Liberal Business owners - a true story of what I get to deal with right now

[Ravi]

So I take it no one knows what the big flaming mistake in the OP is. This whole topic is premised on a giant lie.



.

What is it?

 

[Paulie]

Here's an example of where jarhead is correct..

I opened a preschool with my son's mom a couple years ago. When she hires a new employee it's a static return because she's still charging the same per child regardless how motivated the employee is.

But that's just an example of why there's variables in this. I can hire a new employee and if he busts his ass and we get a project done quicker, my return increases.

It all depends on the business.

Exactly. And if there were no gay regulation on the amount of teachers per student, and your ex busted her ass and was able to oversee more students, then her output increases based on her motivation.

But I know those regs were there so....blah.

That's a good point.

 

[saveliberty]

So I take it no one knows what the big flaming mistake in the OP is. This whole topic is premised on a giant lie.



.

What is it?

That those two guys got there on there own.

 

[G.T.]

^meltdown.

Everything you just said is an exact reflection of yourself. Period.

Actually, its a reflection of listening to a jackass with no facts of his own spouting knowledge in a field he has none. Where's your fact on all small businesses eligible for handouts support?

^ read-the-bill ^


^red alert: read the bill^

no, read even an overview. Even just that bare minimum.

 

[G.T.]

Not Offered
The penalty comes into play if one or more employees goes into the exchange and gets a credit or subsidy. If just one of this employer’s employees goes into the exchange for coverage and receives a tax credit (because the employee is below 400% of the FPL), the employer will be assessed a penalty of $2000 for every full-time employee, with the first 30 of the full-time employees being forgiven.


To illustrate, if the employer has 51 full time employees, and one of those employees goes into the exchange to purchase coverage and receives a tax credit, the employer will pay a penalty of $2000 for each employee in excess of 30. In this case, the penalty will be $2000 x 21 or $42,000.

 

[saveliberty]

^meltdown.

Everything you just said is an exact reflection of yourself. Period.

Actually, its a reflection of listening to a jackass with no facts of his own spouting knowledge in a field he has none. Where's your fact on all small businesses eligible for handouts support?

^ read-the-bill ^


^red alert: read the bill^

no, read even an overview. Even just that bare minimum.

Try to follow this slow one. You don't provide health coverage for your employees. Now the government says you must. You pay ALL the premiums and the government says, here is 35% back as a credit. That leaves 65% that you didn't pay before. Its not a handout at all.

 

[g5000]

So I take it no one knows what the big flaming mistake in the OP is. This whole topic is premised on a giant lie.



.

What is it?

First, I will quote the relevant bits from Section 1513 of the PPACA. Then, I will explain what it means.


You need this:

SEC. 1513. SHARED RESPONSIBILITY FOR EMPLOYERS.
(a) IN GENERAL.—Chapter 43 of the Internal Revenue Code of
1986 is amended by adding at the end the following:
‘‘SEC. 4980H. SHARED RESPONSIBILITY FOR EMPLOYERS REGARDING
HEALTH COVERAGE.
‘‘(a) LARGE EMPLOYERS NOT OFFERING HEALTH COVERAGE.—
If—
‘‘(1) any applicable large employer fails to offer to its fulltime
employees (and their dependents) the opportunity to enroll
in minimum essential coverage under an eligible employer sponsored
plan (as defined in section 5000A(f)(2)) for any
month, and
‘‘(2) at least one full-time employee of the applicable large
employer has been certified to the employer under section 1411
of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act as having enrolled
for such month in a qualified health plan with respect
to which an applicable premium tax credit or cost-sharing reduction
is allowed or paid with respect to the employee,
then there is hereby imposed on the employer an assessable payment
equal to the product of the applicable payment amount and
the number of individuals employed by the employer as full-time
employees during such month.

And this:

‘‘(D) APPLICATION OF EMPLOYER SIZE TO ASSESSABLE
PENALTIES.—
‘‘(i) IN GENERAL.—The number of individuals employed
by an applicable large employer as full-time
employees during any month shall be reduced by 30
solely for purposes of calculating—
‘‘(I) the assessable payment under subsection
(a), or
‘‘(II) the overall limitation under subsection
(b)(2).
‘‘(ii) AGGREGATION.—In the case of persons treated
as 1 employer under subparagraph (C)(i), only 1 reduction
under subclause (I) or (II) shall be allowed with
respect to such persons and such reduction shall be allocated
among such persons ratably on the basis of the
number of full-time employees employed by each such
person.

