I read an interesting piece in the Stanford Social Innovation Review about the US health care system.
Did you know:
1. The Us spent $2.6 trillion in health care in 2011 and according to US Health and Human Services will be spending 25% of GDP by 2025
2. Half of all personal bankruptcies are at least partially due to medical expenses
3. Despite such spending US health indicators are among the worst of high income countries in the world. Since 1960 the US dropped from 12th to 46th in infant mortality[below Cuba and Slovenia] and 16th to 36th in life expectancy[ below Cypress and Chile]. In ceratin neighborhoods Baltimore Chicago, and LA life expectancy for subsets of population is lower than Bangladesh
4. In 1960 half of doctors in the US worked in primary care. Today barely 30% and it is getting worse
5. From 2000 to 2005 the percentage of US medical school graduates who chose to enter primary care dropped from 14% to8%
Clearly we have a serious problem. For the entire article go to http://www.ssireview.org/articles/entry/realigning_health_with_care
I received a question from a small business owner. See below. Are any of you experiencing this problem.
Scott Hauge
President
================================================================
Today we had an age old problem rear its ugly head again and I wondered if other businesses have the same problem. That being long contracts with uniform companies, alarm companies, copier companies and for us most recently phone companies that have such stringent rules and short windows to cancel before an “automatic” renewal takes place and you get stuck for more time and more money.
This one put us over the edge. Three year Telepacific contract expired at the end of June, we began negotiating with them in March and now we are told it’s too late to give notice. They needed 60 day written notice within a 30 day window of 60 days before 6/27 but not more than 90 day before, we are stuck for another year. Although I am not done fighting this particular situation, I continue to wonder why there are so many notifications required of business, however these companies do not have to notify their clients of upcoming automatic renewals and one’s options for not renewing in advance of the dates after such long contracts.
That’s all, just wondering if our misery has been experienced by other small business having to use services of big business.
Thank you,
Susan Frey
Bill’s Ace Hardware,
Martinez, CA
925 228 6150 x106
Friday, July 27, 2012
Thursday, July 26, 2012
Injury and Illness Prevention Program
Small Business California is working with the California Department of Industrial Relations and State Compensation Insurance Fund on a new initiative to help small businesses develop and implement effective injury and illness prevention programs[IIPP] in their workplaces. These programs help reduce the costs associated with work-related injuries; create safe, positive, and productive work environments; and help businesses meet the legal requirements of the Cal/OSHA IIPP standard. We want your input so that the needs and concerns of small business owners will be met. Please answer the following 3 questions and email it Your responses will be kept completely confidential and CAL OSHA will not see the responses except in the aggregate Thank you for your help!
Scott Hauge
President
====================
1) Have you ever heard of Cal/OSHA’s Injury and Illness Prevention Program (IIPP) requirement?
Yes ___
No ___
If Yes, what challenges have you faced in developing or implementing your IIPP?
________________________________________________________________________________________________
2) All businesses are required by law to have an IIPP. Would you attend a free half day training program where you learned how to develop an effective IIPP?
Yes ___
No ___
If Yes, who would you send to the workshop?
Yourself (owner) ___
Your manager/supervisor ___
Your payroll manager ___
Other: (who?) __________________________________________________________________________________
If No, why not and is there anything that would make you want to attend?
_______________________________________________________________________________________________
3) What resources would help you create an effective health and safety program in your workplace?
Technical assistance on health and safety issues ___
Written materials on specific health and safety issues ___
More extensive health and safety training ___
Other: _________________________________________________________________________________________
Monday, July 23, 2012
SB323/ Not Operating Loss carry back
SB 323 (Vargas) is a bill working its way through the California Legislature and will be taken up when the Legislature reconvenes in August. It would enact a new limited liability company (LLC) law effective January 1, 2013 and repeal the present LLC law effective January 1, 2015, so that all LLCs formed since 1994 (the effective date of the present LLC law) would be invalidated unless converted to the new law.
