they never will....
.http://www.post-gazette.com/busines...eny-Technologies-lockout/stories/201508190004
.http://www.post-gazette.com/busines...eny-Technologies-lockout/stories/201508190004
We told you so....libs don't get it....
- Thread starter NTOP
- Start date
I thought higher deductible plans was your suggestion to curb abuse of the system...what is it you told us?
You can't seem to keep your own ideas straight.
You can't seem to keep your own ideas straight.
i thought higher deductible plans were supposed to allow businesses to avoid the cadillac tax so they could continue to provide health insurance to employees.
i guess obamacare really wasn't about keeping things the same for people who were already had health insurance and making it affordable for people who didn't have employer-provided and couldn't afford an individual policy. it was about forcing people off of non-government health insurance and onto medicaid or the exchanges.
yet again we see the democratic party appeal of "we can do all this nice shit for needy people and you won't be negatively effected, the people who need help will get help and you can keep on keeping on, no negatives for you" is the BS it is.
Those employers are free to continue the same plans they want for their employees, aren't they?
I appreciate you want to shift blame from those deciding to lower their costs (which is how business is run) onto the government agency.
Hint- that same thing was happening en masse prior to obamacare- and there was no DISINCENTIVE for employers to not drop coverage all together.
Think it through.
Free as in have the option to decide for themselves. ie liberty.
Not free as in no additional cost associated with their decisions.
So, no...not misused at all. Some of us aren't looking for free of cost items.
Neither are companies. They just don't to be penalized for providing quality benefits.
Libs always want to penalize those who do the right thing.
You mean by taxing what has been determined an excessive benefit?
LEt's recap..a company offers a health plan. The company realizes the health plan is going to carry additional cost due to the tax code. Company is now shopping the idea of a lower cost (to them) health plan, which will shift more cost onto the employees.
I'm failing to see the problem here. The company can absorb more cost to please their employees and be attractive to new employees...or...they lose that competitive edge in the marketplace.
Let's not recap it with your bias.
In what world is it right for government to determine what is "excessive"?
How many people would be lined up for a job in that company if someone quit? In other words, is it necessary for them to absorb extra costs to get the quality employee they need?
In the world we live in?
What speed is excessive? What income level is excessive? Is shooting an unarmed man excessive?
To your second stanza...that's up to the employer to determine. They are willing to PAY more for a better health plan for their employees in the past. Why its more costly doesn't matter-or the extent to how more costly it will be to maintain, is it? If they determine they won't have negative impacts on recruitment and retention for a cheaper healthplan option, or NO healthcare benefit at all...why should they maintain it as a business practice,exactly?
Let's not forget that health insurance like all benefits are implied compensation to the employee, in this case subsidized and tax-beneficial compensation (ie cost the company less than the value provided to the employee)..which is why they are offered.
Good benefits are offered because it's offering value to the company beyond their costs- to recruitment and retention above the expense. Nothing more and nothing less.
What speed is excessive? When an accident occurs due to speed alone.
What income level is excessive? None
Is shooting an unarmed man excessive? Not necessarily.
The rest of your post is obvious and correct. But it doesn't relate at all to your earlier posts except that the subject is benefits.
So you admit the world we live in has arbitrary levels set for safety and taxation purposes.
The second part, argue with ntop and others.
I know how the world works regarding compensation levels.. And why it's silly top blame government for the market rates.
The second part, argue with ntop and others.
I know how the world works regarding compensation levels.. And why it's silly top blame government for the market rates.
Then it remains a rabbit hole that has nothing to do my question.
No surprise there - you are the rabbit-hole king. Maybe we should call you Hazel (for those who read Watership Down).
I answered your question.
You asked in what world is compensation considered excessive to merit a higher tax rate ... And I said in our world, where laws and regulations are passed on all of those things.
I then explained why.
Just say you only understand cartoons and email forwards if you insist on always avoiding substance.
You mean liberals' world, that world where elites determine what is right and wrong for everyone else but them.
It's exactly what the OP is about.
