What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

Weaving the Strands: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 2.0

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: Weaving the Strands: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 2.0

There are some advertising choices that just leave me shaking my head in incredulity:

Wener Ladder announced it will be presenting the ladders the [UConn] men's and women's teams used to cut down the nets after winning the national titles in April.
Click to expand...

"The proud sponsor of the ladder used to cut down the nets." I wonder how many incremental additional ladders they will sell as a result? :rolleyes:
 
Re: Weaving the Strands: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 2.0

FreshFish said:
There are some advertising choices that just leave me shaking my head in incredulity:



"The proud sponsor of the ladder used to cut down the nets." I wonder how many incremental additional ladders they will sell as a result? :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Even one additional ladder will be a net gain for the company
 
Re: Weaving the Strands: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 2.0

Kepler said:
This is an amazing page.
Click to expand...

It is a bit surprising to see that, for a child born into the "top fifth" of income, s/he "only" has about a one-in-three chance of growing up to be in the top fifth him/herself.

By basic math, it means that about 2 of 3 children of the "top fifth" don't become top fifth. That's a lot more "churn" than I'd have expected.

Hidden beneath the surface, one also sees how dismal it is to attend public school in many major metropolitan areas. :(
 
Re: Weaving the Strands: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 2.0

Kepler said:
This is an amazing page.
Click to expand...

Just goes to show, once again and for the umpteenth time, you're better off growing up in liberal areas (Boston, NY, SF, etc) than conservative ones (the southeast).
 
Re: Weaving the Strands: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 2.0

Rover said:
Just goes to show, once again and for the umpteenth time, you're better off growing up in liberal areas (Boston, NY, SF, etc) than conservative ones (the southeast).
Click to expand...
Yes, the places where it's more expensive to live also have the higher per capita income. I'm shocked that we would see a corellation there. :rolleyes:
 
Re: Weaving the Strands: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 2.0

how much are pension plans underfunded?

New mortality estimates released Monday by the nonprofit Society of Actuaries show the average 65-year-old U.S. woman is expected to live to 88.8 years, up from 86.4 in 2000. Men aged 65 are expected to live to 86.6 years, up from 84.6 in 2000.

But longer lives for retirees may add to a squeeze at many pension funds that are already struggling to plug a gap between available assets and future obligations to retirees. The new estimates released Monday could increase retirement liabilities by roughly 7% for most corporate plans, according to consulting firm Aon Hewitt. The Society of Actuaries predicts the increases could range from 4% to 8%.
Click to expand...
 
Re: Weaving the Strands: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 2.0

joecct said:
Pay walled. But how much more pressure does this place on municipal pensions? Towns and states could be going bankrupt if they have to fully fund their pension liabilities.
Click to expand...

This is already happening in Nassau County on Long Island. Police and fire pensions are insane there and it's impossible to challenge them since 9/11.
 
Re: Weaving the Strands: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 2.0

joecct said:
Pay walled. But how much more pressure does this place on municipal pensions? Towns and states could be going bankrupt if they have to fully fund their pension liabilities.
Click to expand...

some have already gone bankrupt due to pensions, Stockton CA and Central Falls RI for example.
 
FreshFish said:
some have already gone bankrupt due to pensions, Stockton CA and Central Falls RI for example.
Click to expand...

Yep. Wonder if more will follow suit.

If I was a municipality I'd see if I could dump all my workers into the PPACA exchanges. The tax had to be less than the cost. And since the Feds can't tax the states, I wonder if it would be a 0 cost solution.

Ýes I know that there is probably a union contract, but I wonder if there is a means to do it.
 
joecct said:
Yep. Wonder if more will follow suit.

If I was a municipality I'd see if I could dump all my workers into the PPACA exchanges. The tax had to be less than the cost. And since the Feds can't tax the states, I wonder if it would be a 0 cost solution.

Ýes I know that there is probably a union contract, but I wonder if there is a means to do it.
Click to expand...

Feds can tax the states when they act as a market participant. The states still pay things like the employers share of social security and FICA, for instance.

And good luck attracting workers if you dump health insurance, you miser.
 
Last edited:
Re: Weaving the Strands: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 2.0

joecct said:
Yep. Wonder if more will follow suit.

If I was a municipality I'd see if I could dump all my workers into the PPACA exchanges. The tax had to be less than the cost. And since the Feds can't tax the states, I wonder if it would be a 0 cost solution.

