View Poll Results: Should companies be fined for firing or reducing hours of workers to get out of ACA..

Voters
28. You may not vote on this poll
  • yes

    4 14.29%
  • no

    24 85.71%
  • other

    0 0%
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 20 of 20

Thread: Should companies be fined for firing or reducing hours of workers to get out of ACA..

  1. #11
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Where they have FOX on in bars and restaurants
    Last Seen
    09-14-14 @ 02:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    14,700

    Re: Should companies be fined for firing or reducing hours of workers to get out of A

    Quote Originally Posted by jamesrage View Post
    Some of the companies have been stating that they will lay off reduce workers because of Obama-care.So it would be really easy regarding those companies.
    You have to realize that nobody is going to be prosecuted for this. The whole so called law is so companies can't come out and say they reduced their work force because of obamacare. It is obama covering his ass.

  2. #12
    Global Moderator
    The Truth is out there.
    Kal'Stang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Bonners Ferry ID USA
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    32,856
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Should companies be fined for firing or reducing hours of workers to get out of A

    Quote Originally Posted by spud_meister View Post
    I'm pretty sure in another thread about this it shows that if a company does reduce hours or workers just to get the waiver, they will be refused the waiver. There's no fine involved.
    Not getting it despite having the requirments is in itself a fine. Should all companies get fined for using all the loopholes that is in the IRS? No matter how small the company? Should individuals get fined for using all the loopholes they possibly can?

    The idea of fineing someone or a company for simply meeting requirements laid out by the government is rediculous and smacks of tyranny imo.
    I have an answer for everything...you may not like the answer or it may not satisfy your curiosity..but it will still be an answer. ~ Kal'Stang

    My mind and my heart are saying I'm in my twenties. My body is pointing at my mind and heart and laughing its ass off. ~ Kal'Stang

  3. #13
    Global Moderator
    Moderator
    Helix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:20 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    37,064

    Re: Should companies be fined for firing or reducing hours of workers to get out of A

    Should companies be fined for firing or reducing hours of workers to get out of ACA..
    no. we should ditch the employer as healthcare provider model and make medicare the single payer for all routine health care.

  4. #14
    Sporadic insanity normal.


    The Mark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 01:46 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    19,736

    Re: Should companies be fined for firing or reducing hours of workers to get out of A

    Quote Originally Posted by jamesrage View Post
    Should companies be fined for firing or reducing hours of workers to get out of ACA employer mandate? I was listening to Rush Limbaugh the other day and he was complaining about this trying to make it about a speech issue.But one could argue that a company that is deliberately reducing the hours of their employees or firing their employees in order to get exempted from the employer mandate is a form of fraud.


    Mostly this question is aimed at Obama-care supporters. Because I know that anyone who is against it is going to say no they shouldn't be fined.
    Is it legal for the gov to do that?

    If not, I'd say they shouldn't.
    Education.

    Sometimes I think we're alone. Sometimes I think we're not. In either case, the thought is staggering. ~ R. Buckminster Fuller

  5. #15
    Sage

    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 07:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    17,589

    Re: Should companies be fined for firing or reducing hours of workers to get out of A

    Quote Originally Posted by spud_meister View Post
    I'm pretty sure in another thread about this it shows that if a company does reduce hours or workers just to get the waiver, they will be refused the waiver. There's no fine involved.


    There have been hundreds of waivers granted mostly to liberal supporters of the Liberals who have condemned the rest of us to suffer under the yoke of this abortion.

    Michelle Malkin | Nancy Pelosi on 1,800 Obamacare Waiver Recipients: Mostly Very Small Companies
    <snip>
    During an interview on CNBC, Nancy Pelosi claimed that the health care law was put into place to help save businesses money on health care costs.

    Pelosi, hopelessly unable to appreciate the irony of the need to afford certain businesses special protections from a law that was purportedly enacted to safeguard them, was asked about companies that have received a number of the 1,800 Obamacare waivers that have been issued:
    “They’re small. I couldn’t speak to all 1,800 of them, but some of the lists that I have seen have been very, very small companies. They will not have a big impact on the economy of our country,” Nancy Pelosi said in an interview with CNBC.

    True… very small companies and organizations, such as McDonalds and Darden Restaurants. Heck, entire states have gotten waivers (but only very small ones).

    Also being allowed on the waiver train have been other not-so-small entities, such as AARP and countless labor unions. The United Federation of Teachers Welfare Fund, with 351,000 people, was also a waiver recipient.
    Pelosi also should have said the waivers went to “mostly unionized companies” instead of “mostly small companies.”

    Quite a few of those businesses are also in Pelosi’s district. In May, 20 percent of a single round of waivers went to businesses located in the area Pelosi represents — but to very small businesses, so “nothing to see here.”
    <snip>
    I am not of the mind that a man is either of science or of religion. At his best and his worst, man exists in the misty glimmering where the falling angel meets the rising ape. That he chooses a direction from that point defines him as human.

  6. #16
    Sage

    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 07:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    17,589

    Re: Should companies be fined for firing or reducing hours of workers to get out of A

    Quote Originally Posted by jamesrage View Post
    Some of the companies have been stating that they will lay off reduce workers because of Obama-care.So it would be really easy regarding those companies.


    What would be the justification for this?

    What's next? Fine companies that make too much money?

    Why not just nationalize all industry and start living in the banana republic that obama is trying to set up.
    I am not of the mind that a man is either of science or of religion. At his best and his worst, man exists in the misty glimmering where the falling angel meets the rising ape. That he chooses a direction from that point defines him as human.

