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

[saveliberty]

^ 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.

Only to a hack or moron. Take your pick.

 

[Jarhead]

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.

Hey Paulie...

Question...

In your service business....if you hired an additional employee who was as good as your best employee....how would the return on the first "best emnployee" increase due to the hiring of another good employee?

And a better question...

If the hiring of the second great employee resulted in NO increase in return of the first great emplyee....would you think something is wrong?

Now.....lets not divert by chiming in with unknown variables such as "the second great one will motivate the first hgreat one to be even better......

Just assume you are thrilled with the first one...you get 120% fromo him/her.....and you hired a second one who is equally as good.....exactly how would the return on the first one increase....and if it didnt, would you consider yourself as a failure of a business owner?

 

[KissMy]

Read the banker comment on CBS News: How the Affordable Care Act affects you

Banker002 says: "A company with 63 employees will only have to pay for 13 employees. When a company adds its 51st employees they dont have to start paying a penalty for 51 employees. They will pay a penalty for 1 employee. That brings up the 2nd biggest problem with the ACA. No one seems to be getting the specifics out on how its going to work or at least they doing a very poor job. As intellegent as the people are who posted here in this chain. There seems to be a shortage of knowledge on the ACA. I took the 8 weeks course provided at Cousera.org on the ACA. I know more than I didi but I wish the class went even deeper into the specifics."

ADP jobs report just came out & said we added another 118K jobs last month. That is impressive given hurricane Sandy, the looming "Fiscal Cliff", Obamacare & laying off all the election campaign personnel.

 

[LoneLaugher]

.

I could definitely be a liar, no doubt about it.

One thing I find interesting is the way both ends of the political spectrum throw that one up immediately when they don't like something.

.

Nobody called you a liar. It is not always about you.

 

[G.T.]

Saveliberty, you said this: Where's your fact on all small businesses eligible for handouts support?

I responded that you should read the bill.

Your next response, quoting the post I told you "read the bill," was to say that "even if 35% is subsidized, they still pay 65%!"

So to recap:

Your response to my saying that subsidies exist, was to say "yea, but they're not 100%!"



Which, noone ever claimed they covered the entire cost so...................................your post was null and void.

Now you're being two, and acting like someone else is the retard.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Read the banker comment on CBS News: How the Affordable Care Act affects you

Banker002 says: "A company with 63 employees will only have to pay for 13 employees. When a company adds its 51st employees they dont have to start paying a penalty for 51 employees. They will pay a penalty for 1 employee. That brings up the 2nd biggest problem with the ACA. No one seems to be getting the specifics out on how its going to work or at least they doing a very poor job. As intellegent as the people are who posted here in this chain. There seems to be a shortage of knowledge on the ACA. I took the 8 weeks course provided at Cousera.org on the ACA. I know more than I didi but I wish the class went even deeper into the specifics."

huh? I thought 30 didn't count?

 

[G.T.]

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.

Hey Paulie...

Question...

In your service business....if you hired an additional employee who was as good as your best employee....how would the return on the first "best emnployee" increase due to the hiring of another good employee?

And a better question...

If the hiring of the second great employee resulted in NO increase in return of the first great emplyee....would you think something is wrong?

Now.....lets not divert by chiming in with unknown variables such as "the second great one will motivate the first hgreat one to be even better......

Just assume you are thrilled with the first one...you get 120% fromo him/her.....and you hired a second one who is equally as good.....exactly how would the return on the first one increase....and if it didnt, would you consider yourself as a failure of a business owner?

the synopsis you laid out is not always the case, and you originally stated your case as an absolute.

This post here is redundant, the answer is common sense.

It still doesn't mean that you were right, in stating it as an absolute. Because there are always "other factors," and there are indeed many other scenarios than the one you laid out.

 

[g5000]

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:


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!!

A company can refuse to buy insurance for its employees altogether.

At best, that is a ZERO expense for a small company.

Worst case scenario for a big company is that they end up paying a $2,000 fine per employee, which is still WAY cheaper than health insurance for the employee.

That $2,000 fine never existed before ObamaCare, and so it is an added expense.


.

 

[Jarhead]

Read the banker comment on CBS News: How the Affordable Care Act affects you

Banker002 says: "A company with 63 employees will only have to pay for 13 employees. When a company adds its 51st employees they dont have to start paying a penalty for 51 employees. They will pay a penalty for 1 employee. That brings up the 2nd biggest problem with the ACA. No one seems to be getting the specifics out on how its going to work or at least they doing a very poor job. As intellegent as the people are who posted here in this chain. There seems to be a shortage of knowledge on the ACA. I took the 8 weeks course provided at Cousera.org on the ACA. I know more than I didi but I wish the class went even deeper into the specifics."

the reason what that banker said is absolutely wrong is becasue in any company ALL NON EXEMPT EMPLOYEES MUST BE TREATED EQUALLY.....thjeir pay does not have to be equal nor do their titles and responsibilities....but as it pertains to benefitsd, sick days, vacation days, etc....all must be created equal.