It's about a compensation agreement being reached, for a premium health plan...but now the employer is balking because it will cost them more as it will go beyond the threshold and be taxable from their end.
So...now they want to renegotiate a more cost-effective plan for the employer, to shift cost back to their employees.
Been happening for a LONG time, boss.
I think this is somewhat hilarious. ATI is where both of my parents retired from. I live in the towns affected most by the strike. I smile and wave at the picketers, but then I think "you get what you deserve". They are Union. Union is Pro Democrat! Democrats are for the workers! Ummm....yeah, wait a minute.
This is not your father's Democrat. This group opposes any type of industry like this as it is not "carbon friendly" and continues to allow foreign (Chinese) dumping of steel into the country. So business ain't that good. Secondly, the Affordable Health Care Act has forced employers into now forcing their employees to contribute towards health care costs (like most of us already do by the way) and make it cost prohibitive to continue on with the "Cadillac benefits". WHOOPS. Ol' Leo Gerard and friends schmoozing with his Democratic congress buddies must have missed this.
It is hilariously ironic. And Souf you are really naïve to think the companies have the "freedom" to continue to pay these Cadillac benefits and also then the additional tax that will be levied on them. These are not "non profit" organizations, they have investors and shareholders to answer to.
This is just brilliant. I can't wait to tell some of my buddies the reasons for their benefits changing is well, themselves. They voted for this, because their Union leaders told them to. No different than all of the mineworkers now out of jobs, but voted for the "Pro Union" party.
Look, I am not naïve enough also to think ATI wouldn't come after their benefits and demanding that they contribute and have higher deductibles. It is the way of the world. And again Soufie, let's not act like a company needs to have these "Cadillac benefits" to attract good workers. We are talking steel workers. Not demeaning them in any way, but they aren't Microsoft or Google programmers. Where else are they going to go??
This is not your father's Democrat. This group opposes any type of industry like this as it is not "carbon friendly" and continues to allow foreign (Chinese) dumping of steel into the country. So business ain't that good. Secondly, the Affordable Health Care Act has forced employers into now forcing their employees to contribute towards health care costs (like most of us already do by the way) and make it cost prohibitive to continue on with the "Cadillac benefits". WHOOPS. Ol' Leo Gerard and friends schmoozing with his Democratic congress buddies must have missed this.
It is hilariously ironic. And Souf you are really naïve to think the companies have the "freedom" to continue to pay these Cadillac benefits and also then the additional tax that will be levied on them. These are not "non profit" organizations, they have investors and shareholders to answer to.
This is just brilliant. I can't wait to tell some of my buddies the reasons for their benefits changing is well, themselves. They voted for this, because their Union leaders told them to. No different than all of the mineworkers now out of jobs, but voted for the "Pro Union" party.
Look, I am not naïve enough also to think ATI wouldn't come after their benefits and demanding that they contribute and have higher deductibles. It is the way of the world. And again Soufie, let's not act like a company needs to have these "Cadillac benefits" to attract good workers. We are talking steel workers. Not demeaning them in any way, but they aren't Microsoft or Google programmers. Where else are they going to go??
If ATI doesn't need the premium health plan to attract and retain talent..why did they agree to it?
Why pay a premium wage for work anyone can do?
And yes, they ABSOLUTELY have the freedom to pay whatever level compensation they desire. Doesn't mean it's good business, but there is nobody stopping them (ie government regulation) from over-paying their employeees..that's their choice.
Just like it's their freedom to offer ANY health plan to their employees...it certainly wasn't mandated at all prior to Obamacare, and the cost of paying the tax would be much cheaper than providing the benefit, wouldn't it?
You're out of your depth on this topic, with me, Owt.
Nobody is opposing environmental issues when push comes to shove at the expense of jobs. But, ABSOLUTELY, companies who pollute should be responsible for paying taxes to share the cost they are passing onto society as an externality. It's THEIR cost of business.
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
Redshirt Diaries presented by Cedarbrook Golf Course - June 24- Latest: ChiefJusticeMarshall
-
-
-
