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