How to Protect Yourself From Obamacare

[Conan71]

You mean the "struggling smaller business owners" who have over 50 employees and make six figure salaries?
Just a reminder, mom-and-pop restaurants with less than 50 employees will be exempt.

If the "unintended consequences" of Obamacare is that there are less restaurant LLC's serving generic, well-marketed fast food, I think that would be a welcome change...

http://keller.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/07/18/more-myths-of-obamacare/

That's a rather gross generalization that anyone who employs more than 50 employees is making six figures plus or isn't struggling already.  If they do make six figures plus, that's doesn't change that the business may already be marginally profitable and will become either a) less profitable or b) less competitive with their global counterparts or domestic counterparts with fewer than 50 employees when they raise prices to cover the cost of Obamacare.

Do you see a likelihood that someone with a workforce of 51 to 60 might find it necessary to cut payroll to remain under 50 employees?

[Gaspar]

You mean the "struggling smaller business owners" who have over 50 employees and make six figure salaries?
Just a reminder, mom-and-pop restaurants with less than 50 employees will be exempt.

If the "unintended consequences" of Obamacare is that there are less restaurant LLC's serving generic, well-marketed fast food, I think that would be a welcome change...

http://keller.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/07/18/more-myths-of-obamacare/

Putting the classy in class warfare again.

I know several business owners who have 50+ employees that don't make 6 figures.  Here's a clue. . .If you're an entrepreneur and you've just started a business, it typically takes years to pay back investors and banks for the trust they have put in you.  I know folks that have 50+ employees, but struggle every day to pay their mortgage because the distribution they have chosen to take from their venture is respective of the investors first!

Starting a business is a sacrifice and immense risk, not a luxury, and it's not based on some underpants gnome model.

If the "unintended consequences" of Obamacare is that there are less restaurant LLC's serving generic, well-marketed fast food, I think that would be a welcome change...

I don't care what kind of business it is, why would you celebrate as an "unintended consequence of Obamacare" a reduction in economic growth and prosperity?
I think that statement is very reflective of how the left views business, and shows an elitist hatred of the free market.

[carltonplace]

Hatred of the Free Market. Oh Please. 

[heironymouspasparagus]

I like this idea:


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/13/john-metz-hurricane-grill-wings-dennys_n_2122412.html?ncid=edlinkusaolp00000003#slide=more259381

I don't eat in too many restaurants so I'm not paying the surcharge.

There was a third choice that he went completely clueless on...piss off enough people with your nonsense and they just won't come there at all.

[nathanm]

That's a rather gross generalization that anyone who employs more than 50 employees is making six figures plus or isn't struggling already.  If they do make six figures plus, that's doesn't change that the business may already be marginally profitable and will become either a) less profitable or b) less competitive with their global counterparts or domestic counterparts with fewer than 50 employees when they raise prices to cover the cost of Obamacare.

Um, if they're making/taxed on "six figures," the business made a profit of at least $100,000. Funny how that works.

[nathanm]

There was a third choice that he went completely clueless on...piss off enough people with your nonsense and they just won't come there at all.

I like how he's charging this surcharge, but is then reducing everyone's hours so he doesn't actually have to provide health insurance under the law. Christ, what an a**hole.

[guido911]

There was a third choice that he went completely clueless on...piss off enough people with your nonsense and they just won't come there at all.

And that's a consequence I suspect this owner is willing to accept/risk. His choice. Your choice. He is right about one thing, someone needs to pay for this program. Either cut overhead, pass the costs to consumers, or some of both. I also see no problem telling people why they are paying more for a product. 

[Conan71]

Either cut overhead, pass the costs to consumers, or some of both.

Funny, that's exactly what our government needs to do.  I prefer cutting overhead primarily, but I still haven't gotten my pony either...

[Conan71]

Um, if they're making/taxed on "six figures," the business made a profit of at least $100,000. Funny how that works.

Not necessarily, if it's a start up, it may well be still making payroll on borrowed money much like many of the dot bombs in the 1990's.  Or even looking at it another way if the business is doing $5 mil a year and it's only making $100,000 profit, that's a pretty precarious margin.

[nathanm]

Not necessarily, if it's a start up, it may well be still making payroll on borrowed money much like many of the dot bombs in the 1990's.  Or even looking at it another way if the business is doing $5 mil a year and it's only making $100,000 profit, that's a pretty precarious margin.

Interest expense isn't generally taxed (IOW, it's a deductible business expense). That's largely how LBO shops make their millions. And if that $5 million a year business only makes a $100,000 profit and is a pass through entity, the individual will not see a tax increase unless the Republicans force us over the cliff by refusing to keep the below $250,000 cuts without keeping the cuts for the $250,000 and above set.

If I were this hypothetical $5 million business making only $100,000 profit, I would be concerned about Obamacare if I wasn't already offering insurance to my employees. Of course if I only have a 2% margin, I've got bigger problems.

