Republican Candidates

stdreb27

Active Member
Originally Posted by ScubaDoo
They will if the federal government mandates they must provide health care to all workers...or if the federal goevernment increases the cost of doing business in order to provide socialized medicine via tax increases to fund same.
We all will pay more for the goods/services...and also pay increase taxes to fund socialized medicine.
Any rise in the cost of doing business usually will lead to increased cost of goods/services....as well as layoffs, cutbacks in other areas, etc. It's predictable and happens all the time.
If the federal government mandates that employeers must provide insurance, you'll see a shift, from employees to a "private contractor" system, where they will simply slide off the responsibility to the individual. And a tax, will simply force alot of companies elsewere to avoid them.
 

mfp1016

Member
Again industry dependent. There are plenty of jobs where federal or state law mandates the use of in-house personnel.
 

reefraff

Active Member
There will never be a single payer system in this country. Can you imagine Congress accepting the same crap system they would stick us with?
 

stdreb27

Active Member

Originally Posted by reefraff
There will never be a single payer system in this country. Can you imagine Congress accepting the same crap system they would stick us with?
this is the smartest thing ive heard all day.
 

rylan1

Active Member
Originally Posted by mfp1016
I don't think I've ever heard of someone not being allowed to read the fine print. Even if I concede to you enumberable accounts of trickery it still doesn't alleviate people from their responsibility to know what they are getting into. Personally, when I bought my first home, I went through my finances and decided upon what I could afford.
IMHO, from all of the recessions and panicks I've seen, it always starts with people just agreeing that we are in a recession. Makes since; get enough people to bark about going into a recession, then we will go into a recession because everyone thinks we are.
I think it happens, you know agressive salesmen will say just sign here...
But I have to believe many of these people were mislead or just ignorant about the process, especially if this was their first home. This is a new phenomenon that has recently taken place over the last 5 years with people wanting to get rich of the real estate burst. I just think it is too wide spread to think that its simply consumers' fault.
 

reefraff

Active Member
one of the selling points to these adjustable rate mortgages has been that for people without the required down to qualify for the lower rates they could buy with an ARM then refinance in 3 to 5 years before the interest jumps once they had built up enough equity to have the 20% down needed for the good rate. It is a legitimate selling point, the broker doesn't need to mislead anyone. I feel for people who got bit under those circumstances because they took a reasonable risk and got bit. It's the people who bought more house than they can afford I have no sympathy for.
A friend came up with a simple but effective way to solve any future issue with this. Make people who apply for a ARM

[hr]
qualify for the loan as it would be after the reset in a worst case scenario.
 

1journeyman

Active Member
Originally Posted by Rylan1
I think it happens, you know agressive salesmen will say just sign here...
But I have to believe many of these people were mislead or just ignorant about the process, especially if this was their first home. This is a new phenomenon that has recently taken place over the last 5 years with people wanting to get rich of the real estate burst. I just think it is too wide spread to think that its simply consumers' fault.
Greed has been around for a long time....
Unless

[hr]
Companies were forging signatures then it is 100% the buyer's fault.
As a buyer, it is YOUR responsibility to understand what you are signing... No one else is to blame.
 

bang guy

Moderator
I think there's plenty of blame to go around. Neither party should get bailed out in my opinion.
People were caught up in the "I want it now" {in a baby crying voice} mentality and the

[hr]
companies were taking advantage of that. I have no sympathy for either party.
 

scubadoo

Active Member

Originally Posted by stdreb27
If the federal government mandates that employeers must provide insurance, you'll see a shift, from employees to a "private contractor" system, where they will simply slide off the responsibility to the individual. And a tax, will simply force alot of companies elsewere to avoid them.
From CNET Networrk Business
If benefits are mandated, employees would be forced to take part of their wages as health insurance, even if they don't wish to do so. While employees may or may not regard themselves as better off, the employer would be largely unaffected in this scenario.
The reality, however, is that the increased cost associated with health insurance probably wouldn't be immediately absorbed in the employees' compensation package. Rather, most employers would pass on the new cost gradually. In the meantime, they might need to raise consumer prices to cover the added expense
.
 

