Join Early Retirement Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 02-05-2013, 01:08 PM   #21
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
bUU's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Georgia
Posts: 1,905
Quote:
Originally Posted by ziggy29 View Post
I'm not sure I like this. Is it really in the public interest to kill off small business by allowing a few huge behemoths to dominate everything and use economies of scale to crush competition?
Either it is (in which case the public, i.e., society through its government, could, in "the public interest", make up for the extra burdens that small businesses would otherwise have to shoulder, rather than foisting those burdens on either of the two "innocent victims" in the situation, i.e., the business and the employees), or it isn't (in which case a system where everything is applied evenly is what's proper). I don't have a preference between the two - I only object to the idea that the heaviest burdens be placed on the weakest folks in the situation. That's basically economic bullying.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ziggy29 View Post
Huge companies already have major negotiating power in health insurance rates that small employers simply don't have.
So one approach would be to fix that, in the public interest. How does society benefit from employees of small companies getting disadvantages in this situation?
__________________

__________________
bUU is offline   Reply With Quote
Join the #1 Early Retirement and Financial Independence Forum Today - It's Totally Free!

Are you planning to be financially independent as early as possible so you can live life on your own terms? Discuss successful investing strategies, asset allocation models, tax strategies and other related topics in our online forum community. Our members range from young folks just starting their journey to financial independence, military retirees and even multimillionaires. No matter where you fit in you'll find that Early-Retirement.org is a great community to join. Best of all it's totally FREE!

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest so you have limited access to our community. Please take the time to register and you will gain a lot of great new features including; the ability to participate in discussions, network with our members, see fewer ads, upload photographs, create a retirement blog, send private messages and so much, much more!

Old 02-05-2013, 02:57 PM   #22
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 11,615
Quote:
Originally Posted by bUU View Post
So one approach would be to fix that, in the public interest.
The simplest answer and the most efficient answer is to de-link health insurance from employment. Why should companies be buying health insurance for their employees? They don't buy food for them, housing, other types of insurance. It's another market-warping leftover of government involvement (wage controls during WW II). Whether one has a job should not affect whether one has health insurance. Let people buy individual policies, let the government provide rules that make it equitable and efficient and provide assistance to those who need it.
But candidates who have tried to de-link health coverage from employment have been demagogued and bludgeoned into submission because it takes longer than 30 seconds to explain to the average American why it's better. So, here we are.
__________________

__________________
"Freedom begins when you tell Mrs. Grundy to go fly a kite." - R. Heinlein
samclem is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 02-05-2013, 04:03 PM   #23
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 13,254
Quote:
Originally Posted by bUU View Post
As I alluded to earlier, the problem stems from it being a step function. They simply shouldn't have exempted small companies - from anything. If the business doesn't have the wherewithal to survive paying fair wages and benefits, then maybe we'd be better off with a larger business operating that small business as an outlet of the larger business. "Mom & Pop" is all fine and good - let Mom and Pop actually work the place instead of having employees, and if they need more help, then maybe it isn't right to consider it a "Mom & Pop".
/snip/

Which means we might not have Apple, Microsoft, Dell etc. etc....

These were all small companies that might never have taken off if they had to deal with everything when they were young...

So yea, let's not give any small business a break on anything....


PS... I read this a day or two ago... there was an article where the new banking regulations were actually HELPING out the large banks such as JPMorgan Chase... the new regs are so costly to the small banks that they will not be able to compete with the big banks... So, following your logic then the 'to big to fail' problem is even worse with the new laws...


Edit to add... found the article...

http://www.cnbc.com/id/100431660?__s...t%7C&par=yahoo
__________________
Texas Proud is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-05-2013, 04:46 PM   #24
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
bUU's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Georgia
Posts: 1,905
Quote:
Originally Posted by Texas Proud View Post
Which means we might not have Apple, Microsoft, Dell etc. etc....
And perhaps we might have had something better, instead, in each case - or perhaps we would still have had each of those despite it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Texas Proud View Post
So yea, let's not give any small business a break on anything....
That's not what I said. If you just want to rant, go ahead, but if you want to have a conversation then reply to what is written, not your corruption thereof.
__________________
bUU is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-05-2013, 06:29 PM   #25
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
Katsmeow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 3,393
Quote:
Originally Posted by samclem View Post
The simplest answer and the most efficient answer is to de-link health insurance from employment. Why should companies be buying health insurance for their employees? They don't buy food for them, housing, other types of insurance. It's another market-warping leftover of government involvement (wage controls during WW II). Whether one has a job should not affect whether one has health insurance. Let people buy individual policies, let the government provide rules that make it equitable and efficient and provide assistance to those who need it.
I actually could have lived with that. I actually think that single payer is a better solution, but failing that I would have preferred the above.

