You can get a CREDIT for providing HEALTH care for your employees!! Go Obama

[mirage62 0]

Cool, just reading through 14 pages of really boring tax rules related to the new health care.

If you have 25 full time employees or less you can get a tax credit!

To bad I have 29.

What's the joke....."guess I'll go out in the parking lot and see the first four cars with an Obama sticker on it and fire them"

What a bunch of shit that whole thing turned out to be.....

PS-all 29 of my employees have full 100% company paid insurance.

Kevin Keenan is my hero, a double FUP, he does so much with so little

[billvon 3,120]

>What's the joke....."guess I'll go out in the parking lot and see the first
>four cars with an Obama sticker on it and fire them"

Or start taking on a lot less work to zero out your profit. You'll also get a tax break! (Although that's not all that new.)

[turtlespeed 226]

Quote

>What's the joke....."guess I'll go out in the parking lot and see the first
>four cars with an Obama sticker on it and fire them"

Or start taking on a lot less work to zero out your profit. You'll also get a tax break! (Although that's not all that new.)

But his way, if you take the credit for the healthcare on the 25, he can reduce the work influx by a small percentage and increase the work load of the employees that are still there and voila . . . more money baby!

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[mirage62 0]

LOL......well the truth is all 29 work pretty hard. In small business you can't have a lot of labor fat.

I guess my real point is that most labor laws and small buisness size kick in at 50 employees. But this credit stops at 25.

Wikipeda has this:

"The legal definition of "small" varies by country and by industry. In the United States the Small Business Administration establishes small business size standards on an industry-by-industry basis, but generally specifies a small business as having fewer than 500 employees for manufacturing businesses and less than $7 million in annual receipts for most nonmanufacturing businesses.

Given the above how could they possibly come up with the idea that a company of 29 that DOES provide health care shouldn't get the credit?

In fact I bet that very few companies of 25 (or 29 for that matter) offer free health care.

Could the whole thing have been a good "sound bite"? If they used 500 employees was that to many companies that would have been eligiable for the credit?

Kevin Keenan is my hero, a double FUP, he does so much with so little

[Amazon 7]

Quote

LOL......well the truth is all 29 work pretty hard. In small business you can't have a lot of labor fat.

I guess my real point is that most labor laws and small buisness size kick in at 50 employees. But this credit stops at 25.

Wikipeda has this:

"The legal definition of "small" varies by country and by industry. In the United States the Small Business Administration establishes small business size standards on an industry-by-industry basis, but generally specifies a small business as having fewer than 500 employees for manufacturing businesses and less than $7 million in annual receipts for most nonmanufacturing businesses.

Given the above how could they possibly come up with the idea that a company of 29 that DOES provide health care shouldn't get the credit?

In fact I bet that very few companies of 25 (or 29 for that matter) offer free health care.

Could the whole thing have been a good "sound bite"? If they used 500 employees was that to many companies that would have been eligiable for the credit?

DUUUUDE... just diversify and split the company into 2 smaller companies..... sheesh....

[billvon 3,120]

>Given the above how could they possibly come up with the idea that a
>company of 29 that DOES provide health care shouldn't get the credit?

So you're in favor of increasing taxes on companies with less than 25 people. What other tax hikes are you in favor of?

[mirage62 0]

>Given the above how could they possibly come up with the idea that a
>company of 29 that DOES provide health care shouldn't get the credit?

Quote

So you're in favor of increasing taxes on companies with less than 25 people. What other tax hikes are you in favor of?

60% on people making +500,000 a year and up
50% on 250,000 and up
35% on 150,000
30% on 85,000
25% on 45.000
18% on 25,000
5% on 1.00 to 24,999

No deductions for anything. If your married it's added together.

So Bill I'm asking you what YOU what scale would you use?? Please be specific like I was. For years we've all heard about how you don't mind to pay for "x" in taxes. Your GOD for the day (like being a mod here ) keep the progressive tax code - whats YOUR plan?

Kevin Keenan is my hero, a double FUP, he does so much with so little

[billvon 3,120]

>So Bill I'm asking you what YOU what scale would you use?

Your scale looked like income tax instead of business tax. If you're asking what scale I would use for income tax, I think your scale could work; I'd have to run the numbers to see if the total tax income is equivalent to what we get now.

Another option is a flat percentage tax with a low income offset, expressed as (salary-base)*percentage for salaries > base. Pay 40% of whatever you make that exceeds, say, $30,000. (Or substitute your own numbers there.) This eliminates the "raise penalty" - you never make less money by going into a higher tax bracket.

Comparing this to your tax this is _less_ progressive. But it's very easy to figure out and lots of people seem to like the idea of a flat tax. To use your numbers:

48% on people making +500,000 a year and up
44% on 250,000 and up
40% on 150,000
32% on 85,000
17% on 45.000
0% on 1.00 to 40,000

A third option is a sigmoid function. This basically reduces tax below a certain line and increases it above that line, so it requires the following:

-Decision on what the average salary is (that's where the line starts changing steeply.)

-Decision on what the 'gain' of the curve is, or how fast it changes.

-Decision on the max tax (let's make this 50%.)

The function ends up being:

tax = 1/(1-e^-i) * cap where i=(income-offset) * gain

Applying a center of 100k, a gain of 1/10000 and a limit of 60%:

59% on people making +500,000 a year and up
49% on 250,000 and up
37% on 150,000
28% on 85,000
23% on 45.000
18% on 25,000
17% on 1.00 to 24,999

That's actually pretty close to yours but again there is no "raise penalty." The drawback is that there is math.

[Bolas 5]

Quote

Cool, just reading through 14 pages of really boring tax rules related to the new health care.

If you have 25 full time employees or less you can get a tax credit!

To bad I have 29.

What's the joke....."guess I'll go out in the parking lot and see the first four cars with an Obama sticker on it and fire them"

What a bunch of shit that whole thing turned out to be.....

PS-all 29 of my employees have full 100% company paid insurance.

Simple. Fire 4 and then hire illegal immigrants and pay them under the table.

Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

[mirage62 0]

Thanks Bill that was specific

and I THINK we were closer than most would think

Kevin Keenan is my hero, a double FUP, he does so much with so little