  7. #17
    Resident Martian ;)
    PirateMk1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    California
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:44 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Private
    Posts
    9,920

    Re: Should companies be fined for firing or reducing hours of workers to get out of A

    Quote Originally Posted by jamesrage View Post
    Should companies be fined for firing or reducing hours of workers to get out of ACA employer mandate? I was listening to Rush Limbaugh the other day and he was complaining about this trying to make it about a speech issue.But one could argue that a company that is deliberately reducing the hours of their employees or firing their employees in order to get exempted from the employer mandate is a form of fraud.


    Mostly this question is aimed at Obama-care supporters. Because I know that anyone who is against it is going to say no they shouldn't be fined.
    Actually this type of issue is settled law. A company or person has every right to structure and operate in such a way as to minimize their taxes and or regulations they are subject to. It is perfectly legal to do this.
    Semper Fidelis, Semper Liber.
    I spit at lots of people through my computer screen. Not only does it "teach them a lesson" but it keeps the screen clean and shiny.
    Stolen fair and square from the Capt. Courtesey himself.

  8. #18
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:35 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,067

    Re: Should companies be fined for firing or reducing hours of workers to get out of A

    The idea that you should punish companies explicitly for trying to survive the added burdens that you are placing on business seems to me to be somewhat maliciously insane - it's like an odd refusal to accept that reality disproves your thesis by insisting that you can use state power to reshape reality instead of re-checking your assumptions.

  9. #19
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,937

    Re: Should companies be fined for firing or reducing hours of workers to get out of A

    Quote Originally Posted by spud_meister View Post
    I'm pretty sure in another thread about this it shows that if a company does reduce hours or workers just to get the waiver, they will be refused the waiver. There's no fine involved.
    That's correct. There's a tax involved.

    So to answer the spirit of the OP in a more accurate form...

    No, a company should not be exempt from the waiver for firing or reducing of workers with the expressed intent of qualifying for the waiver.

    The Government has created a new TAX on business. It is completely reasonable, logical, and common for a business to make decisions about it's financial well being based on tax regulation and law.

    The Waiver being granted is simply an additional piece of Tax law, providing an avenue for people to be exempt from said tax.

    To give the IRS or another agency power to determine if an individual is fired in an effort to qualify for an exemption of tax law is not only ridiculous but sets a poor precedence.

    Let's say a carbon tax is levied on corporations, with a waiver granted for those who utilize green energy...but a Republican administration tells the IRS they need to check into each company applying for the waiver and assure that those companies bought the green energy equipment for reasons OTHER than to grant the waiver. Not only does this put a ridiculous restriction on the business making decisions based around the tax laws and regulations the government created, but it presents a situation where the government can intimidate companies into forgoing the action (in this case, purchasing green energy) entirely to avoid the process.

    The government CREATED the situation that would necessitate a logical and reasonable business decision of deciding between more or less workers as it relates to the bottom line. It levied a tax on business and then continued to put forth regulations regarding how that tax will work. It is completely over the line to essentially make said regulations, and then penalize companies for making sound and intelligent business decisions as it relates to said regulations imposed by the government.

    Frankly, I wouldn't be shocked if in reality this is an entirely political move. That the way to certify that a person fired wasn't to confirm with ACA will be RIDICULOUSLY easy. However, by doing so...the administration will be able to go "See! No one fired after the employee mandate occured was fired because of ACA! The IRS numbers prove it!"

    Essentially, I could very easily see this as a calculated political move that creates a situation where a business is either going to get subjected to a new Tax OR they're going to be used as pawns for political purposes.

  10. #20
    Sporadic insanity normal.


    The Mark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 01:46 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    19,736

    Re: Should companies be fined for firing or reducing hours of workers to get out of A

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    That's correct. There's a tax involved.

    So to answer the spirit of the OP in a more accurate form...

    No, a company should not be exempt from the waiver for firing or reducing of workers with the expressed intent of qualifying for the waiver.

    The Government has created a new TAX on business. It is completely reasonable, logical, and common for a business to make decisions about it's financial well being based on tax regulation and law.

    The Waiver being granted is simply an additional piece of Tax law, providing an avenue for people to be exempt from said tax.

    To give the IRS or another agency power to determine if an individual is fired in an effort to qualify for an exemption of tax law is not only ridiculous but sets a poor precedence.

    Let's say a carbon tax is levied on corporations, with a waiver granted for those who utilize green energy...but a Republican administration tells the IRS they need to check into each company applying for the waiver and assure that those companies bought the green energy equipment for reasons OTHER than to grant the waiver. Not only does this put a ridiculous restriction on the business making decisions based around the tax laws and regulations the government created, but it presents a situation where the government can intimidate companies into forgoing the action (in this case, purchasing green energy) entirely to avoid the process.

    The government CREATED the situation that would necessitate a logical and reasonable business decision of deciding between more or less workers as it relates to the bottom line. It levied a tax on business and then continued to put forth regulations regarding how that tax will work. It is completely over the line to essentially make said regulations, and then penalize companies for making sound and intelligent business decisions as it relates to said regulations imposed by the government.

    Frankly, I wouldn't be shocked if in reality this is an entirely political move. That the way to certify that a person fired wasn't to confirm with ACA will be RIDICULOUSLY easy. However, by doing so...the administration will be able to go "See! No one fired after the employee mandate occured was fired because of ACA! The IRS numbers prove it!"

    Essentially, I could very easily see this as a calculated political move that creates a situation where a business is either going to get subjected to a new Tax OR they're going to be used as pawns for political purposes.
    Personally, I'm half wondering if the large companies who buy politicians looked at the break small/(medium?) businesses were getting and told the government to make it harder to accomplish.

    But that's my conspiracy-prone/cynical side talking.
    Education.

    Sometimes I think we're alone. Sometimes I think we're not. In either case, the thought is staggering. ~ R. Buckminster Fuller

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •