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

[G.T.]

It's not even ambiguous, it's RIGHT THERE. nOT EVEN BARELY IN LEGAL SPEAK.

 

[R.D.]

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

You're injecting motive to support your pov. You're also getting rude. Why?

 

[G.T.]

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

You're injecting motive to support your pov. You're also getting rude. Why?

I correctly interpreted the stipulation for the subsidy.

Crying over spilled milk isn't really fitting, especially when the healthcare law sucks as it is enough already.

 

[paperview]

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 special transition relief applies if the employer certifies that it (i) reasonably expects to employ and actually employs fewer than 100 full-time employees (including full-time equivalents) on business days during 2015; and

(ii) reasonably expects to meet and actually meets the standards relating to maintenance of workforce and aggregate hours of service and of previously offered health coverage, as measured from the date the employer is first in existence."

There's a lot to read there...did you see it?

(3) Maintenance of Previously Offered Health Coverage. During the period beginning on Feb. 9, 2014 and ending on Dec. 31, 2015 (or, for employers with non-calendar-year plans, ending on the last day of the 2015 plan year) the employer does not eliminate or materially reduce the health coverage, if any, it offered as of Feb. 9, 2014. An employer will not be treated as eliminating or materially reducing health coverage if (i) it continues to offer each employee who is eligible for coverage an employer contribution toward the cost of employee-only coverage that either (A) is at least 95 percent of the dollar amount of the contribution toward such coverage that the employer was offering on Feb. 9, 2014, or (B) is at least the same percentage of the cost of coverage that the employer was offering to contribute toward coverage on Feb. 9, 2014; (ii) in the event of a change in benefits under the employee-only coverage offered, that coverage provides minimum value after the change; and (iii) it does not alter the terms of its group health plans to narrow or reduce the class or classes of employees (or the employees’ dependents) to whom coverage under those plans was offered on Feb. 9, 2014.

35. Is the transition relief for employers with at least 50 but fewer than 100 full-time employees (including full-time equivalents) available to newly formed employers? If so, how does a new employer know whether it qualifies for the relief?
Yes, the relief is available to new employers (that is, employers that are not in existence on any business day in 2014).
For new employers that would be applicable large employers under the general rules in the final regulations, the special transition relief applies if the employer certifies that it (i) reasonably expects to employ and actually employs fewer than 100 full-time employees (including full-time equivalents) on business days during 2015; and (ii) reasonably expects to meet and actually meets the standards relating to maintenance of workforce and aggregate hours of service and of previously offered health coverage, as measured from the date the employer is first in existence.

36. How does the transition relief for employers with fewer than 100 full-time employees coordinate with other transition relief available under the final regulations?
For periods on or after Jan. 1, 2016 (or, if applicable, for any period after the last day of the 2015 plan year) the transition relief for 2015 generally is not available. An employer may, however, use the shorter period in 2014 permitted for determining applicable large employer status for 2015 in determining applicable large employer status and full-time employee count for 2015 (but not for any subsequent year). See questions 30 through 33.

37. Under what circumstances will an employer that is not eligible for the relief described in question 34 owe an Employer Shared Responsibility payment for 2015?
For 2015 (and for employers with non-calendar-year plans, any calendar months during the 2015 plan year that fall in 2016), an employer that (a) had at least 100 full-time employees (including full-time equivalents) in 2014, or (b) had at least 50 but fewer than 100 full-time employees (including full-time equivalents) but does not qualify for the relief described in question 34, will be liable for an Employer Shared Responsibility payment only if:

• • The employer does not offer health coverage or offers coverage to fewer than 70% of its full-time employees and (unless the employer qualifies for the 2015 dependent coverage transition relief described in question 33) the dependents of those employees, and at least one of the full-time employees receives a premium tax credit to help pay for coverage on a Marketplace.

OR

• • The employer offers health coverage to at least 70% of its full-time employees and (unless the employer qualifies for the 2015 dependent coverage transition relief described in question 33) the dependents of those employees, but at least one full-time employee receives a premium tax credit to help pay for coverage on a Marketplace, which may occur because the employer did not offer coverage to that employee or because the coverage the employer offered that employee was either unaffordable (see question 19) to the employee or did not provide minimum value (see question 20).