What this means is that a company that does not provide health insurance is susceptible to penalties only if the employees get federal subsidies to buy their health insurance. But in addition to that, to avoid the very kind of disincentive Blue Phantom made up in the OP, whereby an employer with 49 employees decides not to hire more people because it would push him over the 50 employee floor, the second part that I quoted means that for purposes of the penalties, the first 30 employees are not counted toward the penalties.

.

 

[kwc57]

You were speaking in too many absolutes.

And to say that profit per employee doesnt increase with hiring, as an ABSOLUTE, is wrong anyways.

Vetting can tighten, the hiree may be a Consultant, etc.

There's so many factors involved and so many unique situations that to make an absolute statement like you did, even after clarification, is wrong.

GT....I cited an example....and you debated my example.

Look...I am finding that you are just another asshole that wants to bhe right. I pity you.

FYI....I did quite well in the largest markert in the country..I was good at wehat I did and was paid well for it.

You, on the other hand is some bullshit artist who claims to be employed, but for some reason able to be on here all day....so you can take your "i know more than you do attitude" and use it on someone else.

BTW...hows that recovery going? Huh? You know...the one you and all of your firends were saying for 3 years was "just around the corner"..

.and how is that healthcare going for you...up what....20%? You know...the one that was going to decrease healthcare costs for all of us?

How is that arab spring going? You know...the one you all said was a result of Obama and his "hand out for peace" attitude

LOL...continue to be right....go ahead....enjoy it while you can.

In the meantime, I am enjoying my free time reading posts by dreamers like you who demonstrate that they are uneducated assholes with little at stake but their freebies..

Cya GT......on my ignore list.

^meltdown.

Everything you just said is an exact reflection of yourself. Period.

Stating the obvious should never be confused with a meltdown.

 

[saveliberty]

Those employees required to report to the business they have gone to the exchange?

 

[G.T.]

GT....I cited an example....and you debated my example.

Look...I am finding that you are just another asshole that wants to bhe right. I pity you.

FYI....I did quite well in the largest markert in the country..I was good at wehat I did and was paid well for it.

You, on the other hand is some bullshit artist who claims to be employed, but for some reason able to be on here all day....so you can take your "i know more than you do attitude" and use it on someone else.

BTW...hows that recovery going? Huh? You know...the one you and all of your firends were saying for 3 years was "just around the corner"..

.and how is that healthcare going for you...up what....20%? You know...the one that was going to decrease healthcare costs for all of us?

How is that arab spring going? You know...the one you all said was a result of Obama and his "hand out for peace" attitude

LOL...continue to be right....go ahead....enjoy it while you can.

In the meantime, I am enjoying my free time reading posts by dreamers like you who demonstrate that they are uneducated assholes with little at stake but their freebies..

Cya GT......on my ignore list.

^meltdown.

Everything you just said is an exact reflection of yourself. Period.

Stating the obvious should never be confused with a meltdown.

It was a meltdown. Plain and simple. It was a devolving to clueless talking points and name calling.

 

[GoneBezerk]

Where does the Federal govt get off telling companies they need to give their employees healthcare coverage.

If they don't pay enough money for their workers to buy private healthcare insurance, then employees don't have to work there.

Someone cooking fries at McDonalds should not get company provided healthcare like a 30 year old engineer at Lockheed Martin with more skills and education to provide their employer. The company lures smart workers with extra benefits like healthcare, working at McDonalds isn't a skill set that requires stiff competition for a job.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Honest to fucking gawd, I do not get it. Never mind the fiction of the op - Did you really think anyone would fall for that little story?

How come the op's accountant can't find the info that my accountant has at her fingertips?

How come lib/dem small business owners know that ACA will not cost them more money but rw's and pubs don't?

How come lib/dem big business people, like Bill Gates, Warren Buffet know that ACA will save them money but Papa John doesn't? (Yeah, we know that Papa John was looking for a way to make more money, make an anti-Obama statement AND screw over his lowly workers but it looks like its backfiring on him because not even the dumbest rw is falling for his lies.)