This would require every LLC to revise its charter and operating agreement to conform to the new law, or become defunct. This could cause considerable confusion and possible litigation.
It is believed that many startup companies and other California small businesses would be affected by this law. There is no grandfather option in this legislation.
Is your company an LLC? Is this something Small Business California should weigh in on?
In a past email I indicated there is legislation to eliminate Net Operating Loss carry backs. We have confirmed the legislation does not eliminate Net Operating Loss carry forwards. Many of you have indicated you would send a letter of opposition to this. Small Business California is awaiting a report from the Franchise Tax Board but plan on sending a letter of opposition in the next week.. For those of you that indicated you would also send a letter of opposition we will be getting back to you . If you did not respond and want to oppose please let me know.
This would require every LLC to revise its charter and operating agreement to conform to the new law, or become defunct. This could cause considerable confusion and possible litigation.
It is believed that many startup companies and other California small businesses would be affected by this law. There is no grandfather option in this legislation.
Is your company an LLC? Is this something Small Business California should weigh in on?
In a past email I indicated there is legislation to eliminate Net Operating Loss carry backs. We have confirmed the legislation does not eliminate Net Operating Loss carry forwards. Many of you have indicated you would send a letter of opposition to this. Small Business California is awaiting a report from the Franchise Tax Board but plan on sending a letter of opposition in the next week.. For those of you that indicated you would also send a letter of opposition we will be getting back to you . If you did not respond and want to oppose please let me know.
Friday, July 20, 2012
Information Every Small Business Should know about Affordable Care Act/ Burdensome Regulations
Thank you to all that were on the webinar Wednesday. Also a big thanks to Kim Parker at the California Employers Association and Sherly Carlson who Co Hosted. Please see what we have put together with the highlights of the webinar.
===============================================
Small Business tax credits
Until 2014 there is a 35% tax credit for businesses up to 25 full time employees with employees’ average wages of less than $50000. Owner and their families are not included in the calculation. The credit is on a sliding scale. If you have 10 employees or fewer and the average salary is $25000 or less you will receive the full credit. Starting in 2014, the credit increases to 50% for two years and can be carried forward for up to twenty years.
Please see link for more information on tax credit from the IRS: http://www.irs.gov/newsroom/article/0,,id=223666,00.html
W2s
If you issue more than 250 W-2s, you will have to report the cost of health insurance benefits for the 2012 tax year. Businesses with less than 250 employees will retain exemption until the IRS comes up with additional guidelines. The amounts spent for employee health benefits by an employer are not taxable income to an employee.
Exchanges
Small Businesses with 50 employees or less will be able to purchase health insurance through the new Small Business Health Options Program (SHOP) Exchange in 2014, the size increases to 100 employees in 2016. Small businesses under 50 can also have their workers purchase subsidized coverage through the individual exchange without paying a penalty (though they would lose the tax benefit of paying for insurance.) The Exchange will negotiate rates with insurance companies. The Exchange will also provide a portal which is tasked to provide easy to understand information about cost, quality and coverage options. A small business can continue to use its broker. Navigators will be provided by the Exchange to explain the program and assist individuals and small employers with enrollment. A small business or self-employed individual may purchase directly from the Exchange through on-line electronic enrollment in addition to traditional paper-based enrollment avenues.
Mandates
In 2014 an individual will be required to purchase or enroll in coverage or pay a tax penalty of $95 or 1% of taxable income, whichever is higher; this will increase on a phased-in basis to $695 or 2.5% of taxable income in 2016. There is no employer mandate unless you have 50 or more full time equivalent employees. Those with 50 or more employees can either purchase insurance or pay a tax/penalty of $2000 per full time employee. In calculating this tax, you count your total full time equivalent employees then deduct 30 employees. For purposes of determining if you meet the 50 full time equivalent employee threshold, part time employees , those under 30 hours, will be added together to determine full time equivalents. If you offer coverage, however, you are not required to cover part time employees.