Now...I know Ravi or GT or some other asshoile will try to puch a hole in this statement by saying something silly like..

"an employee of 5 years gets more vacation time than an employee with 1 year"...

True....

But the employee with 5 years and the employee with 1 year have the exact same progression of increrase in vacation time as the time passes...

All non exempt employees MUST be offered the exact same package.

Exempt employees...well...they are called exempt becuase they are exempt from the law....and they are suually managerial and hire.

 

[g5000]

What ObamaCare has done is more deeply entrench that old time labor union favorite, the employer-sponsored health insurance plan.

Employer-sponsored health insurance is one of the factors which has been driving UP the cost of health care in America.

It needs to go away, not be more deeply entrenched.

ObamaCare is going to increase the cost of health care. And you can bank that.

All that faux outrage over per capita spending that was used to push this piece of shit through was a classic Bait-And-Switch con.



.

 

[Freewill]

Read the banker comment on CBS News: How the Affordable Care Act affects you

Banker002 says: "A company with 63 employees will only have to pay for 13 employees. When a company adds its 51st employees they dont have to start paying a penalty for 51 employees. They will pay a penalty for 1 employee. That brings up the 2nd biggest problem with the ACA. No one seems to be getting the specifics out on how its going to work or at least they doing a very poor job. As intellegent as the people are who posted here in this chain. There seems to be a shortage of knowledge on the ACA. I took the 8 weeks course provided at Cousera.org on the ACA. I know more than I didi but I wish the class went even deeper into the specifics."

ADP jobs report just came out & said we added another 118K jobs last month. That is impressive given hurricane Sandy, the looming "Fiscal Cliff", Obamacare & laying off all the election campaign personnel.

I guess the bill has to be passed for 2 to 6 years before anyone can know what is in it.

 

[LoneLaugher]

How many of you nutters have acknowledged that the OP might be bullshit....and then gone on to tell us how what it says is entirely credible?

Have you no filter?

 

[Jarhead]

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


You need this:


And this:




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!!

A company can refuse to buy insurance for its employees altogether.

At best, that is a ZERO expense for a small company.

Worst case scenario for a big company is that they end up paying a $2,000 fine per employee, which is still WAY cheaper than health insurance for the employee.

That $2,000 fine never existed before ObamaCare, and so it is an added expense.


.

yes....and if you are a companmy of 45 employees comnsidering an expansion to 55 employees....your cost for the fines will amount to 120K....giving you reason to reconsider the expansion...unless the exapnsion will have a guaranteed net return of at least 120K

 

[g5000]

I guess the bill has to be passed for 2 to 6 years before anyone can know what is in it.

When health care costs continue to rise, and the national deficit skyrockets, then everyone will know ObamaCare is a piece of shit that needs to be repealed.

.

 

[g5000]

yes....and if you are a companmy of 45 employees comnsidering an expansion to 55 employees....your cost for the fines will amount to 120K....giving you reason to reconsider the expansion...unless the exapnsion will have a guaranteed net return of at least 120K

No. This is completely wrong.

See post #187.

.

 

[LoneLaugher]

What must it be like to be so conflicted?

 

[GoneBezerk]

Shitbag....that doesn't matter.

As usual, dumbfuck liberals like you attack the messenger and not the message.

How many of you nutters have acknowledged that the OP might be bullshit....and then gone on to tell us how what it says is entirely credible?

Have you no filter?

 

[Jarhead]

How many of you nutters have acknowledged that the OP might be bullshit....and then gone on to tell us how what it says is entirely credible?

Have you no filter?

the strory may be BS.....but the premise is 100% accurate.

If increasing your staff means a dramatic increase in the cost of each employee WITHOUT an equal or more dramatic increase in return per each employee, then SHORT TERM growth would be a losing proposition.

And most certainly on the heels of a great recession.....who would want to experience a short term loss until you are able to contiunue growing to a point where it is no longer a losing proposition? And how would you continue growing if you are profiting less money than you were before your initial growth?

 

[GoneBezerk]

If a company is going to get a $120K cost by adding 10 more employees on top of their salaries, forget about it.....they aren't hiring those 10 employees unless those 10 employees somehow cover their own salaries and the Obamacare tax.

 

[G.T.]

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

You found a way out!

You rule!!

A company can refuse to buy insurance for its employees altogether.

At best, that is a ZERO expense for a small company.

Worst case scenario for a big company is that they end up paying a $2,000 fine per employee, which is still WAY cheaper than health insurance for the employee.

That $2,000 fine never existed before ObamaCare, and so it is an added expense.


.

yes....and if you are a companmy of 45 employees comnsidering an expansion to 55 employees....your cost for the fines will amount to 120K....giving you reason to reconsider the expansion...unless the exapnsion will have a guaranteed net return of at least 120K

the cost of the fines would be $2k for every employee over 30, so 55-30x2,000 = $50000, not $120k.