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

[Jarhead]

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.

I agree.

Thus why I am against the subsidy all together.

The law was poorly written and if you notice, to compensate for its downfalls, there are exemptions, subsidies, audits and more government involvement in the private sector.

You see, you think my aversion to the ACA is partisan. It is not. It is ideological. I have dealt with the government as a business owner. I have never intentionally broken the law and yet, as a business owner, I have found myself defending myself many times...and always walked away with thousands of dollars less in my pocket...but a nice letter of apology from NYS and/or NYC.

Of course...no financial restitution for THEIR errors.

 

[G.T.]

No, I think you're a partisan for a whole host of other reasons that aren't tried on the basis of ppaca.

That aside - I'm sure for every thousand dollars less in your pocket, and this is addressing your cynicism with likely reality - there were thousands of dollars in savings via subsidies, write offs, etc.

Run of the mill credits and deductions need oversight you know.

TINSTAFL and all.



And how do I know it's not all that much debilitating? Oh, I don't know..... except for the fact that US GDP is 99% of the time not recessive. Albeit, that doesn't address every micro situation in which yea, there's likely a fuck ton of bad regulation, but that doesn't equate to a platitude about the Government, a platitude about regulation in General, or a platitude about the IRS. There's where irrational partisan thought clouds pragmatism. It's where independents part ways with R's, D's, C's and L's.

 

[Jarhead]

No, I think you're a partisan for a whole host of other reasons that aren't tried on the basis of ppaca.

That aside - I'm sure for every thousand dollars less in your pocket, and this is addressing your cynicism with likely reality - there were thousands of dollars in savings via subsidies, write offs, etc.

Run of the mill credits and deductions need oversight you know.

TINSTAFL and all.



And how do I know it's not all that much debilitating? Oh, I don't know..... except for the fact that US GDP is 99% of the time not recessive. Albeit, that doesn't address every micro situation in which yea, there's likely a fuck ton of bad regulation, but that doesn't equate to a platitude about the Government, a platitude about regulation in General, or a platitude about the IRS. There's where irrational partisan thought clouds pragmatism. It's where independents part ways with R's, D's, C's and L's.

yes, they do. And yes, I do capitalize on deductions legally. And yes, I see your point...sort of take the good with the bad.

And no, I am not a partisan. I voted for Cuomo. Almost voted for Hillary, but she lost in the primaries. Locally, I have voted more for democrats than republicans over the past 20 years.

I do, however, dislike President Obama. I do not like his approach, his arrogance, his lack of honesty and his willingness to capitalize on the naivety of his believers.

 

[G.T.]

Well - we disagree on your partisanship. Not much else to discuss there,

 

[Listening]

Treasury: Employers must ?self-attest? that ObamaCare not behind staffing decisions ? under penalty of perjury « Hot Air

The latest announcement comes after the administration heard from businesses about their concerns with the looming ObamaCare rules. However, the change is sure to raise more questions about the health and implementation of the law. Fewer workers getting insurance through their employers could mean more individuals on the ObamaCare exchanges seeking subsidized coverage, increasing the cost to taxpayers.

Some lawmakers, though, have claimed that the mere threat of the employer mandate is causing companies to shed full-time workers in the hope of keeping their staff size below 50 and avoiding the requirement.

Administration officials dispute that this is happening on any large scale. Further, Treasury officials said Monday that businesses will be told to “certify” that they are not shedding full-time workers simply to avoid the mandate. Officials said employers will be told to sign a “self-attestation” on their tax forms affirming this, under penalty of perjury.

Officials stressed that the latest reprieve applies to a relatively small percentage of employers — albeit companies that employ millions of workers.

*********************

If this is true....what gives the treasury the right to demand such certification.

And if a business says it is doing this....so what ? What business (pardon the pun) is it of the Treasury Dept.).

 

[R.D.]

Well - we disagree on your partisanship. Not much else to discuss there,

Doesn't that by default make you the partisan?

 

[G.T.]

Well - we disagree on your partisanship. Not much else to discuss there,

Doesn't that by default make you the partisan?

No, thanks for asking.

 

[Jarhead]

Well - we disagree on your partisanship. Not much else to discuss there,

No. There isn't. Hard to interact with someone who thinks he knows more about me than I do.

 

[G.T.]

Indeed.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Starting to see why they needed so much ammo.

 

[JakeStarkey]

To What End - Obamacare To Force Businesses To Self Certify

So businesses admit that they know and will obey the law.

 

[RoadVirus]

If this is true....what gives the treasury the right to demand such certification.

And if a business says it is doing this....so what ? What business (pardon the pun) is it of the Treasury Dept.).

Don't question your government, citizen!

 

[bendog]

That's right, go Glen Beck on the Nazis are coming, while ignoring the rather obvious effects on hiring and new biz growth. hey shut down the govt again, that's the ticket

 

[Listening]

That's right, go Glen Beck on the Nazis are coming, while ignoring the rather obvious effects on hiring and new biz growth. hey shut down the govt again, that's the ticket

Since when does the government get to tell businesses who they can and can't hire or fire for economic reasons.

Let's see:

Here is a law....it won't cause your business trouble.

But if it does cause you trouble...you can't respond by doing what businesses do.

So we won't look bad.

Got it.

 

[Wyatt earp]

This is like the fourth topic on this subject today.. but kind of good to reposting it.. it keeps the democrat sheep reminded.

 

[Doubletap]

Economic power is exercised by means of a positive, by offering men a reward, an incentive, a payment, a value; political power is exercised by means of a negative, by the threat of punishment, injury, imprisonment, destruction. The businessman's tool is values; the bureaucrat's tool is fear
-John Galt

 

[Mr. H.]

This entire administration is a goddamn joke.

 

[Wyatt earp]

I still want to know if the IRS will nark on employees in right to work states why they got fired . This opens up a flood gate s of law suite's if it becomes public knowledge.

 

[HenryBHough]

Will there be a new "Thought Police" Czar appointed?

Should that require Senate confirmation?

Shouldn't that be part of Obama's IRS Storm Trooper brigade? Or NSA - where it would be easier to monitor the communications of those who might be thinking to lay off some drones?

 

[Missouri_Mike]

To What End - Obamacare To Force Businesses To Self Certify

So businesses admit that they know and will obey the law.

What is the law exactly you simple minded little fool?

Is it to make sure no business can fire anyone or change their employment status because it makes their business fail? Or is it the fact that under this assinine law the business WILL fail and therefore needs to be pushed into that result? Or is it just to make sure the sheeple of the left blame the business for the failure not the government?

This is pure communism at this point. You as a business will no longer hire or fire people based on productivity or your ability to pay. You WILL pay people x amount of dollars, x amount of benefits and x amount of time off until you can no longer survive. Then we the people that know how to community organize but never ran a business will blame YOU for the failure that will result.

Let me guess what the next step will be for little obie. The government will step in and take over that business to "save the jobs".

This is exactly what obiecare was designed to accomplish. You're an idiot if you think it had anything to do with your healthcare. It was the sinking of the claws of government into every business they can possibly grab in order to push them to bankruptcy and an eventual takeover by the feds. After all, if the private sector can't survive under the thumb of regulation and mandates who is left that can? Of course, only the government can.