September 23, 2012
In your Open enrollment period on or after this date, your plan’s participants must receive a more standardized and comprehensible Summary of Benefits and Coverage during the enrollment period.
Have you seen a federal regulations that make no sense. Here’s your opportunity to identify burdensome regulations and do something about it.
White House Asks Businesses to Identify Burdensome Regulations
On July 18, 2012, The White House opened up its regulatory reform effort to the public, launching a website for tips on how the government can streamline or eliminate regulations. In 2011 the President directed all executive agencies to undertake an unprecedented government-wide review of regulations on the books, in order to figure out what is working and what is not, and where appropriate, to streamline or eliminate ineffective, overly burdensome, and outdated rules. Over two dozen agencies responded with regulatory reform plans, listing more than 800 initiatives. The Administration is now asking for businesses to send them comments identifying burdensome regulations.
• Submit comments to the White House here
• Advocacy contact: Charles Maresca, 202.205.6978
For more information on Regulatory Alerts see http://www.sba.gov/advocacy/815
Scott Hauge
President
Small Business California
2311 Taraval Street
San Francisco, CA 94116
shauge@cal-insure.com
415-680-2188
===============================================
Small Business tax credits
Until 2014 there is a 35% tax credit for businesses up to 25 full time employees with employees’ average wages of less than $50000. Owner and their families are not included in the calculation. The credit is on a sliding scale. If you have 10 employees or fewer and the average salary is $25000 or less you will receive the full credit. Starting in 2014, the credit increases to 50% for two years and can be carried forward for up to twenty years.
Please see link for more information on tax credit from the IRS: http://www.irs.gov/newsroom/article/0,,id=223666,00.html
W2s
If you issue more than 250 W-2s, you will have to report the cost of health insurance benefits for the 2012 tax year. Businesses with less than 250 employees will retain exemption until the IRS comes up with additional guidelines. The amounts spent for employee health benefits by an employer are not taxable income to an employee.
Exchanges
Small Businesses with 50 employees or less will be able to purchase health insurance through the new Small Business Health Options Program (SHOP) Exchange in 2014, the size increases to 100 employees in 2016. Small businesses under 50 can also have their workers purchase subsidized coverage through the individual exchange without paying a penalty (though they would lose the tax benefit of paying for insurance.) The Exchange will negotiate rates with insurance companies. The Exchange will also provide a portal which is tasked to provide easy to understand information about cost, quality and coverage options. A small business can continue to use its broker. Navigators will be provided by the Exchange to explain the program and assist individuals and small employers with enrollment. A small business or self-employed individual may purchase directly from the Exchange through on-line electronic enrollment in addition to traditional paper-based enrollment avenues.
Mandates
In 2014 an individual will be required to purchase or enroll in coverage or pay a tax penalty of $95 or 1% of taxable income, whichever is higher; this will increase on a phased-in basis to $695 or 2.5% of taxable income in 2016. There is no employer mandate unless you have 50 or more full time equivalent employees. Those with 50 or more employees can either purchase insurance or pay a tax/penalty of $2000 per full time employee. In calculating this tax, you count your total full time equivalent employees then deduct 30 employees. For purposes of determining if you meet the 50 full time equivalent employee threshold, part time employees , those under 30 hours, will be added together to determine full time equivalents. If you offer coverage, however, you are not required to cover part time employees.
September 23, 2012
In your Open enrollment period on or after this date, your plan’s participants must receive a more standardized and comprehensible Summary of Benefits and Coverage during the enrollment period.
Have you seen a federal regulations that make no sense. Here’s your opportunity to identify burdensome regulations and do something about it.
