Obama Care & Small Business
- Thread starter ginwoman
- Start date
Larry Gude
Strung Out
That is simply terrifying. I mean, it's one thing to object and to oppose but, to think that everyone is a brain dead idiot, Bush is dumb, Nancy is dumb, Rummy is dummy, Obama is dumb, I mean, what do you say to that? They may make decisions I think are dumb or poor or what have you but, dumb, low intelligence, they are not. The entire pretext that the Speaker of the House has no idea what the hell is in that bill, any bill, and how it relates to her primary constituents...
I think people who think everyone else is an idiot have some reflection to do.
:shrug:
Tilted
..
I think the more common benefit wouldn't come from laying people off to get below the 50 FTEEs. After all, that measurement isn't based on the number of people employed or even the number of people employed full-time, it's based - in essence - on the amount of employee work the business uses. A business might be able to become more efficient even while getting the same amount of work done, and thereby sneak under the 50 FTEEs cut-off. But most businesses won't be in a position to do that. And just having to make a plan available to employees wouldn't seem to be the most onerous aspect of the situation, having to pay for part of that plan for many of them would.
I suspect the more common benefit would come from shifting some employees to part-time status from full-time status. Some businesses might be able to do that without reducing the amount of work that gets done (e.g. by hiring additional part-time employees to make up the difference), and thus reduce the number of people that they have to offer a plan to and, more importantly, the number of people for which they have to pay for part of that plan. Although part-time employees are used to calculate whether someone is a large employer to begin with, and thus subject to these requirements, an employer-sponsored plan does not have to be offered to part-time employees and the employer wouldn't be subject to a penalty for not paying for part of such a plan for part-time employees.
The other option is to split the business into functionally different entities with separate tax IDs. It increases accounting cost but if it gets you from being an 'evil big company' that has to pay for the health coverage into a 'small business' that gets a tax credit for providing coverage, it may well be worth it.
Expect to see a lot of work-trucks sporting new logos in the next 2-3 years.
Tilted
..
In some cases that might work, but it's not going to be easy to get away. It certainly won't be as easy as legally splitting the entities (e.g. into multiple LLCs) and having separate tax IDs. U.S. Code has aggregation provisions which require many 'separated' business entities to be treated as single employers when it comes to rules relating to, e.g., employee benefits, employer requirements, taxes. And then there are federal regulations (i.e. describing when businesses are to be treated as single employers) built up on those statutory provisions.
Those aggregation rules apply when it comes to determining whether someone is an "applicable large employer" that has to offer an employer-sponsored plan to full-time employees in accordance with provisions of the PPACA.
Sweet 16
^^8^^
Or not allow anyone to work full-time. Darden, which owns Longhorn, Olive Garden, Red Lobster, etc. is only hiring part-time employees and won't allow existing workers to average over 29 hours per week so they don't have to offer them health insurance. And that's just one company of many.
awpitt
Main Streeter
I came across this article. Would be interested to hear feedback about it.
The Obamacare myth about small business - CNNMoney
The Obamacare myth about small business - CNNMoney
50 employees IS a small business in most industries. Depending on the industry, SBA defines a small business up to 500, sometimes 1000 or 1500 employees.
Tilted
..
The article makes some fair points. And some provisions of the ACA are likely to benefit some really small businesses (e.g., with 20 employees or with no non-family employees).
Some of the criticism - not all, but some - isn't based on the notion that the new rules are going to dramatically affect a large portion of the nation's businesses. Something that the government does doesn't have to negatively affect everyone in order for it to be wrong. Some things are wrong in principle. We shouldn't be requiring any businesses to provide health coverage to their employees. The decision to do so, and the details related to that decision, should be between the employees and the employers. Different people and different entities have different circumstances, what makes the most sense for them respectively can be quite different - even what is viable can be quite different. The government shouldn't be trying to force a model - even it were one that makes sense for a lot of situations - onto these diverse situations.