Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Cannon Shell
http://www.businessweek.com/news/201...-update1-.html
AT&T previously received a tax-free benefit from the government to subsidize health-care costs for retirees, who would otherwise be on a Medicare Part D plan. Under the new bill, AT&T will no longer be able to deduct that subsidy.
“As a result of this legislation, including the additional tax burden, AT&T will be evaluating prospective changes to the active and retiree health-care benefits offered by the company,” the carrier said in the filing.
AT&T’s announcement was followed about an hour later by 3M, the St. Paul, Minnesota-based maker of products ranging from Post-It Notes to respiratory masks. 3M said it expects a one-time expense of $85 million to $90 million after tax, or about 12 cents a share, in the first quarter because of the new law, according to a statement. 3M had about 75,000 employees as of Feb. 5.
Michael Coe, a spokesman for the carrier, declined to comment. Peter Thonis, a spokesman for Verizon Communications Inc., which also employs more than 200,000 people, declined to comment.
New York-based Verizon, the second-largest U.S. phone company, told employees in a note after the law was signed that the tax will make the subsidy less valuable to employers like Verizon and so “may have significant implications for both retirees and employers.”
In other words employees and retirees at the countries biggest companies are going to pay the price for the current administrations zeal to punish businesses. What was that i heard about this bill not effecting the middle class?
|
"Affecting," not "effecting."
Okay, so you're against gov't paying for health care, and now, that the gov't is removing a tax break (which means that gov't was in effect paying for AT&T's employees' health care) you're also against that? So you're against the gov't paying and you're against the company paying. Who do you think should pay? The retirees?