stdreb27

Active Member

Originally Posted by ScubaDoo
From CNET Networrk Business
If benefits are mandated, employees would be forced to take part of their wages as health insurance, even if they don't wish to do so. While employees may or may not regard themselves as better off, the employer would be largely unaffected in this scenario.
The reality, however, is that the increased cost associated with health insurance probably wouldn't be immediately absorbed in the employees' compensation package. Rather, most employers would pass on the new cost gradually. In the meantime, they might need to raise consumer prices to cover the added expense
.
It isn't an instant thing. In the oil industry where they do alot of hiring by projects, so they do alot of 2-3 year hiring, what they do alot of times, isn't hire the employee and put him on the payroll with benifits ect. They hire him with the same business senario like you would a plumber. You are paying for a service, but are not responsible for all the "benifits" paid to the plumber. The owner of the plumbing company is. I think you will see an increase in this type of situation at the corporate level.
I don't really agree with this conclusion that this author says. I don't like some of the assumptions you would have to assume to reach that conclusion.
 

scubadoo

Active Member
I'm confused......you must be talking about an idependent contrator vs an employee. WHile some jobs could be outsourced...many cannot.
The IRS provides a litmus test to determine if you are an employee vs a contractor. Manyy businesses would be unable to move to contractors.
Given the scenario you have posted.....you assume a large portion of the workforce would be outsourced. Given the IRS litmus test, your scenario is iimpossible to achieve.
To determine whether an individual is an employee or an independent contractor the relationship of the worker and the business must be examined. All evidence of control and independence must be considered. In any employee-independent contractor determination, all information that provides evidence of the degree of control and the degree of independence must be considered. Facts that provide evidence of the degree of control and independence fall into three categories: behavioral control, financial control, and the type of relationship of the parties as shown below.
Behavioral control. Facts that show whether the business has a right to direct and control how the worker does the task for which the worker is hired include the type and degree of--
Instructions the business gives the worker. An employee is generally subject to the business' instructions about when, where, and how to work. All of the following are examples of types of instructions about how to do work:
When and where to do the work
What tools or equipment to use
What workers to hire or to assist with the work
Where to purchase supplies and services
What work must be performed by a specified individual
What order or sequence to follow
The amount of instruction needed varies among different jobs. Even if no instructions are given, sufficient behavioral control may exist if the employer has the right to control how the work results are achieved. A business may lack the knowledge to instruct some highly specialized professionals; in other cases, the task may require little or no instruction. The key consideration is whether the business has retained the right to control the details of a worker's performance or instead has given up that right.
Training the business gives the worker. An employee may be trained to perform services in a particular manner. Independent contractors ordinarily use their own methods.
Financial control. Facts that show whether the business has a right to control the business aspects of the worker's job include:
The extent to which the worker has unreimbursed business expenses. Independent contractors are more likely to have unreimbursed expenses than are employees. Fixed ongoing costs that are incurred regardless of whether work is currently being performed are especially important. However, employees may also incur unreimbursed expenses in connection with the services they perform for their business.
The extent of the worker's investment. An independent contractor often has a significant investment in the facilities he or she uses in performing services for someone else. However, a significant investment is not necessary for independent contractor status.
The extent to which the worker makes services available to the relevant market. An independent contractor is generally free to seek out business opportunities. Independent contractors often advertise, maintain a visible business location, and are available to work in the relevant market.
How the business pays the worker. An employee is generally guaranteed a regular wage amount for an hourly, weekly, or other period of time. This usually indicates that a worker is an employee, even when the wage or salary is supplemented by a commission. An independent contractor is usually paid by a flat fee for the job. However, it is common in some professions, such as law, to pay independent contractors hourly.
The extent to which the worker can realize a profit or loss. An independent contractor can make a profit or loss.
Type of relationship. Facts that show the parties' type of relationship include:
Written contracts describing the relationship the parties intended to create.
Whether the business provides the worker with employee-type benefits, such as insurance, a pension plan, vacation pay, or sick pay.
Contd
 

scubadoo

Active Member
The permanency of the relationship. If you engage a worker with the expectation that the relationship will continue indefinitely, rather than for a specific project or period, this is generally considered evidence that your intent was to create an employer-employee relationship.
The extent to which services performed by the worker are a key aspect of the regular business of the company. If a worker provides services that are a key aspect of your regular business activity, it is more likely that you will have the right to direct and control his or her activities. For example, if a law firm hires an attorney, it is likely that it will present the attorney's work as its own and would have the right to control or direct that work. This would indicate an employer-employee relationship.
 

