Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Let's just go ahead and start a thread about the coal guy


  • Please log in to reply
25 replies to this topic

#16 TbTeRRoR

TbTeRRoR

    Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 483 posts

Posted 12 November 2012 - 10:45 AM

He spent that money to try and defeat Obama care. Plain and simple Romney in office= Repeal of Obama care

#17 Niner National

Niner National

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,353 posts

Posted 12 November 2012 - 11:05 AM

Good luck getting new nuke licenses.

That's not going to be the hard part. Finding financing for a nuclear plant is virtually impossible.

A nuclear plant has an expected ROI of about 30 years....longer than those evil solar panels even without government incentives.

Nobody wants to wait 30 years to see a return on their investment, so energy companies are largely going to have to self finance them. This is the main reason Duke and Progress sought to merge. The energy industry will see a lot more consolidation for this reason.

#18 Nicks To The Colts

Nicks To The Colts

    shitpost around the clock

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,291 posts
  • LocationChapel Hill

Posted 12 November 2012 - 11:07 AM

Not about the coal guy, but the local Georgia Pacific facility here near Goldsboro sent out notices prior to the election:

Basically the notices said that if re-elected, they would be forced to layoff workers and/or reduce full time workers to less than 30 hrs per week in order to afford Obamacare requirements in 2013.

Just this past weekend, Papa Johns owner basically announced the same thing.

I'm making no judgements, but if buisinesses resort to these measures in order to comply with mandatory healthcare requirements - then I really have to question is Obamacare worth it?


they're all keenly aware that romney couldn't just write an executive order to call the whole thing off nor was there going to be another supreme court case that saved them. additionally, it'd be until at least 2014 when the senate could have possibly flipped to the republicans which would have enabled a repeal. really, what is it about obama's re-election that magically triggered these layoffs?

they're doing it out of spite.

#19 Nicks To The Colts

Nicks To The Colts

    shitpost around the clock

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,291 posts
  • LocationChapel Hill

Posted 12 November 2012 - 11:20 AM

More information about this maneuver from a reddit q&a with a citation from a legal firm:


Question: Can't businesses just fire employees or make them work part-time to get around this requirement? Also, what about businesses with multiple locations?

Answer: Switching to part-time only won't help, as the Affordable Care Act counts the hours worked, not the number of full-time employees you have. So if your employees worked an equivalent of 50 full-time employees' hours, the requirement kicks in. Really, the only plausible way a business could reasonably utilize this strategy is if they currently operate with just over the 50-employee number, and could still operate with under 50 employees, and have no intention to expand. Also, regarding the questions about multiple locations, this legal website analyzed the law and claims that multiple locations in one chain all count as a part of the same business (meaning employers like Wal-Mart can't get around this by being under 50 employees in one store - they'd have to be under that for the entire chain, which just ain't happening). Independently-owned franchises are different, however, as they have a separate owner and as such aren't included under the same net as the parent company. However, any individual franchise with over 50 employees will have to meet the requirement.

#20 TbTeRRoR

TbTeRRoR

    Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 483 posts

Posted 12 November 2012 - 05:06 PM

More information about this maneuver from a reddit q&a with a citation from a legal firm:


Question: Can't businesses just fire employees or make them work part-time to get around this requirement? Also, what about businesses with multiple locations?

Answer: Switching to part-time only won't help, as the Affordable Care Act counts the hours worked, not the number of full-time employees you have. So if your employees worked an equivalent of 50 full-time employees' hours, the requirement kicks in. Really, the only plausible way a business could reasonably utilize this strategy is if they currently operate with just over the 50-employee number, and could still operate with under 50 employees, and have no intention to expand. Also, regarding the questions about multiple locations, this legal website analyzed the law and claims that multiple locations in one chain all count as a part of the same business (meaning employers like Wal-Mart can't get around this by being under 50 employees in one store - they'd have to be under that for the entire chain, which just ain't happening). Independently-owned franchises are different, however, as they have a separate owner and as such aren't included under the same net as the parent company. However, any individual franchise with over 50 employees will have to meet the requirement.

I work in the Steel Industry in NC. One of our customers in SC told us they had 97 employees in 2008.During the early stages of the recession they cut back to 48 with a promise to rehire when they could. After Obama care passed their Ownership confided in our outside salesman that they wouldn't be able to expand to over fifty employees again after O-care became truth.

Also on a personal note I pay 60 a week for a family plan insurance but regardless of that I will lose 1200 in taxes (YES it is a tax) Because my wife doesn't have her OWN plan though she is on mine. Yeah that is crap

#21 thatlookseasy

thatlookseasy

    Death to pennies

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,929 posts

Posted 12 November 2012 - 05:14 PM

Also on a personal note I pay 60 a week for a family plan insurance but regardless of that I will lose 1200 in taxes (YES it is a tax) Because my wife doesn't have her OWN plan though she is on mine. Yeah that is crap


Really? I thought if you had health insurance you didnt have to pay? I mean thats the entire purpose of the tax/ penalty/ whatever

#22 TbTeRRoR

TbTeRRoR

    Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 483 posts

Posted 12 November 2012 - 06:07 PM

Really? I thought if you had health insurance you didnt have to pay? I mean thats the entire purpose of the tax/ penalty/ whatever

The way it was explained to me is that each independent over 18 has to have their OWN insurance. Its buried in that BS taxation they are calling a bill somewhere.

#23 RedMage138

RedMage138

    YES!YES!YES!

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,533 posts

Posted 12 November 2012 - 06:28 PM

This may be off topic but, can anyone with any sort of economic knowledge explain to be why we aren't taxing carbon emissions, or at least moving in that direction?

There's no better way to incentivize a move away from coal and other fossil fuels to more sustainable/cleaner energy than a carbon tax.

#24 rodeo

rodeo

    Keelah se'lai

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,382 posts

Posted 12 November 2012 - 06:43 PM

He spent that money to try and defeat Obama care. Plain and simple Romney in office= Repeal of Obama care

lol repeal Obamacare to install Romneycare. Huge difference!

#25 TbTeRRoR

TbTeRRoR

    Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 483 posts

Posted 12 November 2012 - 11:32 PM

lol repeal Obamacare to install Romneycare. Huge difference!

Well they did borrow a lot of it from Romney so yeah

#26 Niner National

Niner National

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,353 posts

Posted 13 November 2012 - 09:03 AM

This may be off topic but, can anyone with any sort of economic knowledge explain to be why we aren't taxing carbon emissions, or at least moving in that direction?

There's no better way to incentivize a move away from coal and other fossil fuels to more sustainable/cleaner energy than a carbon tax.

Well, we sort of do.

In most states, energy companies are required to produce a percentage of energy from renewable sources. They can either do it through facilities they own or they can buy renewable energy credits (RECs) to meet the goal. If they don't meet the goal, they are penalized.

Every state is different though. I worked for a solar company in Maryland for about a year and a half and the REC prices fluctuated between $200 and $400. In NC, they go for something like $30. In NJ they were $800+ but that market got a huge flood of solar due to the high REC prices and it drove the price down. Not sure what it is anymore.

If you look at your power bill, there will probably be a charge for .50 - $1.50 that is applied towards this. Duke may hide it though, I'm not sure since I never look at my power bill.


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Contact Us: info@carolinahuddle.com - IP Content Design by Joshua Tree / TitansReport.