But neither of those were options and so the current Act tries to improve health care while remaining within the employment based healthcare system.
__________________
Katsmeow is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 02-06-2013, 09:29 AM   #26
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 13,254
Quote:
Originally Posted by bUU View Post

That's not what I said. If you just want to rant, go ahead, but if you want to have a conversation then reply to what is written, not your corruption thereof.

Your EXACT quote:


"They simply shouldn't have exempted small companies - from anything."


No corruption on my part. Again, maybe you did not mean what you put down, but what you put down can have no other meaning.
__________________
Texas Proud is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-06-2013, 10:11 AM   #27
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
bUU's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Georgia
Posts: 1,905
Quote:
Originally Posted by Texas Proud View Post
Your EXACT quote:


"They simply shouldn't have exempted small companies - from anything."
Correct - THAT is what I said, not what you corrupted it into. What I wrote included this (which you oh-so-conveniently failed to read, or feigned to fail to read):
Quote:
Originally Posted by bUU View Post
Either it is (in which case the public, i.e., society through its government, could, in "the public interest", make up for the extra burdens that small businesses would otherwise have to shoulder, rather than foisting those burdens on either of the two "innocent victims" in the situation, i.e., the business and the employees), or it isn't (in which case a system where everything is applied evenly is what's proper). I don't have a preference between the two - I only object to the idea that the heaviest burdens be placed on the weakest folks in the situation. That's basically economic bullying.
The comments you have already posted clearly pre-selected the first choice ("it is"), which implies a reliance on the comments in bold above to understand what you're reading.
__________________
bUU is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-06-2013, 11:26 AM   #28
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 13,254
Quote:
Originally Posted by bUU View Post
Correct - THAT is what I said, not what you corrupted it into. What I wrote included this (which you oh-so-conveniently failed to read, or feigned to fail to read):

Originally Posted by bUU
Either it is (in which case the public, i.e., society through its government, could, in "the public interest", make up for the extra burdens that small businesses would otherwise have to shoulder, rather than foisting those burdens on either of the two "innocent victims" in the situation, i.e., the business and the employees), or it isn't (in which case a system where everything is applied evenly is what's proper). I don't have a preference between the two - I only object to the idea that the heaviest burdens be placed on the weakest folks in the situation. That's basically economic bullying.




The comments you have already posted clearly pre-selected the first choice ("it is"), which implies a reliance on the comments in bold above to understand what you're reading.

You made that quote in a different post... if you had said that in the post I quoted, then you can argue that I left something out that made it appear different than it was... you are now trying to tie two post together and make them one.... so who is trying to corrupt a post

I did not corrupt your post... it is what it is...
__________________
Texas Proud is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-06-2013, 02:37 PM   #29
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
bUU's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Georgia
Posts: 1,905
Rationalize it any way you want. Presumably now you've read all my comments... do you have anything to say about them or is this issue dead?
__________________
bUU is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-06-2013, 03:04 PM   #30
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 11,615
Here we go again . . . Definitely a pattern.
__________________
"Freedom begins when you tell Mrs. Grundy to go fly a kite." - R. Heinlein
samclem is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 02-06-2013, 03:18 PM   #31
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 13,254
Quote:
Originally Posted by bUU View Post
Rationalize it any way you want. Presumably now you've read all my comments... do you have anything to say about them or is this issue dead?
I am not rationalizing at all, just showing your quotes as you quoted them.

But sure, why not.

Your first post indicated that small business should not be exempt from a number of laws. I disagreed with that and posted about it. (which you seem to not like).

