2 ms·
I thought of this too, and it’s actually good system. Those small businesses should be exempt I think. It’s only the large corporations that should be forced
by edgyquant 5y ago
I thought of this too, and it’s actually good system. Those small businesses should be exempt I think. It’s only the large corporations that should be forced to pay (I wouldn’t even be opposed to subsidizing health care for those businesses by taxing larger ones more.)
I think a system where we go by revenue is a lot of logical than going by number of employees. If a business makes 1Bpy but only has two employees, would it not be exempt from the current regulations?
- kelseyfrog 5y agoIt works out great for everyone except the 47.5% of Americans who are employed by small businesses.
- edgyquant 5y agoNot really? I’ve mentioned in both comments that we should arbitrate based on revenue, not number of employees. I also said I’m the comment you replied to we could potentially subsidize the benefits at smaller businesses with a tax on the largest. Not saying this would work, or even that the math is sound, but I have definitely addressed your point twice.
- toast0 5y agoRevenue isn't always a great way to measure the size of a business, because different businesses add different amount of value. And you can't use profit, because that's easy to game. For something like people benefits, predicating the requirement on the number of people employed makes a lot of sense. It's about as much work to setup a health plan for a two person firm as a 50 person firm, but many fewer people benefit.
- edgyquant 5y agoI don’t disagree, I just think that using number of employees seems like one of the worst possible ways to handle company reaching X size. I came up with that off the top of my head there are surely better solutions.