After 2015, 95% should be substituted for 70% in the bullets above (see question 18).


38. For 2015, if an employer with at least 100 full-time employees (including full-time equivalents) that does not offer coverage or that offers coverage to fewer than 70% of its full-time employees (and their dependents) owes an Employer Shared Responsibility payment, how is the amount of the payment calculated?
For any calendar month in 2015 or any calendar month in 2016 that falls within an employer’s non-calendar 2015 plan year, if an applicable large employer with at least 100 full-time employees (including full-time equivalents) does not offer coverage to at least 70% of its full-time employees (and their dependents), it owes an Employer Shared Responsibility payment equal to the number of full-time employees the employer employed for the month (minus 80) multiplied by 1/12 of $2,000, provided that at least one full-time employee receives a premium tax credit for that month. See questions 24 and 25.


39. For 2015, if an employer with at least 100 full-time employees (including full-time equivalents) offers coverage to at least 70% of its full-time employees, and, nevertheless, owes an Employer Shared Responsibility payment, how is the amount of the payment calculated?
For an employer with at least 100 full-time employees (including full-time equivalents) that offers coverage to at least 70% of its full-time employees in 2015, but has one or more full-time employees who receive a premium tax credit, the payment is computed separately for each month. The amount of the payment for the month equals the number of full-time employees who receive a premium tax credit for that month multiplied by 1/12 of $3,000. The amount of the payment for any calendar month is capped at the number of the employer’s full-time employees for the month (minus up to 80) multiplied by 1/12 of $2,000. See questions 24 and 25.

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

 

[Jarhead]

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

Stop being arrogant and engage in a debate like an adult.

Exactly my point......

But if you read it, it appears that you still need to be approved by the IRS as eligible for the subsidy.....

And we all know how long that can take.

So my question is...who decides and what criteria are used.

All you need is one "by the book" incompetent geek to stamp "denied" and now you must go through all the red tape and legal costs to get back on track.

And most business owners will say "fuck it".

Like when I owned my companies....

I would get field audited by immigration......and my records were sound...

Yet....once every 3 or 4 audits, I would have one attitudinal auditor who would claim there were issues....and next thing I know I am spending thousands of dollars on an attorney to straighten it out for me.

Don't ignore it GT...it is reality....Government workers can be as incompetent as those Burger King people that give you a cheeseburger when you ordered chicken fingers.

 

[G.T.]

The answers don't get sought before the complaints ensue.

It's poetic, the axe to grind of partisan spite never dulls.

 

[Jarhead]

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

You're injecting motive to support your pov. You're also getting rude. Why?

I correctly interpreted the stipulation for the subsidy.

Crying over spilled milk isn't really fitting, especially when the healthcare law sucks as it is enough already.

and so did I GT....

However, I am experienced in business ownership enough to know how issues can arise even if you are not at fault at anything.

And as for your approach......why so arrogant and rude?

 

[G.T.]

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

Stop being arrogant and engage in a debate like an adult.

Exactly my point......

But if you read it, it appears that you still need to be approved by the IRS as eligible for the subsidy.....

And we all know how long that can take.

So my question is...who decides and what criteria are used.

All you need is one "by the book" incompetent geek to stamp "denied" and now you must go through all the red tape and legal costs to get back on track.

And most business owners will say "fuck it".

Like when I owned my companies....

I would get field audited by immigration......and my records were sound...

Yet....once every 3 or 4 audits, I would have one attitudinal auditor who would claim there were issues....and next thing I know I am spending thousands of dollars on an attorney to straighten it out for me.

Don't ignore it GT...it is reality....Government workers can be as incompetent as those Burger King people that give you a cheeseburger when you ordered chicken fingers.

Who decides?

Are you fucking serious, telling ME to be the adult, when your questions are ANSWERED already by the Law as it exists and you're either playing dumb, or just are?

That's on me, that's my shoulders?

GTFOH

I apologize that I know how to read and interpret a bit better than you do, otherwise you wouldn't have asked the question about dropping to under 50, keeping coverage for employees, and losing the subsidy.

You don't lose it dimwit, you're still providing the coverage.

 

[Jarhead]

The answers don't get sought before the complaints ensue.