Hell, for that matter, how come rw posters here can't find out, for themselves, how ACA affects them? No, I don't mean the BS you suck up from fox, lusbo, etc. I mean FACTS? How come libs and dems can find their way to googledotcom and rw's can't?

It won't matter what links are posted for the rw's. They'll say they're wrong or from a liberal site and it IS certainly true you find FACTS at fox or the other idiot sites. I doubt the rw's will read any of them and you're more than welcome to disagree. And, really, it takes only a few moments to do a search.

(Note to OP - just think how happy your owners will be when you tell them you found info their accountants apparently did not even look for and that they don't have to fire people or cut hours. And, I do have to give you credit for not posting the another common lie these days - that Obama forced business closures.)

ACA is saving money on health care that small businesses can use for hiring | MedCity News

http://roybal-allard.house.gov/uploadedfiles/health_reform_for_small_businesses.pdf

How the ACA Saves Money & Raises Revenues–Numbers You Can Count On | Health Beat by Maggie Mahar

CBO: The Affordable Care Act Will Save Even More Money Than We Thought « The Erstwhile Conservative: A Blog of Repentance

The Basics - Kaiser Health Reform

Implementation Timeline - Kaiser Health Reform

 

[Ravi]

So I take it no one knows what the big flaming mistake in the OP is. This whole topic is premised on a giant lie.



.

What is it?

First, I will quote the relevant bits from Section 1513 of the PPACA. Then, I will explain what it means.


You need this:

SEC. 1513. SHARED RESPONSIBILITY FOR EMPLOYERS.
(a) IN GENERAL.—Chapter 43 of the Internal Revenue Code of
1986 is amended by adding at the end the following:
‘‘SEC. 4980H. SHARED RESPONSIBILITY FOR EMPLOYERS REGARDING
HEALTH COVERAGE.
‘‘(a) LARGE EMPLOYERS NOT OFFERING HEALTH COVERAGE.—
If—
‘‘(1) any applicable large employer fails to offer to its fulltime
employees (and their dependents) the opportunity to enroll
in minimum essential coverage under an eligible employer sponsored
plan (as defined in section 5000A(f)(2)) for any
month, and
‘‘(2) at least one full-time employee of the applicable large
employer has been certified to the employer under section 1411
of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act as having enrolled
for such month in a qualified health plan with respect
to which an applicable premium tax credit or cost-sharing reduction
is allowed or paid with respect to the employee,
then there is hereby imposed on the employer an assessable payment
equal to the product of the applicable payment amount and
the number of individuals employed by the employer as full-time
employees during such month.

And this:

‘‘(D) APPLICATION OF EMPLOYER SIZE TO ASSESSABLE
PENALTIES.—
‘‘(i) IN GENERAL.—The number of individuals employed
by an applicable large employer as full-time
employees during any month shall be reduced by 30
solely for purposes of calculating—
‘‘(I) the assessable payment under subsection
(a), or
‘‘(II) the overall limitation under subsection
(b)(2).
‘‘(ii) AGGREGATION.—In the case of persons treated
as 1 employer under subparagraph (C)(i), only 1 reduction
under subclause (I) or (II) shall be allowed with
respect to such persons and such reduction shall be allocated
among such persons ratably on the basis of the
number of full-time employees employed by each such
person.

What this means is that a company that does not provide health insurance is susceptible to penalties only if the employees get federal subsidies to buy their health insurance. But in addition to that, to avoid the very kind of disincentive Blue Phantom made up in the OP, whereby an employer with 49 employees decides not to hire more people because it would push him over the 50 employee floor, the second part that I quoted means that for purposes of the penalties, the first 30 employees are not counted toward the penalties.

.

So, if the employer is paying a decent wage then no employees would get federal subsidies to begin with....since they wouldn't qualify?

 

[Katzndogz]

After reading this entire thread, it is more than obvious that liberals cannot be fixed. The nation is going to have to go into complete collapse. Libs won't know what happened or what caused it, but they will know that it doesn't work.

 

[G.T.]

Actually, its a reflection of listening to a jackass with no facts of his own spouting knowledge in a field he has none. Where's your fact on all small businesses eligible for handouts support?

^ read-the-bill ^


^red alert: read the bill^

no, read even an overview. Even just that bare minimum.

