% | $
Quotes you view appear here for quick access.

Altria Group Inc. Message Board

you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the posts
  • charlie_ponzi_1952 charlie_ponzi_1952 Nov 16, 2012 10:23 PM Flag

    Algore -idiot cannot do math.

    if he runs a chain of fast food outlets ,then he employs OVER 50 people.So he pays the tax.

    SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Most Replied Expand all replies
    • idiot.
      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.

      So his whining is totally bogus.

      • 2 Replies to al.gore22
      • Who the hell is going to keep track of all this crap? The gov. will have to send a rep. to each business to audit how many employees he has and how much they work. What if an employee gets 40 hours one week and 25 hours the next? If its COLLECTIVELY adding up to forty hours a week the 40 people working 1 hour a week would mean he would only have to pay the 2 grand for 1 employee?? Insured through school? #$%$. Gov. is going to get extreemly large.

      • The cutoff hours is 30, not 40, for full time.

        The penalty in your example would be $2K/yr per person for all employees over 30 if even 1 gets the subsidy through public exchange. 50-30=20 20x$2K = $40K and for some businesses, that's the profit for the year.

        "Scenario B
        The large employer does not offer coverage, and one or more full-time employees receive credits
        for exchange coverage. The annual penalty calculation is simply the number of full-time
        employees minus 30, times $2,000. In this example (i.e., 50 full-time employees), the penalty
        would not vary if only one employee or all 50 employees received the credit; the employer’s
        annual penalty in 2014 would be (50-30) x $2,000, or $40,000.13"

        Bogus whining? Of course. It's not YOUR ox that "gore"ed, fool.

        Worst of all, you think it's a defense of a wrong-headed policy to say it's only affecting "those" people. As usual, you're entirely too ready to demonize when it suits your statist views.

        Obnoxious and corrosive.


54.86+0.64(+1.18%)Oct 2 4:02 PMEDT