It's poetic, the axe to grind of partisan spite never dulls.

one who anticipates issues is more likely to avoid them GT.

Nowhere is this a partisan issue.

A business owner can be left or right....an IRS employee will not know that business owners ideology.

 

[G.T.]

You're injecting motive to support your pov. You're also getting rude. Why?

I correctly interpreted the stipulation for the subsidy.

Crying over spilled milk isn't really fitting, especially when the healthcare law sucks as it is enough already.

and so did I GT....

However, I am experienced in business ownership enough to know how issues can arise even if you are not at fault at anything.

And as for your approach......why so arrogant and rude?

You deserve in arrogant and rude because you don't question these things in good faith -

As evidenced by the answers being so clear and unambiguous yet you still asking the question as though you're not trying to shed more negative light to a political end.

You are transparent. Told ya from day one. It's distasteful.

Respect is earned, not granted unabashed. I require honest people in good faith in order to grant it.

 

[Jarhead]

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

Stop being arrogant and engage in a debate like an adult.

Exactly my point......

But if you read it, it appears that you still need to be approved by the IRS as eligible for the subsidy.....

And we all know how long that can take.

So my question is...who decides and what criteria are used.

All you need is one "by the book" incompetent geek to stamp "denied" and now you must go through all the red tape and legal costs to get back on track.

And most business owners will say "fuck it".

Like when I owned my companies....

I would get field audited by immigration......and my records were sound...

Yet....once every 3 or 4 audits, I would have one attitudinal auditor who would claim there were issues....and next thing I know I am spending thousands of dollars on an attorney to straighten it out for me.

Don't ignore it GT...it is reality....Government workers can be as incompetent as those Burger King people that give you a cheeseburger when you ordered chicken fingers.

Who decides?

Are you fucking serious, telling ME to be the adult, when your questions are ANSWERED already by the Law as it exists and you're either playing dumb, or just are?

That's on me, that's my shoulders?

GTFOH

I apologize that I know how to read and interpret a bit better than you do, otherwise you wouldn't have asked the question about dropping to under 50, keeping coverage for employees, and losing the subsidy.

You don't lose it dimwit, you're still providing the coverage.

wow. You are one angry man GT.

Never mind. Sorry to bother you.

FYI....my question is valid and my concern is legitimate.

 

[G.T.]

The answers don't get sought before the complaints ensue.

It's poetic, the axe to grind of partisan spite never dulls.

one who anticipates issues is more likely to avoid them GT.

Nowhere is this a partisan issue.

A business owner can be left or right....an IRS employee will not know that business owners ideology.

A Business owner who doesn't understand this subsidy doesn't belong owning a business.

 

[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 special transition relief applies if the employer certifies that it (i) reasonably expects to employ and actually employs fewer than 100 full-time employees (including full-time equivalents) on business days during 2015; and

(ii) reasonably expects to meet and actually meets the standards relating to maintenance of workforce and aggregate hours of service and of previously offered health coverage, as measured from the date the employer is first in existence."

There's a lot to read there...did you see it?

(3) Maintenance of Previously Offered Health Coverage. During the period beginning on Feb. 9, 2014 and ending on Dec. 31, 2015 (or, for employers with non-calendar-year plans, ending on the last day of the 2015 plan year) the employer does not eliminate or materially reduce the health coverage, if any, it offered as of Feb. 9, 2014. An employer will not be treated as eliminating or materially reducing health coverage if (i) it continues to offer each employee who is eligible for coverage an employer contribution toward the cost of employee-only coverage that either (A) is at least 95 percent of the dollar amount of the contribution toward such coverage that the employer was offering on Feb. 9, 2014, or (B) is at least the same percentage of the cost of coverage that the employer was offering to contribute toward coverage on Feb. 9, 2014; (ii) in the event of a change in benefits under the employee-only coverage offered, that coverage provides minimum value after the change; and (iii) it does not alter the terms of its group health plans to narrow or reduce the class or classes of employees (or the employees’ dependents) to whom coverage under those plans was offered on Feb. 9, 2014.