Single payer would be better than Obamacare in this respect and others, but we have what we have for now. You'd think the Republicans would be in favor, given how rah rah small business they are. It would certainly reduce the administrative burden on business owners and encourage people to start companies and to be willing to work at a startup that can't yet afford to provide health benefits. Hopefully, the exchanges and elimination of pre-existing condition exclusions will help on that front.

All this bitching and whining from the already successful seems most likely to be about getting more development incentives from state and local governments. "Oh, it's too expensive to open stores now..please give us free land and large tax breaks!"

[Townsend]

Arguments Business Owners Used To Oppose Basic Human Rights, Social Safety Net

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/15/obviously-insane-business-gripes_n_2137597.html?ncid=edlinkusaolp00000003#slide=more263513

Obamacare is hardly the first federal law to come under fire from the nation's business owners.

A Huffington Post search of nearly two centuries of archived news reports reveals that pretty much every law passed by Congress since, well, slave times has sent our nation's executives to paroxysms of hysteria.

The end of child labor was supposed to destroy the glass industry. The railroads faced total collapse because of 8-hour workdays. The cotton industry complained an awful lot about abolishing slavery.

Child Labor Prohibitions Will Ruin Us

"The new child labor law making the willful employment of children under the age of fourteen years a misdemeanor.. will be fought both in and out of the courts by the glass manufacturers..who claim the glass industry will be ruined by the measure."  To Fight Child Labor Law: New Jersey's Statute Will Be Opposed Bitterly by Glass Manufacturers, August 10, 1903

Without Slavery We'd Have No Cotton

"The first and most obvious effect, would be to put an end to the cultivation of our great Southern staple... Imagine an extensive rice or cotton plantation cultivated by free laborers, who might perhaps strike for an increase of wages, at a season when the neglect of a few days would insure the destruction of the whole crop. Even if it were possible to procure laborers at all, what planter would venture to carry on his operations under such circumstances?"

"Slavery in the Light of Social Ethics" by Chancelor Harper

8 Hour Work Days Doom The Railroads

"The railroads have estimated that it would cost them $50,000,000 a year to give the members of the four brotherhoods the eight-hour day, and they are by no means assured that other workers, such as telegraphers and switchmen will not try to come in under its benefits, thus increasing the cost still further."

Railroads United In General Attack On the 8-Hour Act, The New York Times, November 16, 19

Social Security Will Kill American Prosperity
"One employer tells me this law will increase his costs between 10 and 15 percent. If this is added to selling prices, what will it do to sales, and hence employment? If it is taken out of the labor fund, what will it do to the purchasing power of all who work for a living, and hence to national prosperity?"

Social Security: Effect of Tax on Payrolls Viewed With Alarm, by R.P. Ellis, The New York Times, November 17, 1935

Ban On Cigarette Ads Is Silly!
"The Tobacco Advisory Committee, representing the manufacturers, called the ban unjustified and said it would not solve the question of smoking and health. A spokesman said that all cigarette advertising was brand advertising and that there was little or not evidence that this had increased the consumption of individual smokers."

The Cigarette Companies Would Rather Fight Than Switch by Elizabeth B. Drew, The New York Times, May 4, 1969

Cigarette Taxes Will Kill Small Business Owners
"Re-enactment of the city's 1-cent-a-package tax on cigarettes will defeat its own purpose by driving thousands of small retailers out of business, the finance committee of the City Council was told yesterday at a public hearing."

City Urged To Drop Its Cigarette Tax, The New York Times, June 16, 1939

Minimum Wage Laws Will Hurt Old People
"The first ill effect of raising the minimum wage to the standard of the average wage would be to cause the weak, slow, and the aged--and especially unskilled young women and girls--to fall by the wayside. These classes of workers are always a drain upon the employer, for the overhead charges of a factory are just as great whether the places be occupied by good, quick workers or poor, slow ones, therefore a smaller output of the latter causes a loss by raising the percentage of these overhead charges. An advance in wages... adds to this loss and forces the employer to discharge the sub-average, giving preference to strong workers who already earn the minimum."

The Minimum Wage: Should Worthy Laborers Be Sacrificed to Establish It? by Marcus M. Marks, The New York Times, March 25, 1913

Seatbelts Laws Shouldn't Be Legislated
"The auto industry's Big Three told congress today that the public should be educated to use auto safety seat belts and not forced into it by legislation."

Car Makers Oppose Law On Seat Belts, The New York Times, August 8, 1957

[Conan71]

Arguments Business Owners Used To Oppose Basic Human Rights, Social Safety Net

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/15/obviously-insane-business-gripes_n_2137597.html?ncid=edlinkusaolp00000003#slide=more263513

Health insurance isn't a basic human right.

[Gaspar]

Health insurance isn't a basic human right.

Shhhh!  He's on a roll.

[Townsend]

Health insurance isn't a basic human right.

Neither are 8 hour work days but it's good to have them.

[Townsend]

Shhhh!  He's on a roll.

Your thoughts hardly count for squat.