Try to follow this slow one. You don't provide health coverage for your employees. Now the government says you must. You pay ALL the premiums and the government says, here is 35% back as a credit. That leaves 65% that you didn't pay before. Its not a handout at all.

Pay attention.

Stating there are subsidies and credits =/= saying it will be free.

In other words, you just made a non-point.

 

[G.T.]

Where does the Federal govt get off telling companies they need to give their employees healthcare coverage.

If they don't pay enough money for their workers to buy private healthcare insurance, then employees don't have to work there.

Someone cooking fries at McDonalds should not get company provided healthcare like a 30 year old engineer at Lockheed Martin with more skills and education to provide their employer. The company lures smart workers with extra benefits like healthcare, working at McDonalds isn't a skill set that requires stiff competition for a job.

I agree, tbh.

 

[g5000]

So here's the thing.

ObamaCare subsidizes the health insurance premiums for people earning up to 400 percent above poverty level.

If large employers are penalized $2,000 for every employee who is receiving a government health insurance subsidy, how long do you think that "up to 400 percent" bit is going to last?

.

 

[Paulie]

Where does the Federal govt get off telling companies they need to give their employees healthcare coverage.

If they don't pay enough money for their workers to buy private healthcare insurance, then employees don't have to work there.

Someone cooking fries at McDonalds should not get company provided healthcare like a 30 year old engineer at Lockheed Martin with more skills and education to provide their employer. The company lures smart workers with extra benefits like healthcare, working at McDonalds isn't a skill set that requires stiff competition for a job.

I agree, tbh.

So do i. Every once in a while even the craziest retards on this board make some sense.

 

[Ravi]

I can only guess that Blue Phantom has become so unhinged by the election that he's turned into a dishonest troll.

Sad.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

So I take it no one knows what the big flaming mistake in the OP is. This whole topic is premised on a giant lie.



.

What is it?

First, I will quote the relevant bits from Section 1513 of the PPACA. Then, I will explain what it means.


You need this:

SEC. 1513. SHARED RESPONSIBILITY FOR EMPLOYERS.
(a) IN GENERAL.—Chapter 43 of the Internal Revenue Code of
1986 is amended by adding at the end the following:
‘‘SEC. 4980H. SHARED RESPONSIBILITY FOR EMPLOYERS REGARDING
HEALTH COVERAGE.
‘‘(a) LARGE EMPLOYERS NOT OFFERING HEALTH COVERAGE.—
If—
‘‘(1) any applicable large employer fails to offer to its fulltime
employees (and their dependents) the opportunity to enroll
in minimum essential coverage under an eligible employer sponsored
plan (as defined in section 5000A(f)(2)) for any
month, and
‘‘(2) at least one full-time employee of the applicable large
employer has been certified to the employer under section 1411
of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act as having enrolled
for such month in a qualified health plan with respect
to which an applicable premium tax credit or cost-sharing reduction
is allowed or paid with respect to the employee,
then there is hereby imposed on the employer an assessable payment
equal to the product of the applicable payment amount and
the number of individuals employed by the employer as full-time
employees during such month.

And this:

‘‘(D) APPLICATION OF EMPLOYER SIZE TO ASSESSABLE
PENALTIES.—
‘‘(i) IN GENERAL.—The number of individuals employed
by an applicable large employer as full-time
employees during any month shall be reduced by 30
solely for purposes of calculating—
‘‘(I) the assessable payment under subsection
(a), or
‘‘(II) the overall limitation under subsection
(b)(2).
‘‘(ii) AGGREGATION.—In the case of persons treated
as 1 employer under subparagraph (C)(i), only 1 reduction
under subclause (I) or (II) shall be allowed with
respect to such persons and such reduction shall be allocated
among such persons ratably on the basis of the
number of full-time employees employed by each such
person.

What this means is that a company that does not provide health insurance is susceptible to penalties only if the employees get federal subsidies to buy their health insurance. But in addition to that, to avoid the very kind of disincentive Blue Phantom made up in the OP, whereby an employer with 49 employees decides not to hire more people because it would push him over the 50 employee floor, the second part that I quoted means that for purposes of the penalties, the first 30 employees are not counted toward the penalties.

.

Oh, praise Allah, the company can refuse the federal subsidy and opt out of Obamacare!

You found a way out!

You rule!!