smiling at all the serfs' suffering.
Posted on 01/10/2013 6:51:52 AM PST by Olog-hai
The Internal Revenue Service warned employers in a new regulatory proposal not to come up with clever schemes to avoid Obamacare’s employer health insurance mandate.
The IRS said it would soon issue “anti-abuse rules” to discourage employers from taking advantage of any regulatory loopholes.
“The Treasury Department and the IRS are aware of various structures being considered under which employers might use temporary staffing agencies (or other staffing agencies)… to evade application of section 4980H [the employer insurance mandate],” the IRS said in a proposed regulatory announcement issued December 28. …
(Excerpt) Read more at cnsnews.com ...
War is coming. We will not survive. Some of our kids might.
Now this is a new rule I hadn't heard of. We have great insurance through my husband's company and it's always been the company pays 3/4, we pay 1/4. That costs is around $250-300 per month. We're okay with the no more than 9.5% of salary but my husband's one of the higher paid employees, but what about the employees at the bottom of the totem pole. The guy making $10 an hour, that policy is going to be more than 9.5% of his pay...so what will the company do, make employees pay for insurance based on their salary...or lower their policy costs by buying crummy insurance that won't be more than 9.5% of the $10 an hour worker?
If we do not obey this law, nor adhere to any of its rules, the country does not have enough IRS and other federal agents to round us up, nor courts to try us, nor juries to find us guilty.
A handful of states might try to use force to bring their residents into compliance, e.g. New York, Massachusetts, California, New Jersey or Maryland, but few others have politicians who would cross the line.
While the Administration talks about minting trillion dollar coins to get around the debt ceiling.
Nice.
I don’t understand the purpose of that requirement, either. It seems like it really would have the effect of lowering the quality of health care insurance for lower income individuals. Also, aren’t there mandates in Obamacare speaking to what must be covered in an “acceptable policy?” If that’s the case, that would most likely increase the price of lower cost insurance policies.
The oth question I have is, what happens if your current policy cost exceeds 9.5 percent of your wages? Is the employer required to buy a cheaper policy for you? The language stated is “...must not exceed 9.5 percent...”
or lower their salaries so the ins will be 9.5%
People in business can only try to make a profit given the totality of the incentives and regulations they are forced to successfully navigate.
If you punish an employer where the margin on low skilled employees between their pay and their productivity is very low, when government mandates that full time employees must have an expensive fringe benefit, but allows part time employees to escape the mandate, guess what? Employees at the lower end of the skills and productivity matrix are going to be part timers.
So yet another Blue model breaks down: all the social justice activists who thought that ObamaCare was going to bring out the magic unicorns all traversing the golden rainbow while defecating Skittles and Arizona Tea are going to be shocked to find out that instead of workers getting a more easy life with free health care, the full time job is going to disappear.
Instead of one full time job and a 40 hour week, workers at every level up to valuable management and those with high skills (like programmers and doctors) are going to work two part time jobs and have a 50 hour week, and no benefits.
The instant this new reality dawns on the low-information voters, they are going still blame greedy insurance companies! And as sure as the sun rises, you know that community activists and the social justice crowd are going to find a way to explain (er, lie) this reality to their advantage. And so the social struggle for the soul of the “worker” continues. Sadly, economic reality is the first thing to be cast aside.
Well, that should take care of the small businesses. NEXT - the peoples’ freedom.
An old but ever so topical FR thread.
This is one case where it is possible for IRS to go to the guy with the brown shirt, arrest him, put him on trial, then flense him, 'cause all the way at the top there's one employer ~ Ol'Bama hissef!!!
I am sure the rule writer for this one will disappear shortly.
this is getting entertaining. Does the dear leader really think that he can now tell employers how many hours he can relegate to his employees??
haah!!!!! about to pop some popcorn if anyone wants some.
For my part, my startup will never have 50 employees as long as ObamaCare is in effect. I’ll offshore and outsource and set up related businesses somewhere else to avoid the limit.
ObamaCare is an affront the Constitution. The very idea that a person can be forced by government to buy something is anathema to the Declaration of Independence and especially to “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”, which the last time I checked is still the law of the land, if not in legal reality then at least as a timeless principle from the Creator.
Angry backlash is coming.
A company can always avoid the mandates by going out of business.
Right, they just don’t seem to get that they can not force compliance with their scheme if the people are against it. Are they going to force me to keep my business open and not fire everyone?
Dem is fightin’ words.
Cutting your employee to 28 hrs. is now a “clever scheme” apparently.
So in order to keep the Gestapo from being suspicious, instead of having 49 employees, businesses can keep it down to 46 or 47. Now that’s going to really help the unemployment rate.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.