you outside the defined parameters for receiving financial relief from the mandate.

Simple.

Um, yeah. That's what the op said.

No, that is not what the OP said. The OP said you have to get permission from the IRS to fire someone, and that is patently false.

Under obamacare... It's right in the title. You're trying way to hard to twist the facts no one disputes to try defend this mess.

If you agree with it, just agree with it.

 

[TemplarKormac]

You are misreading the FAQ. Not surprised.

The FAQ outlines the parameters which define those employers who get financial relief from the employer mandates during the transition period.

You don't have to justify to the IRS why you fired someone. You can fire them. But doing so may put you outside the defined parameters for receiving financial relief from the mandate.

Simple.

Um, yeah. That's what the op said.

No, that is not what the OP said. The OP said you have to get permission from the IRS to fire someone, and that is patently false.

And yet, you haven't proven to the contrary.

 

[Jarhead]

g5000....you are so wrapped up in discrediting the OP, you have completely ignored the crux of the complaint.

So are you OK with it?

 

[Wyatt earp]

I wonder how this will collide with right to work states laws. .. they don't need a damn reason to fire some one.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Let's say I tell you that I will give ten dollars to every employer who has 50 employees after January 1. It so happens you are an employer who has exactly 50 employees.

I then explain to you that if you fire any employees between now and January 1, you won't get the ten bucks.

That is not telling you that you have to explain to me why you fired that person. It is just telling you that if you fall outside the parameters I have defined, you don't get the ten bucks.

Let's try this again, shall we?

I know you're a misogynist and don't care much for women anchors from Fox News, but Megyn Kelly put it very aptly:

what the government is telling employers is that you will not fire a single person. You will not lay off a single person – if you want to take advantage of our gift. And you have to certify it under penalty of perjury to the IRS that you [sic] didn’t do that..

It's like saying "We're giving you a gift, but you must accept it whether you want it or not, and you must meet these requirements under the law so we can force this gift on you."

 

[Jarhead]

I wonder how this will collide with right to work states laws. .. they don't need a damn reason to fire some one.

Just to clarify...

No one needs a dam reason to fire anyone.

But in RtW states, the employer does not need to inform the employee why they were fired.

 

[G.T.]

I agree with this stipulation -

Tax breaks / subsidies have always come with pre-qualifications. This is following precedent & protocol.

 

[OriginalShroom]

The Obama power grab, supported by the Democrats, is simply amazing... Especially considering their positions during the previous Presidency when they were proclaiming President Bush as being the "Unilateral President".

 

[Jarhead]

I agree with this stipulation -

Tax breaks / subsidies have always come with pre-qualifications. This is following precedent & protocol.

true...

but in this case, it is a subsidy that is offered to offset an increase in costs that are a result of government mandates...

So to set stipulations to get that subsidy seems a bit strange..

simple analogy..

I will take 20 dollars from you but do not worry, I will give it right back to you....

Unless you don't do as I say.

 

[Jarhead]

So then correct me if I am wrong about this....

I have 50 employees....but business has turned for the worse...

So I lay off 5 employees in an effort to keep my company afloat and survive these hard times....

The government will turn around and make things even tougher by taking away subsidies I was getting?

 

[G.T.]

Not really - it's more like there's a new set of laws in town - like them or not - but we do offer ways to mitigate the costs involved so long as you haven't already mitigated them yourselves by downsizing


cuz what's the need, after that we're incentivizing nothingness.

 

[G.T.]

So then correct me if I am wrong about this....

I have 50 employees....but business has turned for the worse...

So I lay off 5 employees in an effort to keep my company afloat and survive these hard times....

The government will turn around and make things even tougher by taking away subsidies I was getting?

No, the subsidy is new.

 

[Jarhead]

So then correct me if I am wrong about this....

I have 50 employees....but business has turned for the worse...

So I lay off 5 employees in an effort to keep my company afloat and survive these hard times....

The government will turn around and make things even tougher by taking away subsidies I was getting?

No, the subsidy is new.

Missed my point...

10 years from now.....

I have 50 employees....but business has turned for the worse...

So I lay off 5 employees in an effort to keep my company afloat and survive these hard times....

The government will turn around and make things even tougher by taking away subsidies I was getting

 

[G.T.]

So then correct me if I am wrong about this....

I have 50 employees....but business has turned for the worse...

So I lay off 5 employees in an effort to keep my company afloat and survive these hard times....

The government will turn around and make things even tougher by taking away subsidies I was getting?

No, the subsidy is new.

Missed my point...

10 years from now.....

I have 50 employees....but business has turned for the worse...

So I lay off 5 employees in an effort to keep my company afloat and survive these hard times....

The government will turn around and make things even tougher by taking away subsidies I was getting

The subsidies are to offset the increased healthcare costs, assuming you had them and weren't fully insuring before - - - - -

So if you get rid of the healthcare (which is where you'd really save by putting your force to under 50), then why in the fuck would you maintain a healthcare subsidy?

Like, I really want to know....

 

[Jarhead]

No, the subsidy is new.

Missed my point...

10 years from now.....

I have 50 employees....but business has turned for the worse...

So I lay off 5 employees in an effort to keep my company afloat and survive these hard times....

The government will turn around and make things even tougher by taking away subsidies I was getting

The subsidies are to offset the increased healthcare costs, assuming you had them and weren't fully insuring before - - - - -

So if you get rid of the healthcare (which is where you'd really save by putting your force to under 50), then why in the fuck would you maintain a healthcare subsidy?

Like, I really want to know....

Because my goal for laying off 5 people is not to avoid the healthcare costs. I will still offer my employees healthcare as I was doing.

Pay attention GT...it is a valid question...

If you take away my subsidy you may prompt me to HAVE to eliminate healthcare for my employees...even though it is not my attention.

Does that sound counterproductive to you?

It does to me.

 

[Wyatt earp]

I wonder how this will collide with right to work states laws. .. they don't need a damn reason to fire some one.

Just to clarify...

No one needs a dam reason to fire anyone.

But in RtW states, the employer does not need to inform the employee why they were fired.

Interesting, I wonder if the IRS would release that information to the employee?

 

[G.T.]

Missed my point...

10 years from now.....

I have 50 employees....but business has turned for the worse...

So I lay off 5 employees in an effort to keep my company afloat and survive these hard times....

The government will turn around and make things even tougher by taking away subsidies I was getting

The subsidies are to offset the increased healthcare costs, assuming you had them and weren't fully insuring before - - - - -

So if you get rid of the healthcare (which is where you'd really save by putting your force to under 50), then why in the fuck would you maintain a healthcare subsidy?

Like, I really want to know....

Because my goal for laying off 5 people is not to avoid the healthcare costs. I will still offer my employees healthcare as I was doing.

Pay attention GT...it is a valid question...

If you take away my subsidy you may prompt me to HAVE to eliminate healthcare for my employees...even though it is not my attention.

Does that sound counterproductive to you?

It does to me.

You obviously lack logic here.

If you fire them to get to under 50 yet KEEP THE REMAINING EMPLOYEES' HEALTHCARE, then you obviously didn't reduce your workforce to under 50 in order to get rid of the mandate to provide healthcare and you KEEP THE SUBSIDY.

Jeesus christ