White House Asks Businesses to Identify Burdensome Regulations
On July 18, 2012, The White House opened up its regulatory reform effort to the public, launching a website for tips on how the government can streamline or eliminate regulations. In 2011 the President directed all executive agencies to undertake an unprecedented government-wide review of regulations on the books, in order to figure out what is working and what is not, and where appropriate, to streamline or eliminate ineffective, overly burdensome, and outdated rules. Over two dozen agencies responded with regulatory reform plans, listing more than 800 initiatives. The Administration is now asking for businesses to send them comments identifying burdensome regulations.
• Submit comments to the White House here
• Advocacy contact: Charles Maresca, 202.205.6978
For more information on Regulatory Alerts see http://www.sba.gov/advocacy/815
Scott Hauge
President
Small Business California
2311 Taraval Street
San Francisco, CA 94116
shauge@cal-insure.com
415-680-2188
SB 969
Last month Small Business California was one of the first business groups to oppose SB 969. Since then a number of other business groups have joined SB-Cal in opposing SB 969. On its face, SB 969 (which regulates dog groomers) would seem to impact only a very small universe of small businesses in California and in some ways that is correct. But in many ways SB 969 and bills similar to it, impact all of our small businesses. SB 969, if passed into law, would:
• create a new board to regulate small businesses;
• would only have large businesses, regulatory entities and not for profits on the board (yes, small businesses would not have a voice);
• require small businesses to submit their employee training to this board for approval (that’s right you would need to share your internal training manual with a public entity dominated by your competitors);
• and would disregard years of practical experience performing your craft unless you received the blessings of this board.
These are issues and concerns application to all small businesses not just dog groomers. In our survey regulations were the 5th most important issue for small businesses in California. These are the kinds of issues that Small Business California continues to pay attention to for all of California’s small businesses.
I am reminded of the quote by Pastor Martin Niemollor
First they came to for the communist and I did not speak out because I was not a communist
Then they came for the trade unionist and I did not speak out because I wasn’t as trade unionist
Then they came for the Jews and I did not speak out because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me and there was no one left to speak out for me.
I hope you will consider joining Small Business California so we can speak for you.
Scott Hauge
President
Small Business California
• create a new board to regulate small businesses;
• would only have large businesses, regulatory entities and not for profits on the board (yes, small businesses would not have a voice);
• require small businesses to submit their employee training to this board for approval (that’s right you would need to share your internal training manual with a public entity dominated by your competitors);
• and would disregard years of practical experience performing your craft unless you received the blessings of this board.
These are issues and concerns application to all small businesses not just dog groomers. In our survey regulations were the 5th most important issue for small businesses in California. These are the kinds of issues that Small Business California continues to pay attention to for all of California’s small businesses.
I am reminded of the quote by Pastor Martin Niemollor
First they came to for the communist and I did not speak out because I was not a communist
Then they came for the trade unionist and I did not speak out because I wasn’t as trade unionist
Then they came for the Jews and I did not speak out because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me and there was no one left to speak out for me.
I hope you will consider joining Small Business California so we can speak for you.
Scott Hauge
President
Small Business California
Tuesday, July 17, 2012
UPDATE: AB 2804
From: Scott Hauge
Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2012 4:23 PM
To: Small Business California
Subject: AB2804
I heard all of you loud and clear that you want to oppose AB2804 and many of you have asked how you can help.
I sent an email out to our board and we will oppose. We will also start a letter writing campaign to get as many of you as possible to also send letters
When I sent this out this morning I said that it was going to repeal the carryback provision. Lori our government affairs person said she is hearing from some
attorneys that it may apply to carry forward.
When we get all the details straightened out I will get back.
Scott Hauge
President
Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2012 4:23 PM
To: Small Business California
Subject: AB2804
I heard all of you loud and clear that you want to oppose AB2804 and many of you have asked how you can help.
I sent an email out to our board and we will oppose. We will also start a letter writing campaign to get as many of you as possible to also send letters
When I sent this out this morning I said that it was going to repeal the carryback provision. Lori our government affairs person said she is hearing from some
attorneys that it may apply to carry forward.
When we get all the details straightened out I will get back.
