Mass. law about to take effect - some interesting points

[Crabcake Johnny]

Can we look at the 300% of FPL? Is this a fair figure?

Federal poverty level for a mother living with her two kids is $16,090. 300% of that is $48,270. She works for a small employer - under 10 employees so under the new Mass. law she's on her own.

$48,270 after taxes is about $33,000 take home or $2,750 per month. Her mortgage is $1,200 so she has $1,500 left to raise two children, pay for school related expenses, car insurance, food, gas, utilities, phone etc...

There's no way. No way this lady has an extra $380 a month for health insurance unless she's a budgeting genius.

 

[James]

I can just see it now, "Romney and Swartzennager" presidential ticket. LOL. Make me Puke!

 

[Sam]

A few things jump out at me.

1. They are further incentivizing people with low wages to stop working. I bet that the difference between 100% and 120% of the poverty line is not much more than the premium responsibility will be.

2. There will be thousands of employers with between 8-15 employees, who will decide to fire a few/not hire a few employees, to save some money.

3. By holding companies responsible for catastrophic claims, they are setting themselves up for lots of business bankrupcy.

 

[James]

Can we look at the 300% of FPL? Is this a fair figure?

Federal poverty level for a mother living with her two kids is $16,090. 300% of that is $48,270. She works for a small employer - under 10 employees so under the new Mass. law she's on her own.

$48,270 after taxes is about $33,000 take home or $2,750 per month. Her mortgage is $1,200 so she has $1,500 left to raise two children, pay for school related expenses, car insurance, food, gas, utilities, phone etc...

There's no way. No way this lady has an extra $380 a month for health insurance unless she's a budgeting genius.

Than fix the obvious problem John. Go after the Tax Code. Under the Fair Tax she would pay next to no taxes. Leaving plenty to buy Health Insurance, oh no how can we do that I mean take money from the government? Oh no that not possible, lets just tax the evil small business guy I mean the State nor your precious Corporation like those people.

 

[James]

A few things jump out at me.

1. They are further incentivizing people with low wages to stop working. I bet that the difference between 100% and 120% of the poverty line is not much more than the premium responsibility will be.

2. There will be thousands of employers with between 8-15 employees, who will decide to fire a few/not hire a few employees, to save some money.

3. By holding companies responsible for catastrophic claims, they are setting themselves up for lots of business bankrupcy.

Yes but John thinks highly of large Corporations, such as his idea of funding retirement strategies via them. So that is okay, what is bad for small business is good for big business or as you can guess, better retirement vehicles. Wow, the strings that bind.

 

[Crabcake Johnny]

And life insurance companies being among those huge corporations. Let's all get UL/WL so we can make those billion dollar life companies more countless billions. Sorry James but if you're against large corporations for funding retirement strategies then I guess you just put yourself out of a job:-)

There's no bigger abuser of hidden and undisclosed fees that eat away at your return then life insurance comanies.

 

[Crabcake Johnny]

Can we look at the 300% of FPL? Is this a fair figure?

Federal poverty level for a mother living with her two kids is $16,090. 300% of that is $48,270. She works for a small employer - under 10 employees so under the new Mass. law she's on her own.

$48,270 after taxes is about $33,000 take home or $2,750 per month. Her mortgage is $1,200 so she has $1,500 left to raise two children, pay for school related expenses, car insurance, food, gas, utilities, phone etc...

There's no way. No way this lady has an extra $380 a month for health insurance unless she's a budgeting genius.

Than fix the obvious problem John. Go after the Tax Code. Under the Fair Tax she would pay next to no taxes. Leaving plenty to buy Health Insurance, oh no how can we do that I mean take money from the government? Oh no that not possible, lets just tax the evil small business guy I mean the State nor your precious Corporation like those people.

Don't get me going on the "tax on success." I love that if I push myself to earn more they take more. I'm a very good fan of the flat tax.

 

[James]

Can we look at the 300% of FPL? Is this a fair figure?

Federal poverty level for a mother living with her two kids is $16,090. 300% of that is $48,270. She works for a small employer - under 10 employees so under the new Mass. law she's on her own.

$48,270 after taxes is about $33,000 take home or $2,750 per month. Her mortgage is $1,200 so she has $1,500 left to raise two children, pay for school related expenses, car insurance, food, gas, utilities, phone etc...

There's no way. No way this lady has an extra $380 a month for health insurance unless she's a budgeting genius.

Than fix the obvious problem John. Go after the Tax Code. Under the Fair Tax she would pay next to no taxes. Leaving plenty to buy Health Insurance, oh no how can we do that I mean take money from the government? Oh no that not possible, lets just tax the evil small business guy I mean the State nor your precious Corporation like those people.

Don't get me going on the "tax on success." I love that if I push myself to earn more they take more. I'm a very good fan of the flat tax.

I am leaning on preferring the Fair Tax but if the Flat is all we can get great. That woman with two kids with a annual income of $48 grand would see more than half of her tax withholdings return to her making a Health Premium a piece of cake. See how discussions bring out the real culprit.

And life insurance companies being among those huge corporations. Let's all get UL/WL so we can make those billion dollar life companies more countless billions. Sorry James but if you're against large corporations for funding retirement strategies then I guess you just put yourself out of a job:-)

There's no bigger abuser of hidden and undisclosed fees that eat away at your return then life insurance comanies.

It isn't that I'm against them I just think the corporate welfare should stop. Also the regulation that places small business at a major disavantage should stop as much as possible. If it is a fair field of play than let the games begin. Yet though as discussed by others these tyrannical laws such as making health care mandatory is much easier for large corporations that make up the DOW or S&P than it is for that one owner juggling for a profit that has created 10 or more jobs. For thanks for his creation of jobs he gets told he has to also be the employees Daddy or Mommy and provide them suckling children of his (or otherwise known as employees) with their precious health care, family leave (soon according to Dem's should be paid leave), half of their SS contribution, etc etc...

Now this is what I think, business should be disallowed to contribute one penny of benefits! They should pay people the 100% of the value and let the people provide for themselves. You know like it use to be before GMC and Big Blue.

 

[Crabcake Johnny]

By saying they shouldn't be allowed to offer benefits are you also talking about not allowing a 401K matching contribution?

 

[James]

By saying they shouldn't be allowed to offer benefits are you also talking about not allowing a 401K matching contribution?

Hell yea. Here is your report if you want to talk about hidden fees of all kinds.

http://www.401khelpcenter.com/tracking/mdh_understanding_fees_v2.html

You might of already of linked to it as I posted the link in a different thread not long ago.