35. Is the transition relief for employers with at least 50 but fewer than 100 full-time employees (including full-time equivalents) available to newly formed employers? If so, how does a new employer know whether it qualifies for the relief?
Yes, the relief is available to new employers (that is, employers that are not in existence on any business day in 2014).
For new employers that would be applicable large employers under the general rules in the final regulations, the special transition relief applies if the employer certifies that it (i) reasonably expects to employ and actually employs fewer than 100 full-time employees (including full-time equivalents) on business days during 2015; and (ii) reasonably expects to meet and actually meets the standards relating to maintenance of workforce and aggregate hours of service and of previously offered health coverage, as measured from the date the employer is first in existence.

36. How does the transition relief for employers with fewer than 100 full-time employees coordinate with other transition relief available under the final regulations?
For periods on or after Jan. 1, 2016 (or, if applicable, for any period after the last day of the 2015 plan year) the transition relief for 2015 generally is not available. An employer may, however, use the shorter period in 2014 permitted for determining applicable large employer status for 2015 in determining applicable large employer status and full-time employee count for 2015 (but not for any subsequent year). See questions 30 through 33.

37. Under what circumstances will an employer that is not eligible for the relief described in question 34 owe an Employer Shared Responsibility payment for 2015?
For 2015 (and for employers with non-calendar-year plans, any calendar months during the 2015 plan year that fall in 2016), an employer that (a) had at least 100 full-time employees (including full-time equivalents) in 2014, or (b) had at least 50 but fewer than 100 full-time employees (including full-time equivalents) but does not qualify for the relief described in question 34, will be liable for an Employer Shared Responsibility payment only if:

• • The employer does not offer health coverage or offers coverage to fewer than 70% of its full-time employees and (unless the employer qualifies for the 2015 dependent coverage transition relief described in question 33) the dependents of those employees, and at least one of the full-time employees receives a premium tax credit to help pay for coverage on a Marketplace.

OR

• • The employer offers health coverage to at least 70% of its full-time employees and (unless the employer qualifies for the 2015 dependent coverage transition relief described in question 33) the dependents of those employees, but at least one full-time employee receives a premium tax credit to help pay for coverage on a Marketplace, which may occur because the employer did not offer coverage to that employee or because the coverage the employer offered that employee was either unaffordable (see question 19) to the employee or did not provide minimum value (see question 20).

After 2015, 95% should be substituted for 70% in the bullets above (see question 18).


38. For 2015, if an employer with at least 100 full-time employees (including full-time equivalents) that does not offer coverage or that offers coverage to fewer than 70% of its full-time employees (and their dependents) owes an Employer Shared Responsibility payment, how is the amount of the payment calculated?
For any calendar month in 2015 or any calendar month in 2016 that falls within an employer’s non-calendar 2015 plan year, if an applicable large employer with at least 100 full-time employees (including full-time equivalents) does not offer coverage to at least 70% of its full-time employees (and their dependents), it owes an Employer Shared Responsibility payment equal to the number of full-time employees the employer employed for the month (minus 80) multiplied by 1/12 of $2,000, provided that at least one full-time employee receives a premium tax credit for that month. See questions 24 and 25.


39. For 2015, if an employer with at least 100 full-time employees (including full-time equivalents) offers coverage to at least 70% of its full-time employees, and, nevertheless, owes an Employer Shared Responsibility payment, how is the amount of the payment calculated?
For an employer with at least 100 full-time employees (including full-time equivalents) that offers coverage to at least 70% of its full-time employees in 2015, but has one or more full-time employees who receive a premium tax credit, the payment is computed separately for each month. The amount of the payment for the month equals the number of full-time employees who receive a premium tax credit for that month multiplied by 1/12 of $3,000. The amount of the payment for any calendar month is capped at the number of the employer’s full-time employees for the month (minus up to 80) multiplied by 1/12 of $2,000. See questions 24 and 25.

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

Thanks PPV...

But as you can see, there is plenty there for an auditor to misinterpret.

I can see this becoming counterproductive in the long run.

 

[Jarhead]

The answers don't get sought before the complaints ensue.

It's poetic, the axe to grind of partisan spite never dulls.

one who anticipates issues is more likely to avoid them GT.

Nowhere is this a partisan issue.

A business owner can be left or right....an IRS employee will not know that business owners ideology.

A Business owner who doesn't understand this subsidy doesn't belong owning a business.

it is not the business owner who is the issue.

It is the IRS employee who may be the issue.