Scott Hauge
President
AB 2408
A bill is working its way through the legislature which would repeal the ability of businesses to take Net Operating Loss deductions. This could be significant to many small businesses and start ups. The bill number is AB2408 by Assemblywoman Skinner. It passed Senate Governance and Finance July 2 on a 5 to 3 vote with one abstention
What this means is that a loss in a year could not be carried back to profitable years. Currently in California and US a business can carry forward a loss and carry back losses.
It seems to me that in these difficult times for small business this is not a time to be adding taxes to employers. What do you think.
Just a reminder to those of you that signed up for the webinar on the Affordable Care Act that it will be Wednesday from 12 to 1. We have 135 signed up for this so there a few openings still available. If interested contact me.
Scott Hauge
President, SBC
Friday, July 13, 2012
Business Tax
I assume you have been following this discussion. Let me give you some updates.
The final legislation will be decided at least as of now July31. You all know that the Mayor/ Supervisor Chiu has one proposal on the table that will raise about $13 million. Supervisor Avalos has another proposal that will raise $40 million. Both increase revenues by raising fees .Supervisor Avalos has lower fees for small business and basically gets the additional money from larger companies.
The business communities mantra has been basically to support the change from payroll to gross receipts but it be revenue neutral. There does seem to be support for the $13 million increase if it is for the Housing fund. The real estate industry would support this as long as the money is not collected in the form of the transfer tax. The Mayor and Supervisor Chius proposal does not include a transfer tax.
There are now rumors that the increases that may be put forth as an alternative proposal to Supervisor Avalos proposal could raise revenue as much as $30 million.
My questions to you are:
1. Do you support the Avalos proposal? Assume for the moment that you would see no tax or fee increase with this.
2. Would you support an increase in fees with larger companies picking up about half of the increase?
3. Do you think there should be no tax or fee increase except for maybe the $13 million for the Housing Fund
4. I work with a number of small business leaders. What should we be advocating for?
It is really important that I hear from you.
Scott Hauge
President
CAL Insurance and Associates, Inc.
2311 Taraval Street
San Francisco, CA 94116
http://www.cal-insure.com/
Phone: (415) 680-2109
Fax: (415) 680-2137
License #0A32315
The final legislation will be decided at least as of now July31. You all know that the Mayor/ Supervisor Chiu has one proposal on the table that will raise about $13 million. Supervisor Avalos has another proposal that will raise $40 million. Both increase revenues by raising fees .Supervisor Avalos has lower fees for small business and basically gets the additional money from larger companies.
The business communities mantra has been basically to support the change from payroll to gross receipts but it be revenue neutral. There does seem to be support for the $13 million increase if it is for the Housing fund. The real estate industry would support this as long as the money is not collected in the form of the transfer tax. The Mayor and Supervisor Chius proposal does not include a transfer tax.
There are now rumors that the increases that may be put forth as an alternative proposal to Supervisor Avalos proposal could raise revenue as much as $30 million.
My questions to you are:
1. Do you support the Avalos proposal? Assume for the moment that you would see no tax or fee increase with this.
2. Would you support an increase in fees with larger companies picking up about half of the increase?
3. Do you think there should be no tax or fee increase except for maybe the $13 million for the Housing Fund
4. I work with a number of small business leaders. What should we be advocating for?
It is really important that I hear from you.
Scott Hauge
President
CAL Insurance and Associates, Inc.
2311 Taraval Street
San Francisco, CA 94116
http://www.cal-insure.com/
Phone: (415) 680-2109
Fax: (415) 680-2137
License #0A32315
Thursday, July 12, 2012
Exchange
I have provided below the subsidies for a family of 4 which I think are quite dramatic. (Please see below. Click to enlarge)
Keep in mind that when the health law goes into effect no one can be turned down for health reasons. This is certainly good news to some of the 2.5 million sole proprietors in the state.