Ýes I know that there is probably a union contract, but I wonder if there is a means to do it.
Click to expand...

I don't think the ACA allows you to just dump everybody on its exchange. Otherwise if you think about it wouldn't everybody have done that by now? Or at least a lot of places???

The problem I see with municipal pensions isn't the promises made to current employees, which by and large have been scaled back. Its the people currently drawing pensions who benefited from lax rules when they retired. Aside from a court ordered bankrupcy I'm not sure of how else you get out from under those, but its something I'd take a look at. As in, anybody who banged out after 20 years at age 40 doesn't get their full salary + health insurance for the rest of their lives. :rolleyes: I'd also go after fraud. There was this scam in Mass where you'd fill in for your boss for a day, get injured on the job, and then retire at the boss' pay grade. Were I the Gov, I'd be looking at criminal prosecutions of anybody who pulled that sh !t.
 
Re: Weaving the Strands: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 2.0

Rover said:
I don't think the ACA allows you to just dump everybody on its exchange. Otherwise if you think about it wouldn't everybody have done that by now? Or at least a lot of places???
Click to expand...
The company would pay a $2,500/qualifying employee fine. Qualifying employees are those who work 30+ hours/week, as defined by the law.

Some small businesses have started this, deciding that it's cheaper for them to pay the fine and increase employee wages than to continue offering health insurance. I've heard a few of those small business people claim their insurance brokers have actually said that the best deal for their employees is to send them to the state/federal exchange. The problems occured, according to them, when coverage for an employee was needed for the entire family and not just a the employee itself.
 
Re: Weaving the Strands: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 2.0

Rover said:
I don't think the ACA allows you to just dump everybody on its exchange. Otherwise if you think about it wouldn't everybody have done that by now? Or at least a lot of places???
Click to expand...
I think the cutoff is 50 employees. We did it. We had to. Our rates were going to get hammered. We gave everyone a raise and dropped our group plan. Just about the entire staff went onto the exchange. With the raises we gave, no ended up behind, but of course that gives no guarantees for the future.

unofan said:
And good luck attracting workers if you dump health insurance, you miser.
Click to expand...
We've had no problem attracting new employees. A position we filled last week attracted more and better candidates than we've had in years.
 
Re: Weaving the Strands: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 2.0

St. Clown said:
Some small businesses have started this, deciding that it's cheaper for them to pay the fine and increase employee wages than to continue offering health insurance.
Click to expand...

There's a real wild card lurking behind this scenario, IIRC. There is a challenge that some courts have upheld, that the plain statutory language of PPACA only explicitly authorizes subsidies for insurance policies purchased through exchanges operated by the states, and not for exchanges operated by the feds. The feds have been doling out the subsidies anyway, and it would be no surprise if SCOTUS ultimately ruled on this issue.

Anyway, IIRC, the employer penalties also only apply if they don't provide coverage in states that are eligible for subsidies, i.e., only in states that have exchanges run by the states. If there is no penalty for employers and no subsidies for insureds in states that have federally-run exchanges, ouch!
 
Re: Weaving the Strands: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 2.0

St. Clown said:
The company would pay a $2,500/qualifying employee fine. Qualifying employees are those who work 30+ hours/week, as defined by the law.

Some small businesses have started this, deciding that it's cheaper for them to pay the fine and increase employee wages than to continue offering health insurance. I've heard a few of those small business people claim their insurance brokers have actually said that the best deal for their employees is to send them to the state/federal exchange. The problems occured, according to them, when coverage for an employee was needed for the entire family and not just a the employee itself.
Click to expand...

Good info. My question was as to municipalities dumping their insurance costs onto the ACA. The under 50 people rule makes sense but I don't think the Illinois or New Jersey state employee system can just up and dump everyone on the ACA exchanges.
 
Re: Weaving the Strands: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 2.0

Rover said:
Good info. My question was as to municipalities dumping their insurance costs onto the ACA. The under 50 people rule makes sense but I don't think the Illinois or New Jersey state employee system can just up and dump everyone on the ACA exchanges.
Click to expand...
If they're acting as employers and there's no union contract to honor, why couldn't they alter the terms of employment to place their employees onto the ACA exchange and pay the fine? In all other respects their HR groups operate the same as private businesses. I doubt there's anything in the law against it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top