Okay...what will prevent a business...

[fairsheet]

It is being considered because people are considering the overall expense they will incur compared to the cost of the benefit. I don't know why anyone would make that choice based on a feeling alone. But, people are actually weighing the costs of non-compliance. Their options as far as restructuring their businesses to decrease the number of employees, the internal costs of compliance, etc. That is what good business owners do. The run the numbers. I don't think anyone should make this choice out of political pique, that would be exceedingly stupid. But, it will cost businesses money to comply. One way or the other - and I would expect them to make an intelligent choice based on how the numbers fall out and the expected ramifications for their business and staffing needs.

connie

Oh for chrissakes. If a company is laying out $6000 per annum NOW, for an employees healthcare benefit, he would "save" $6000 if he dropped it. Once the penalty kicks in, he would only save $4,000.
SO...why in the HELL would he pass on a $6000 savings, and go into some sorta bidness panic mode, once that "saving" was reduced by 33%? It makes no godamned sense, yet you continue to bob your Foxian head as you repeat the irrational and mindless babble you heard somewhere.

 

[connieb]

Keep your insults for yourself. Really.

Yes... as I repeat the irrational mindless babble I heard in educational seminars designed for CPA's who will need to assist their clients with their implementation of many of the ACA provisions in the coming years. Yes, those continuing education seminars .... so very partisan and political.

Get your head out of your tukus. It is a very real situation business owners are dealing with. The cost of benefits are increasing. The burden of making it "affordable" for their lowest level employee is going to be expensive depending on the industry. If you company has been set up where there are 30 top level people making good money and 100 low level workers who make barely minimum wage and those people weren't on the health plan because you only paid 50% and even at 50% - the 5,000 a year for the employee portion of the coverage was too much for them and they didn't participate, now you have a very real problem. How much MORE is it going to cost you to pay in to cover benefits to get them to the level where they don't exceed the applicable percentage of your lowest paid employee's household income? Are you going to have to pay another $3K or 4K per employee to make that happen? OR will it be more cost effective to give raises to the employees you want to, so that they can go buy it on the market and pay a penalty? Would it be better to lower your workforce and use a temp agency? Would it be better to set up another business that holds the management personnel and eliminate benefits in the operating company? The are real considerations. This is expensive to implement.

 

[fairsheet]

Keep your insults for yourself. Really.

Yes... as I repeat the irrational mindless babble I heard in educational seminars designed for CPA's who will need to assist their clients with their implementation of many of the ACA provisions in the coming years. Yes, those continuing education seminars .... so very partisan and political.

Get your head out of your tukus. It is a very real situation business owners are dealing with. The cost of benefits are increasing. The burden of making it "affordable" for their lowest level employee is going to be expensive depending on the industry. If you company has been set up where there are 30 top level people making good money and 100 low level workers who make barely minimum wage and those people weren't on the health plan because you only paid 50% and even at 50% - the 5,000 a year for the employee portion of the coverage was too much for them and they didn't participate, now you have a very real problem. How much MORE is it going to cost you to pay in to cover benefits to get them to the level where they don't exceed the applicable percentage of your lowest paid employee's household income? Are you going to have to pay another $3K or 4K per employee to make that happen? OR will it be more cost effective to give raises to the employees you want to, so that they can go buy it on the market and pay a penalty? Would it be better to lower your workforce and use a temp agency? Would it be better to set up another business that holds the management personnel and eliminate benefits in the operating company? The are real considerations. This is expensive to implement.

That is one helluva lotta absolutely meaningless babble, to suggest that someone would "drop" a benefit that cost them MORE than the penalty. Now of course, we know that they won't drop a benefit that costs LESS than the penalty. That OBVIOUSLY wouldn't make sense. But again...why would they drop one that costs them more, either? For AGAIN, if they thought the benefit was worth their while BEFORE the penalty, why would they change their minds AFTER the penalty?

And by the way, one would have to be just a tad naive to take what they heard in a "seminar", at face value. It's the rare "seminar", that's hosted merely out of the goodness of someone's heart.