Your second post indicated two ways that this can be fixed. I had not weighed in on this. Your quote:

"Either it is (in which case the public, i.e., society through its government, could, in "the public interest", make up for the extra burdens that small businesses would otherwise have to shoulder, rather than foisting those burdens on either of the two "innocent victims" in the situation, i.e., the business and the employees), or it isn't (in which case a system where everything is applied evenly is what's proper). I don't have a preference between the two - I only object to the idea that the heaviest burdens be placed on the weakest folks in the situation. That's basically economic bullying."

I disagree with this also. I do not want our government to be spending tax dollars on different things in 'the public interest' for every business out there. This is not the job of gvmt. Politicians have gone out of their way to get gvmt involved with almost every aspect of life. There needs to be less of it.

I also do not see putting major burdens on small companies that they can not afford. The employees of that company knows what they are getting when they are hired. Nobody bullied them into taking that job. If they do not like it, they can look for another at a large company. (but small companies actually hire more people than large ones, so there are not that many jobs out there is there)

The health care act is placing huge burdens on small companies. There are plenty of them that will make changes to their workforce to get around the rules. If you now have 55 people, you will find a way to get by with 49. Those 6 people will be out of a job. If you required the company to pay for all of them, then maybe all 55 will be out of a job. You would say 'great', that is the way it should be. I would think that the people who lost their job might not feel the same way.


If you want to fix the problem, then do as others have suggested... take it away as an incentive for the company to provide. In fact, make it illegal for a company to provide any kind of insurance to their employees. I own a car and my company does not pay for that insurance. I own a house and they do not pay for that. So why are they paying for my health insurance (Don't get me wrong, I do not want this to happen, just putting it down as an argument)
__________________
Texas Proud is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-06-2013, 03:43 PM   #32
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
bUU's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Georgia
Posts: 1,905
Ziggy alluded to the crux of the problem, the fact that small businesses don't have the buying power that large businesses do, so I suggested we fix that. It's easily done: Require insurers to charge the same price to provide health insurance for John, whether John is working for a small company or a large company, or self-employed, or not covered by an employer (i.e., paying the penalty).

Others have suggested going to single-payer. That would work, too. Again, the point here is that it is wrong to shift the problem onto the backs of those least able to pay to solve them.
__________________
bUU is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-06-2013, 05:24 PM   #33
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 1,629
Getting back towards OP, I know no one who happens to be semi-retired while running a business with 49 vs 51 FT employees. AFAIK it's more likely a semi-retiree would be under 65 (pre-Medicare) and doing PT consulting (i.e. fraction of single FTE). I may be reading this wrong, but it appears that such a person (if structured as a 1 person small business) might qualify for up to 50% tax credit for buying HI if his/her ave wage were $25k (phased out for ave wage $50k).
Affordable Care Act (ACA) | SBA.gov

Seems to me this would be more advantageous than using the HI premium subsidy under the Exchanges. Or am I missing something?
__________________
ERhoosier is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-06-2013, 09:46 PM   #34
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 11,615
Quote:
Originally Posted by ERhoosier View Post
I may be reading this wrong, but it appears that such a person (if structured as a 1 person small business) might qualify for up to 50% tax credit for buying HI if his/her ave wage were $25k (phased out for ave wage $50k).
It looks like this might work, but we'd have to be sure there's no 'catch" (e.g. doesn't apply to sole proprietors, etc).

But it looks like it's not as beneficial as simply being uninsured and taking the check from the taxpayers to use at the exchange.

According to the KFF calculator (single person age 55, moderate cost location) a person with no employer insurance earning $25K would get a subsidy of $6768 and have to pay $1726 out of pocket for premiums. So, he'd be better off with the subsidies than the tax credit mentioned on the SBA page (that credit only pays up to 50% of the premiums). A person earning $45K still gets 50% of his premium paid by the government subsidy. Given the phase-out of the employer credit mentioned on the SBA site between 25K and 50K, it sounds like the regular ol' subsidy is still a better deal (for the individual, not for the taxpayers--but I digress)

