Well piezoe
- Thread starter kid.fx.cross
- Start date
That and Grandpa's Wisdom.
Quote from TGregg:
Which would be yet another win for the democrats.
Onazi, and his gestapo are doing ALL of this on purpose. Sure, they're the most incompetent bastards to EVER hold power, but none the less, this shit is being done for a reason. Those of us who are smart enough to see it, cringe knowing full well what these tyrants are up to... Agenda 21 shook me badly. Onazi makes agenda 21 look like baby shit. I don't drink anymore, but damn, I wish I could have one at times when I see what's REALLY going on behind the curtain...
Going forward, you can, as long as everything is segregated:
- separate mailing address
- separate LLC with unique managers for each LLC
- multiple members per LLC
- separate EIN for each LLC
- separate bank account(s) opened by the manager's
- separate licenses and permits
- absolutely no transfer of funds or assets between entities w/o formal documentation - loan agreements, bill of sales, etc, signed by the managers
- making sure the help works for only 1 entity with clear start and end dates. Can't share employees between entities to cover for personnel needs
Expect to hear/read stories of IRS gunning for companies using this strategy solely to avoid the Obamacare requirements... And if not the IRS, lawyers looking for an easy buck, perhaps due to disgruntled current/ex-employees..
In addition to the potential tax/legal issues, forming/running segregated entities is highly inconvenient if the person seeks to build an empire and/or take advantage of scale. The combined entity is able to smooth out the revenue/profit issues among stores, obtain financing to acquire or expand, take advantage of the depreciation incurred from acquisitions/expansion to lower the overall tax bill, negotiate better deals with service providers, etc.
The guy I talked to over the weekend, who had called on a client with 500 employees, ..... I suggested they break the company into 10 (or more) smaller companies with 49 or less employees. He immediately said the IRS has rules set up to prevent that from happening. He didn't go into specifics so I can't elaborate on that part.
The pathetic thing about Odumbocare and the FORCED coverages we all must have is that the law was intended to help the uninsured. It may do that since many of them will get subsidies. But those of us who already were insured, many self employed, small business owners, early retirees, etc. are the ones getting the shaft. Seeing premiums go up by close to 200%. And gee, if we make more than the subsidy cutoff then we get zilch. Why should we be forced to comply with non-relevant coverages when we were already being responsible and had coverage that met our individual needs?
ok, that makes two of you
Have you read the posts on this thread by the usual suspects?
I'll ask you. As it stands now, people simply can't afford the new higher premiums, especially if you throw in 5k out of pocket before the deductible is satisfied. They'll have no choice but to go naked. That in turn will put pressure on hospitals from people who are now shopping around, and also from insurance companies who inform them that the days of raising premiums every year to compensate for rising health care costs are over, since the policy holders are simply tapped out.
So, the unintended consequence of ACA is more will be uninsured, or will be if after they pay the new premiums will cancel if they ever again go up one more penny.
You seem intelligent, what do you think? Too bad I have to endure pages of kneejerk reactions from posters who feel the answer to any question is "Obama is stupid" and their counterparts who feel the democratic party must be defended at all times regardless of the facts.