Consider a low-income American supporting a family of four deciding whether to take a part-time job that pays $36,000 a year or a full-time job that pays $42,000 a year. According to my research, accepting the higher-paying job could result in the family losing over $10,000 a year in health-care subsidies.
Moreover, by switching low-income employees to part-time positions, rather than offering them health insurance, an employer will be able to save over $3,000 a year by avoiding ObamaCare's employer-mandate penalties. Without further reforms, many employers and employees will jointly benefit if employers make low-income employees part-timers rather than offering them health insurance. The losers will be taxpayers, who will need to fund the subsidies that these employees will be eligible for.
Correcting misconceptions about markets, economics, asset prices, derivatives, equities, debt and finance
Wednesday, October 31, 2012
Employees Pushed From Full Time Into Part Time Work By Obama's New Healthcare Law
Posted By Milton Recht
From The Wall Street Journal, "David Gamage: ObamaCare's Costs to the Working Class: Perverse incentives will make part-time work more attractive than a better-paying full-time job." by David Gamage:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment