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

[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.

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?

50 full time employees.

 

[saveliberty]

Actually a lot of large corporations got themselves exempted from Obamacare if you remember.

 

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

Or Tripling! OMG!

Also, make the Obamaphone the new company phone

Not surprising, you miss the point.

 

[Jarhead]

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.

lol....include the statutiory costs per employee as well as other operating costs per employee....and then of course ALL other operating costs.....and well......having a million plus salary pool can mean you are MAKING only 50K
....so 50K extra cost can mean you are out of business.

 

[jillian]

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?

why do you think $1,000 a year per person is a big deal to a company....

maybe you should look at the raises the owners/CEO's give themselves before you feel badly for them?

 

[Jarhead]

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?

50 full time employees.

is that a guess...or is it actually defined in the law somewhere as 50.

I ask for in the business world...a small company is 49 and less...

A medium sized company is 199 and less and a large company is anything from 200 and up.....

 

[jillian]

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.

or more likely know that a family vacation for the type of person you're talking about costs $100,000

and they'll spend $1,000 on a family dinner

and $3,000 on a business dinner.

not to mention the fact that the extra expenses don't cost $50,000 in actual dollars because of concomitant tax deductions.

so i'd say that YOUR observations are the ones made by someone who never had bottom line accountability... at least not on any scale large enough to run a 50-person concern

 

[CrusaderFrank]

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.

Wrong. It's how you keep things into perspective instead of buying into the doom and gloom hysteria.

To cover the $50k cost, on 55 employees, it's $20 bucks a paycheck. Versus:

unemployment.
bankruptcy.

Right because it's never a big deal to write a check on somebody elses account

Why not start cutting government spending be reducing all federal employees by $20/paycheck?

2.1MM*20*26= $1,092MM annually

 

[Jarhead]

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?

50 full time employees.

is that a guess...or is it actually defined in the law somewhere as 50.

I ask for in the business world...a small company is 49 and less...

A medium sized company is 199 and less and a large company is anything from 200 and up.....

I should mention.....these numbvers are regaring service industry companies.

They are different for manufacturers.

Foir example.....a manufacturer with 500 employees may very well be deeemd a small company...depending on the return per employee.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

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.

or more likely know that a family vacation for the type of person you're talking about costs $100,000

Not sure what point you're trying to make. Try again.

Business owners don't care about the bottom line?

 

[Jarhead]

I have my answer...Ravi is correct...

Large Business | HealthCare.gov

 

[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.


.

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?

The definition of a large employer is in the link I provided in post 187 in the same section to which I referred.

Basically, any employer with more than 50 full time employees (with some nits here and there) falls under the requirement to insure their employees. However, there are no penalties for not insuring their employees unless those employees use federal money to subsidize their health insurance which they buy on their own through the health exchanges.

Only someone who earns less than 400 percent above the poverty level qualifies for a federal health insurance subsidy.

So if an employer pays his employees more than 400 percent above poverty level, that employer will not be fined for not insuring his employees.

In addition, if an employer does not insure his employees, and some of them do qualify for a federal subsidy, the first 30 who qualify for a subsidy are not counted toward the penalties to be incurred.

So there are several ways it is possible that an employer with more than 50 employees can get away with not insuring his employees and not pay a single cent in penalties.


Nevertheless, the very idea that the government can require you to insure your employees is reprehensible and socialistic, and will continue to bend the cost curve upward.

.

 

[jillian]

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?

50 full time employees.

is that a guess...or is it actually defined in the law somewhere as 50.

I ask for in the business world...a small company is 49 and less...

A medium sized company is 199 and less and a large company is anything from 200 and up.....

it's 50 people for the FMLA and ACA:

Under the Affordable Care Act, beginning in 2014 employers with at least 50 full-time employees (or equivalent full- and part-time workers) will have to provide "qualified" health insurance coverage to their full-time employees and their dependents. Qualified coverage means that plans are comprehensive (pay at least 60 percent of health care expenses) and affordable (cost less than 9.5 percent of employees' household incomes).

Health Policy Briefs

 

[GoneBezerk]

Liberals being stupid people believe adding costs to a company's bottomline will stimulate them to hire more workers.

The evil liberals that passed this bill know better, they did this on purpose.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

2012 Poverty Guidelines for the
48 Contiguous States and the District of Columbia
Persons in
family/household Poverty guideline
1 $11,170
2 15,130
3 19,090
4 23,050
5 27,010
6 30,970
7 34,930
8 38,890
For families/households with more than 8 persons,
add $3,960 for each additional person.

So anyone making LESS than 400% of the above which means that in a 50 person company there's about a 100% chance to include someone in that category.

 

[jillian]

Liberals being stupid people believe adding costs to a company's bottomline will stimulate them to hire more workers.

The evil liberals that passed this bill know better, they did this on purpose.

^^^^^^

needs meds

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Liberals being stupid people believe adding costs to a company's bottomline will stimulate them to hire more workers.

The evil liberals that passed this bill know better, they did this on purpose.

^ This!!