But wait a minute: 175/5 = 35. So his restaurants employ 35 people each. But that means that he falls UNDER the 50-employee threshold where the law even applies to him!!
Retard,he is quoting $175k of profit,not sales which the new law refers to.So the owner has maybe 100 to 200 workers.
What in god's name are you babbling about, you idiot? The guy clearly said that health insurance would cost him $5K per employee, or $175K per restaurant. He THEN added that his restaurants don't MAKE $175K in profit, but that is irrelevant.
The MATH, dodo, is 175K in costs / 5K per person = 35 people. Just as I said.
His profits could be zero per location or $1 billion, and it would have ZERO effect on the calculation of the total number of employees needed to generate $175K in insurance costs, at $5K per.
And of course, this idiot then yells out a headline that * I * "cannot do math."
There is a reason that New Zealand has never amounted to anything. They can't even count sheep (only bang them).
if he runs a chain of fast food outlets ,then he employs OVER 50 people.So he pays the tax.
He is NOT running a "chain." He is running franchises. So if he structures each location as an independent legal corporation, then each one can be treated as a separate business and avoid the 50 person rule. This is hardly unusual -- franchises often contain a shifting mix of business associates and varying financing structures.
But let's say he doesn't do that, and all of them are run under one corporate entity. Then reducing the employees' hours below 30 won't do him any good whatsoever, and he was yelling about cutting hours strictly to posture as a Contard against Obamacare.
Here's why: the law "counts" as an employee any combination of workers who, COLLECTIVELY, work 40 hours in a week. That can be 1 guy working 40 hours, or 40 guys working 1 hour each. It doesn't matter. So if any combination of employees are working a total of 2,000 hours in a week (50 employees times 40 hours a week), then he would fall into the class of employers with more than 50 employees and thus subject to penalties for not providing insurance.
As for the penalties, the guy way overstated what they'd be. He can still opt NOT to provide insurance, even if he is deemed to more than 50 full time employee equivalents. Then, he has to pay a $2,000 per employee penalty for ONLY those employees who opt to buy insurance through a public exchange (others may already be insured through school, their parents or spouses) and who get a subsidy (the penalty helps pay off the subsidy). Even then, the penalty applies ONLY beyond the first 30 employees to so obtain an exchange subsidy.
So, at worst, this guy is looking at a $2,000 per person penalty per year, AFTER excluding his first 30 employees and ONLY considering those who get a subsidy through a public exchange.