mfp1016

Member
Originally Posted by stdreb27
It isn't an instant thing. In the oil industry where they do alot of hiring by projects, so they do alot of 2-3 year hiring, what they do alot of times, isn't hire the employee and put him on the payroll with benifits ect. They hire him with the same business senario like you would a plumber. You are paying for a service, but are not responsible for all the "benifits" paid to the plumber. The owner of the plumbing company is. I think you will see an increase in this type of situation at the corporate level.
I don't really agree with this conclusion that this author says. I don't like some of the assumptions you would have to assume to reach that conclusion.
Thats not exactly true about the oil industry.
 

stdreb27

Active Member
well, I don't know exactly how it works in the company I work for, maybe some skirting of the rules. But I would say that several of the contract workers who are employed wouldn't pass that test. But I'm not the expert on employment regulations.
But back to what you quoted.
The problem with their conclusion is that it fails to take into proper account elasticity, and price stickyness. Their concept comes from a more basic model, assuming a more free economic model than is what really is the case. You can only pass on so much cost, especially for elastic goods, In inelastic goods like gas, their conclusion would be more accurate.
 

stdreb27

Active Member
Originally Posted by mfp1016
Thats not exactly true about the oil industry.
it isn't exactly true, for instance I'm not working on a contract and have a more traditional employment roll. But alot of employees especially in the management side (where I work) this is the case. (the company I work alot of times ends up being a "body shop" where we contract out engineers to the minors for a particular project.)
 

reefraff

Active Member
Most skilled trades position jobs already provide health insurance. Someone brought up oil companies. I seriously doubt anyone but the few small independents that are left have any employees that aren't provided insurance. My dad ran a small oil company in california up till 73 and while they cut a lot of corners (I would think twice before buying a house in Huntington Beach
) they did provide health insurance to their employees. You had to or they would go somewhere that did.
I'd be willing to bet that construction and food service workers make up the majority of those who don't have health insurance provided by their jobs. I have only had 2 jobs since I was like 20 that didn't provide health insurance and one of those was a contract job.
 

mfp1016

Member
Originally Posted by stdreb27
it isn't exactly true, for instance I'm not working on a contract and have a more traditional employment roll. But alot of employees especially in the management side (where I work) this is the case. (the company I work alot of times ends up being a "body shop" where we contract out engineers to the minors for a particular project.)

I'm just saying there are usually erroneous circumstances or a time differential that makes contracted management positions necessary. This is not really the case, and the highest position you will ever see contracted out would be a plant manager or an engineering manager. They usually do that to avoid IP costs. What company do you work for? Is it a large engineering group?
 

reefraff

Active Member
Originally Posted by stdreb27
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/21/us...gewanted=print
You have to love this, I thought keynesian economics was dead. This is a truely scary economic philosophy and comming from a leading presidential candidate.

One of the most compelling reasons I am anti-Democrat is their whole attitude about fiscal matters. How many times do you hear them saying something along the lines of "tax giveaways for the rich"? You aren't giving away a single thing, it was their money to begin with! If someone is so stupid they have 3 or 4 kids but don't have the job skills to land a job with health care benefits why is that my problem? Give them a tax break for the 2nd job they need to have to pay the health care for the kids they decided to have but don't force me to pay for their lifestyle choices.
If a company wants to pay a person 250 million a year its none of the governments friggin business. If they want to limit the the amount of money a company can pay an employee and still claim it as a business expense fine, I am all for it. But lets not just limit it to CEO's. I just dont want to see the money raised spent on people who are too lazy to make their own way in life.
 

stdreb27

Active Member
Originally Posted by mfp1016
I'm just saying there are usually erroneous circumstances or a time differential that makes contracted management positions necessary. This is not really the case, and the highest position you will ever see contracted out would be a plant manager or an engineering manager. They usually do that to avoid IP costs. What company do you work for? Is it a large engineering group?
yeah, absolutely, I'm not saying the actual managment of the company, just the engineers, or the boots on the ground. Our company got bought out by some company based in Norway, one of the other companies in the group which now owns us, hires almost exclusively contractor work for their drafting, doc control ect. And they are contracted for 6 months ect. (not sure exactly how) Then they are gone, and a new group of drafters come in. Their engineers are all pretty much regular employees. It is kind of crappy deal I think. But it is done purely to avoid employment costs generally associated with hiring. I know my dad did something simular with Texaco a looong time ago.
The sister company, there is the former owner, a few engineers, and drafters that is it. as far as heiarchy. and that is where I was comimg from.
 
Top