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

[g5000]

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.

And the fine only applies for those employees who are getting a federal subsidy for their insurance. So the fine could be zero.

.

 

[Jarhead]

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.

.

I ask that you re-read what you posted...and while you are at it, please define "Large Employer"...I may have missed it if it is in there...but I highly doubt "large employer" includes companies of 40 people.

I believe this was applicable to only Large employers.

I may be wrong and would like to know if I am.

 

[Jarhead]

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.

And the fine only applies for those employees who are getting a federal subsidy for their insurance. So the fine could be zero.

.

why does it specifically say "large employers"?

 

[Ravi]

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.

Just because you're mostly stupid doesn't mean you're never right.

 

[G.T.]

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.

.

I ask that you re-read what you posted...and while you are at it, please define "Large Employer"...I may have missed it if it is in there...but I highly doubt "large employer" includes companies of 40 people.

I believe this was applicable to only Large employers.

I may be wrong and would like to know if I am.

Another dude in a thread about the effects of the ACA who doesnt fully even understand the ACA.

Brilliant.

 

[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.

Just because you're mostly stupid doesn't mean you're never right.

just because you and I see things differently, doesnt mean either of us is stupid.

 

[Ravi]

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

No, it will be $50K since the first thirty aren't part of the penalty.

 

[Article 15]

Excuse me....you are 100% wrong.

If I had the formula for Coca-Cola and I posted it as the formula for a great tasting soda...not using the word Coca-Cola...and I was in contract with Coke.....I would be in breach of contract.

GT...no offense...but you are acting childish now...saying things as fact that you have no idea about.

The formula for a product has nothing with what we're talking about. Which is why you used it.

We're not talking about a company's secret formula. We're talking about a Balance sheet. We're talking about a guy stating that Obamacare will bankrupt his company.

actually...you were the one who said I was bulshitting about "proprietary information"....so I gave you another example.

Typical shit....not interested in this type of a debate.....it is turning into a shit show.

Cya.

As usual, Jarhead tucks tail and runs away when his bullshit gets called out.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

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

No, it will be $50K since the first thirty aren't part of the penalty.

Like I said, Progressive ideas are great as long as someone else is paying for them

Is $50K no big deal to a 50 person company?

 

[Jarhead]

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

No, it will be $50K since the first thirty aren't part of the penalty.

yes..I was directed to that post that explained the "30" employee thing...

But I am confused....it specifically refers to "large employers".....it does not say "any employer"...or any employer with 10 or more employees...

What is the definition of "large employer" in the law?

 

[g5000]

Here's the thing.

If you are an employee working in a high income job, your employer probably sponsors your health insurance to the tune of at least $10,000 a year. That is on top of your income. And you are not taxed for any of that $10,000 benefit. That's a tax free gift from Uncle Santa to you worth a box full of ObamaPhones.

Under ObamaCare, you are fucked. Because if your employer decides to no longer insure you, the MOST he will be fined is $2,000. That is a lot less than your current $10,000 health insurance benefit coming out of his pocket.

And chances are that your employer won't be fined a single cent since you are being paid more than 400 percent above poverty level and therefore won't qualify for a federal subsidy.


If you work for a business that does not pay the big bucks, and your employer does not insure you, you will qualify for a federal subsidy and your employer will be fined $2,000.


ObamaCare is a boon to big businesses that want to kill their smaller competitors. It's win/win for them.


.

 

[Jarhead]

The formula for a product has nothing with what we're talking about. Which is why you used it.

We're not talking about a company's secret formula. We're talking about a Balance sheet. We're talking about a guy stating that Obamacare will bankrupt his company.

actually...you were the one who said I was bulshitting about "proprietary information"....so I gave you another example.

Typical shit....not interested in this type of a debate.....it is turning into a shit show.

Cya.

As usual, Jarhead tucks tail and runs away when his bullshit gets called out.

your level of maturity is quite impressive.

Now....gotta go back to debating with the adults. Cant hang out at the kids table with you all day....sorry.

 

[G.T.]

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, it will be $50K since the first thirty aren't part of the penalty.

Like I said, Progressive ideas are great as long as someone else is paying for them

Is $50K no big deal to a 50 person company?

it shouldnt be.

like say they make $25k each, which is pretty low unless we're talking fast food which is typically well over 50.......

thats 1 and 1/4 million in salaries we're juggling with.