Quote:
Originally Posted by ERhoosier View Post
Getting back towards OP
. . .your idea doesn't apply, because he's an employee. But, it could be helpful to others.
__________________
"Freedom begins when you tell Mrs. Grundy to go fly a kite." - R. Heinlein
samclem is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 02-06-2013, 09:59 PM   #35
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Largo
Posts: 1,945
Can a company offer health insurance but make the employee pay virtually all of the premium so that offering health insurance doesn't really cost the company much?
__________________
Buckeye is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-06-2013, 10:32 PM   #36
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 11,615
Quote:
Originally Posted by Buckeye View Post
Can a company offer health insurance but make the employee pay virtually all of the premium so that offering health insurance doesn't really cost the company much?
If a company doesn't offer insurance now, I don't know why it would be a problem (legally) for them to give explicit notice to their employees of their intent to reduce wages enough to cover the costs. Employees would then have the opportunity to seek other employment if they choose.
The only problem might be minimum wage laws. Also, since insurance costs would be higher for older employees or those who smoke, there might be lawsuits if the employers reduced pay based on these factors--it would be safer to just make it a consistent amount per hour for all workers (young folks take it in the gut again!)
__________________
"Freedom begins when you tell Mrs. Grundy to go fly a kite." - R. Heinlein
samclem is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 02-06-2013, 10:49 PM   #37
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Largo
Posts: 1,945
Quote:
Originally Posted by samclem View Post
If a company doesn't offer insurance now, I don't know why it would be a problem (legally) for them to give explicit notice to their employees of their intent to reduce wages enough to cover the costs. Employees would then have the opportunity to seek other employment if they choose.
The only problem might be minimum wage laws. Also, since insurance costs would be higher for older employees or those who smoke, there might be lawsuits if the employers reduced pay based on these factors--it would be safer to just make it a consistent amount per hour for all workers (young folks take it in the gut again!)
Wouldn't the employee have the choice whether to participate? Seems like you are describing compulsory participation. Would the employee then have to pay a fine because they were not purchasing health insurance or purchase their own policy that may be cheaper because it has a higher deductible than what the employer is offering?

Not sure what the new law requires in terms of participation rates, cost sharing, etc. but it seems like companies could force employees to pay a significant portion of the premium just like they do today. I think I was paying about 50% of the premium at one company I worked for. Many of the hourly employees did not purchase the health insurance because they couldn't afford it.
__________________
Buckeye is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-06-2013, 11:02 PM   #38
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 11,615
Quote:
Originally Posted by Buckeye View Post
Wouldn't the employee have the choice whether to participate?
Well, unless the company is small (fewer than 50 full time employees) the government says they must provide insurance to employees who work more than 30 hours per week. If the company doesn't then they have to pay a fine (or tax--it depends on the day). If the company has to insure everyone, then I don't know how they could let one or more employees opt out (i.e. keep the higher pay). And the policies will also have employee co-pays, etc.

Lowering cash compensation to pay for health insurance is exactly what companies do anyway. Doing it explicitly just makes the whole situation more honest and transparent.
__________________
"Freedom begins when you tell Mrs. Grundy to go fly a kite." - R. Heinlein
samclem is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 02-06-2013, 11:22 PM   #39
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Largo
Posts: 1,945
Quote:
Originally Posted by samclem View Post
Well, unless the company is small (fewer than 50 full time employees) the government says they must provide insurance to employees who work more than 30 hours per week.
Doesn't "provide" just mean "make available for the employee to purchase if he wants to?" Can't companies offer insurance but keep their costs relatively low by shifting most of the cost of the premium to the employee if he wants coverage through the company's plan? Some employees may not be able to afford the premium but that's the employee's problem/choice and the company has met its obligation?

I may be misunderstanding what the word "provide" means wrt the PPA.
__________________
Buckeye is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-07-2013, 12:00 AM   #40
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 11,615
This Page has a good synopsis of most of the factors involved in the employer-provided insurance side of the equation. The employers are fined if they don't actually contribute to buying the specified coverage and if any employee gets government subsidies as a result. So, making insurance available for employees to purchase would not be sufficient to meet this requirement. Given this, I don't think a company can make a worker pay for the coverage. But, reducing paid compensation to workers so that the company can buy the insurance is a different matter. The employee never had the money, so he didn't buy the insurance.
But I'm certainly not a lawyer.
__________________

__________________
"Freedom begins when you tell Mrs. Grundy to go fly a kite." - R. Heinlein
samclem is online now   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


 

 
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 10:59 PM.
 
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.