My point all along GT.

I knew what I needed to do to meet ALL 1-9 criteria.

The field auditors, unfortunately, did not.

And it cost me money and time.

 

[G.T.]

Anecdotes don't mean much. Most Auditors are highly trained professionals, I've worked with them on several occasions.

 

[Jarhead]

Anecdotes don't mean much. Most Auditors are highly trained professionals, I've worked with them on several occasions.

Yet the reason found as to why there was the IRS issue with conservative groups was "incompetence"......

Auditors as it pertains to financial audits are highly educated and highly trained...I agree.

Auditors for other areas, such as I-9 and unemployment are not highly educated. They are trained, yes, but a higher level of education is not required.

Now....what makes you think auditors as it pertains to meeting healthcare requirements are going to be any different?

it was a highly educated group that wrote the ACA....yet you see it as a dud.....so what makes you think they know who to use to implement it?

Get off your high horse....come back to earth....and realize that anytime the government mandates something, it opens the door to incompetance...at the cost of the individual.

 

[G.T.]

Anecdotes don't mean much. Most Auditors are highly trained professionals, I've worked with them on several occasions.

Yet the reason found as to why there was the IRS issue with conservative groups was "incompetence"......

Auditors as it pertains to financial audits are highly educated and highly trained...I agree.

Auditors for other areas, such as I-9 and unemployment are not highly educated. They are trained, yes, but a higher level of education is not required.

Now....what makes you think auditors as it pertains to meeting healthcare requirements are going to be any different?

it was a highly educated group that wrote the ACA....yet you see it as a dud.....so what makes you think they know who to use to implement it?

Get off your high horse....come back to earth....and realize that anytime the government mandates something, it opens the door to incompetance...at the cost of the individual.

The Government is issuing a subsidy with attachments. That doesn't cost a business, but only benefits it.

The PPACA a separate issue entirely

 

[G.T.]

Platitudes budge the lazy.

Which is a platitude.

 

[Jarhead]

Anecdotes don't mean much. Most Auditors are highly trained professionals, I've worked with them on several occasions.

Yet the reason found as to why there was the IRS issue with conservative groups was "incompetence"......

Auditors as it pertains to financial audits are highly educated and highly trained...I agree.

Auditors for other areas, such as I-9 and unemployment are not highly educated. They are trained, yes, but a higher level of education is not required.

Now....what makes you think auditors as it pertains to meeting healthcare requirements are going to be any different?

it was a highly educated group that wrote the ACA....yet you see it as a dud.....so what makes you think they know who to use to implement it?

Get off your high horse....come back to earth....and realize that anytime the government mandates something, it opens the door to incompetance...at the cost of the individual.

The Government is issuing a subsidy with attachments. That doesn't cost a business, but only benefits it.

The PPACA a separate issue entirely

Yes....a subsidy to offset the increase in cost to the employer due to an increase in the cost of policies due to the dynamics of the ACA.

And some guy with a bad attitude will decide if you, a business owner,. will need to spend time and money to rectify an issue if you go below the identified number of employees.

As I experienced with I-9 and unemployment in NYC.

 

[G.T.]

Yet the reason found as to why there was the IRS issue with conservative groups was "incompetence"......

Auditors as it pertains to financial audits are highly educated and highly trained...I agree.

Auditors for other areas, such as I-9 and unemployment are not highly educated. They are trained, yes, but a higher level of education is not required.

Now....what makes you think auditors as it pertains to meeting healthcare requirements are going to be any different?

it was a highly educated group that wrote the ACA....yet you see it as a dud.....so what makes you think they know who to use to implement it?

Get off your high horse....come back to earth....and realize that anytime the government mandates something, it opens the door to incompetance...at the cost of the individual.

The Government is issuing a subsidy with attachments. That doesn't cost a business, but only benefits it.

The PPACA a separate issue entirely

Yes....a subsidy to offset the increase in cost to the employer due to an increase in the cost of policies due to the dynamics of the ACA.

And some guy with a bad attitude will decide if you, a business owner,. will need to spend time and money to rectify an issue if you go below the identified number of employees.

As I experienced with I-9 and unemployment in NYC.

If there's a subsidy to encourage a specific outcome, it most certainly should be audited.