50k is a drop in the dingaling tbh.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

And there are no costs associated with compliance, right?

Those are done with magikal beans and fairy dust, right?

 

[Jarhead]

Here's the thing.

If you are an employee working in a high income job, your employer probably sponsors your health insurance to the tune of at least $10,000 a year. That is on top of your income. And you are not taxed for any of that $10,000 benefit. That's a tax free gift from Uncle Santa to you worth a box full of ObamaPhones.

Under ObamaCare, you are fucked. Because if your employer decides to no longer insure you, the MOST he will be fined is $2,000. That is a lot less than your current $10,000 health insurance benefit coming out of his pocket.

And chances are that your employer won't be fined a single cent since you are being paid more than 400 percent above poverty level and therefore won't qualify for a federal subsidy.


If you work for a business that does not pay the big bucks, and your employer does not insure you, you will qualify for a federal subsidy and your employer will be fined $2,000.


ObamaCare is a boon to big businesses that want to kill their smaller competitors. It's win/win for them.


.

Can you PLEASE tell me what "large employer" is referring to in the clauses that you posted...and WHY it refers specifically to "Large employers" if it is applicable to ALL employers?

 

[G.T.]

actually...you were the one who said I was bulshitting about "proprietary information"....so I gave you another example.

Typical shit....not interested in this type of a debate.....it is turning into a shit show.

Cya.

As usual, Jarhead tucks tail and runs away when his bullshit gets called out.

your level of maturity is quite impressive.

Now....gotta go back to debating with the adults. Cant hang out at the kids table with you all day....sorry.

The kids who argue about the ACA and admit they dont even really know what it entails, later on? Those kinds of kids?

 

[saveliberty]

Here's the thing.

If you are an employee working in a high income job, your employer probably sponsors your health insurance to the tune of at least $10,000 a year. That is on top of your income. And you are not taxed for any of that $10,000 benefit. That's a tax free gift from Uncle Santa to you worth a box full of ObamaPhones.
Under ObamaCare, you are fucked. Because if your employer decides to no longer insure you, the MOST he will be fined is $2,000. That is a lot less than your current $10,000 health insurance benefit coming out of his pocket.

And chances are that your employer won't be fined a single cent since you are being paid more than 400 percent above poverty level and therefore won't qualify for a federal subsidy.


If you work for a business that does not pay the big bucks, and your employer does not insure you, you will qualify for a federal subsidy and your employer will be fined $2,000.


ObamaCare is a boon to big businesses that want to kill their smaller competitors. It's win/win for them.


.

Its a benefit of having a set of skills your employer needs, paid by your employer. Try to follow reality.

 

[Ravi]

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, it will be $50K since the first thirty aren't part of the penalty.

Like I said, Progressive ideas are great as long as someone else is paying for them

Is $50K no big deal to a 50 person company?

It wouldn't be to me. It certainly wouldn't stop me from doubling my business.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

No, it will be $50K since the first thirty aren't part of the penalty.

Like I said, Progressive ideas are great as long as someone else is paying for them

Is $50K no big deal to a 50 person company?

it shouldnt be.

like say they make $25k each, which is pretty low unless we're talking fast food which is typically well over 50.......

thats 1 and 1/4 million in salaries we're juggling with.

50k is a drop in the dingaling tbh.

^ this is how you can tell right away when a person never once in his life had bottom line accountability for anything.

 

[G.T.]

Here's the thing.

If you are an employee working in a high income job, your employer probably sponsors your health insurance to the tune of at least $10,000 a year. That is on top of your income. And you are not taxed for any of that $10,000 benefit. That's a tax free gift from Uncle Santa to you worth a box full of ObamaPhones.

Under ObamaCare, you are fucked. Because if your employer decides to no longer insure you, the MOST he will be fined is $2,000. That is a lot less than your current $10,000 health insurance benefit coming out of his pocket.

And chances are that your employer won't be fined a single cent since you are being paid more than 400 percent above poverty level and therefore won't qualify for a federal subsidy.


If you work for a business that does not pay the big bucks, and your employer does not insure you, you will qualify for a federal subsidy and your employer will be fined $2,000.


ObamaCare is a boon to big businesses that want to kill their smaller competitors. It's win/win for them.


.

Can you PLEASE tell me what "large employer" is referring to in the clauses that you posted...and WHY it refers specifically to "Large employers" if it is applicable to ALL employers?

Look it up, dingbat.