 

[fairsheet]

While we're on this subject, let's consider the reason why employers offer health benefits in the first place. They do so, because contrary to what some of the more populist bent might suggest, our American labor markets are still in function, to at least some extent. Buyers of labor STILL have to make a bargain with sellers of labor.

Healthcare benefits are of considerable value to the seller of labor. Buyers of labor - due to their purchasing power, are able to buy those benefits for less than the individual can buy them. In addition, the employer realizes a tax advantage for offering those benefits AND the employee realizes a tax advantage for receiving them!

So...let's say that an individual can buy his own health benefit for $600 per month at best. That means that that benefit is worth $600 to her and that in terms of the bargain she arrives at with her employer, he'll need to either "give" her the health benefit, or pay her an additional $600 per month. But...since the employer buys the benefit for less, and it's discounted by his tax advantage, and discounted further by the employee's advantage.....the employer is able to offer the employee $600 in value, at a cost of say.....$400. That cost less than the $600 he would have to pay her otherwise.

 

[connieb]

LOL. You are absolutely hillarious. Yes, I am quite sure they didn't put those seminars on out of the goodness of their hearts. We pay quite a bit for those seminars. You see, we are required to have at least 40 continuing education hours a year. So, I take a variety of "seminars" every year for this purpose. The first one on the ACA and what businesses need to do to prepare to implement it happened to be a combined offering between the Department of Treasury, the Maryland Office of the Comptroller and a couple state Accountants Groups/Societies. . So, yes, it was chock full of meaningless partisan babble. I take plenty of other ones too. Like 1040 Preparation Updates, Advanced Issues in Taxation ( which covered some ACA strategies) Accounting for Government Contracts, Emerging Accounting Trends ( again - covered some ACA strategies) , International Accounting Standards, Fraud Detection and Prevention, Forensic Accounting, Forensic Computing.... all so someone can spin their message to me..... all pre-aproved for CPE credit by the DLLR of the State of MD to qualify for CPE credits. All pre-approved by the AICPA to count for CPE credits. Yep.... they let any yahoo come into those seminars and teach their partisan politics. Get real. You obviously don't have a clue what you are talking about.

As far as WHY a business owner would do that - I tried to explain it but you were too busy issuing insults. On the surface it is very possible that the benefit as it is in place now does NOT cost them more. If they only pay for a certain number of employees and the portion they pay is low enough, it may not be a big deal. But, if they are looking at having to pay in more money for more employees - it could end up costing too much for them. You see - particularly when we deal with small - medium sized businesses - those in the 50 - 100 employee ranges, the "benefits" are really about what those at the top get out of the deal. Particularly in certain industries like landscaping and construction where the vast number of employees are paid much less than management. In many cases - companies started offering benefits because the owner and his wife and a few key people working there needed or wanted them. Not because they had any intention of offering them to the masses. Now there are some changes. Since individual policies can't be cancelled or rescinded because of pre-existing conditions - it may be more advantageous to eliminate the benefit in certain circumstances. It of course is NOT the case for every business or every business model. Part of why these things are discussed with accountants is so that we can help our clients calculate the the various scenarios. It is certainly not a be all and end all and I may see it more because in my industry, with most of my cleints in construction, they are likely to have high level of low income employees and extending the benefit to people they were previously able to exclude because they voluntarily did not participate is a real issue.

connie

 

[connieb]

I am well aware of the tax advantages of offering the benefits as well as the qualitative reasons why benefits are offered. I have spent 12 years advising clients to set up Sec. 125 plans and offer HI as a pre-tax benefits. Times have changed. Bottom lines, particularly in my primary niche industry are very tight. I would be remiss in my responsibilities if I didn't keep abreast of the changes so that I could advise my clients appropriately and help them make decisions and run the numbers.

 

[fairsheet]

I get a kick out of people who parrot moronic rightwing drivel, then weenie-whine about being called morons.

 

[connieb]

As usual resort to insults when you know you got nothing. If anything I posted about is being discussed in right wing news sites I have no idea as I don't folllow them. If they are being covered on such news sites I guess it could be becasue they are issues that business owners are discussing and considering. But, do carry on showing your ignorance. It is most entertaining.

connie