Reply With Quote
uh? who is limiting the amount of hours people can work?
Don't really need talking points for this.
uh? who is limiting the amount of hours people can work?
let me rephrase that... how is *this* limiting the amount of hours people can work?
User fees, and not all states have a sales tax. Isn't there a method of filing to account for sales tax deductions as well?
All I am saying, is replace the FICA deductions with a tangible figure that people actually see. I'm not saying to rraise anyone's tax, just make it more visible, and variable. It may raise taxes, but the visibility I bet will cause them to lower instead.
its not. That was the French government. It's not exactly the same situation.
I think it has to do with the number of hours worked before an employer must provide insurance. In my situation, it is limiting the number of people hired because it is cheaper to work us full time workers up to 50-some hrs a week, than to pay for the extra benefits of hiring people.
A gas tax is a tax, a tobacco tax is a tax, a sales tax is a tax. What "user fees"?
What you want is to pick winners and losers, just like with any tax scenario. Everybody, one way or the other, has a skin in the game. Some more, some less.
Yeah, I thought in the context of this situation, it didn't make sense.
That's not what this discussion is about though. We're talking about employees voluntarily opting out of having a job.
I just don't quite get the GOP strategy with this Barrycare turd. Tax season is coming, they should be jumping on the individual mandate. While the fee is relatively low this year, it gets progressively expensive, and actually getting insurance is even more pricey.
the situation doesn't make sense. Only a politician could spin someone job loss into a positive
You realize that there is a difference between being fired and laid off versus choosing of your own volition to leave a job right? Thus the comments about people who actually want said jobs will have the opening available? Maybe you do get it but you do not acknowledge it.
it's someone job loss because that someone decides not to work anymore. There's no forced loss of employment (or reduction of hours like you suggested).
People retire all the time, I don't know if that's a positive or a negative. It just is.
We could frame this discussion around whether it's better or worse to have one less reason to keep working, but I would suspect that the people this applies the most is people whose sole motivation for remaining in the work force is getting employer health insurance (if they like their job, there's nothing preventing them from keep on working). If that's the case, then I have to think they're mailing in whatever else they do.
I understand pulling the outrage card for the website fiasco, the 'keep your insurance' fiasco, the up and coming individual mandate fiasco, the up and up policy prices that don't address cost, etc etc etc. But when you start pulling the outrage card for flimsy stuff like this you erode your already low credibility, and IMO, it's stupid seeing Barrycare it's such a giant turd and easy target.
It's okay, we can print to infinity to pay for the lack of economic activity when boutons & co. retire at 49 in true lazy lib welfare queen fashion.
Nuance is often something lost on folks trying to use reports for political talking points.
There is a difference in wanting "to work" vs. wanting to "have a job. What the CBO is describing is folks who have felt that they have to "have a job" in order to get health care insurance MAY be expected to willingly leave the workforce, or at least leave the salaried job they have held for the purpose of having health care insurance.
People who actively want "to work" will be just as able to do so, if not more so, than now.
Who do you imagine would be the more productive worker - the one wants to DO something (i.e. work) or the one who wants to HAVE something (i.e. a job with benefits)?
People freed from the "job equals health insurance" chains!
Freedom!
How many 1000s will now work for themselves, freelance, start a new business, go find a job they like, etc?
The only way the Repugs/Fox can spin ACA negatively for electioneering objectives is to LIE, LIE, LIE, cherry pick rare anecdotes, distort, knowing their ignorant base just loves to hate, as they have been told, all government. We see Repugs/Fox now with CBO report, and we saw the Repug lady in her SOTU response blatantly LIE about "Bette".
Hurrah for the middle class subsidizing those who don't want to work?
Hurrah for starting a new business in this regulatory environment?
Just don't do too well or you'll become part of the "problem"
what middle class?
News flash to Fox. Supply is not the same thing as demand
GOP turning reality upside down, again: No, CBO did not say Obamacare will kill 2 million jobs
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...-million-jobs/
Here we go again. During the 2012 campaign, The Fact Checker had to repeatedly explain that the Congressional Budget Office never said that the Affordable Care Act “killed” 800,000 jobs by 2021. Now, the CBO has released an , nearly the triple the size of the earlier one: 2.3 million in 2021.
~~
~~
The CBO’s estimate is mostly the result of an analysis of the impact of the law on the supply of labor. That means how many people choose to participate in the work force. In other words, the nonpartisan agency is examining whether the law increases or decreases incentives for people to work.
One big issue: the health insurance subsidies in the law. That’s a substantial benefit that decreases as people earn more money, so at a certain point, a person has to choose between earning more money or continuing to get the maximum help with health insurance payments. In other words, people might work longer and harder, but actually earn no more, or earn even less, money. That is a disincentive to work. (The same thing happens when people qualify for food stamps or other social services.)
Thus, some people might decide to work part-time, not full time, in order to keep getting health-care subsidies. Thus, they are reducing their supply of labor to the market.
(more)
Numerous polls have shown during the Banksters Great Depression that SMB's biggest problem is not regulation (that's a Repug LIE) but demand.
This report calculated the retirement separate from the ACA reasons. I wouldn't call a CBO report as flimsy. It's probably the least politicized reports we can get. Also, I do not understand what my response or credibility have to do with the report. But keep defending your sinking ship.
I was talking about the GOP credibility, not yours.I didn't see you all outraged like the quotes in the OP.
What are these "ACA reasons"? My understanding is that retirement is calculated on people that reach the retirement age. If somebody decides to retire before then, it's still effectively retirement, even though it's counted differently.
It doesn't change one iota the fact that it's a person's decision to stop working, not an employer/government decision, as you implied in your hourly limit post.
Also, don't get it wrong. Because I think this is an absolutely ty argument to attack the ACA (especially seeing how troubled the ACA is overall), it doesn't automatically means I'm "defending" it. The ACA is crap, and I'd like to see if replaced.
The non-insured fee on 2014 will be due April 2015. That's a long time away.
Plus, the enrollment stats aren't in yet until April 2014, so the number of uninsured is unknown.
Plus, people who don't buy insurance could be covered by expanded Medicaid REFUSED by nearly all red states, forcing their own states' residents to be liable for the penalty.
I did not know that, I thought I would've had to pay in this tax cycle.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