Scott Hauge
President
Small Business California
2311 Taraval Street
San Francisco, CA 94116
shauge@cal-insure.com
415-680-2188
========================
Wednesday, July 11, 2012
CA Microloan Intermediary link/ LA Times Reporter Request/ Ballot Measure Increasing taxes
Please see link to California Microloan Intermediaries. These microloans are usually in an amount less than $50,000. You also might want to talk to a Small Business Development Center in your area. You can access them by going to http://www.smallbusinesscalifornia.org/
and clicking on Resources. Scroll down and you will see Small Business Development Centers. Choose the Center closest to you.
California Microloan Intermediary direct link:
http://www.smallbusinesscalifornia.org/CAL-MicroLenders.pdf
Please see below a request from Ryan Faughnder from the LA Times. Ideally he would like businesses in the LA area but if you are a small business owner in California he would like to hear from you.
Please respond today.
=========================
Hi Scott,
Thanks for taking the call. I’m working on a story about the continuing struggles of RIM. I’m looking to talk to California businesses that use Blackberry devices to see how closely they’re following the continuing troubles of the company and whether they’re developing any contingency plans in the event that the company goes out of business and Blackberry products become unavailable.
Thanks for your time.
Ryan Faughnder
Business Reporter
Los Angeles Times
Office: (213)237-7169
Cell: (858)472-1721
============================
I am sure you are all aware that the Governor has placed on the November ballot a measure that would raise the state sales tax and raise income taxes on households making over $250000 a year. It is projected this will raise about $8.5 billion dollars a year. The tax is temporary increase.
The Governor argues that he has made as many cuts as possible and this is necessary to prevent draconian cuts to education. The people opposing this argue this is just another tax and spend proposal that will invoke a sales tax that is regressive and tax small businesses who create jobs in California.
Do you support or oppose this?
Scott Hauge
President
Small Business California
2311 Taraval Street
San Francisco, CA 94116
shauge@cal-insure.com
415-680-2188
and clicking on Resources. Scroll down and you will see Small Business Development Centers. Choose the Center closest to you.
California Microloan Intermediary direct link:
http://www.smallbusinesscalifornia.org/CAL-MicroLenders.pdf
Please see below a request from Ryan Faughnder from the LA Times. Ideally he would like businesses in the LA area but if you are a small business owner in California he would like to hear from you.
Please respond today.
=========================
Hi Scott,
Thanks for taking the call. I’m working on a story about the continuing struggles of RIM. I’m looking to talk to California businesses that use Blackberry devices to see how closely they’re following the continuing troubles of the company and whether they’re developing any contingency plans in the event that the company goes out of business and Blackberry products become unavailable.
Thanks for your time.
Ryan Faughnder
Business Reporter
Los Angeles Times
Office: (213)237-7169
Cell: (858)472-1721
============================
I am sure you are all aware that the Governor has placed on the November ballot a measure that would raise the state sales tax and raise income taxes on households making over $250000 a year. It is projected this will raise about $8.5 billion dollars a year. The tax is temporary increase.
The Governor argues that he has made as many cuts as possible and this is necessary to prevent draconian cuts to education. The people opposing this argue this is just another tax and spend proposal that will invoke a sales tax that is regressive and tax small businesses who create jobs in California.
Do you support or oppose this?
Scott Hauge
President
Small Business California
2311 Taraval Street
San Francisco, CA 94116
shauge@cal-insure.com
415-680-2188
Friday, July 06, 2012
JOBS Bill
Access to capital is a major issue for small business. In a survey Small Business California did in February two thirds of the businesses seeking capital were unable to get it. We know that banks are not the total solution as small businesses especially start ups need equity capital.
The passage of the JOBS bill many see as the solution. There is a lot of confusion on what the JOBS bill does. There are two provisions which we are waiting to see how the SEC interprets. The SEC was supposed to put forth their guidelines within 90 days of passage which would have been early July. To date they have not put these forth and have not put forth a statement when they will be doing so.
According to Lee Petillon board member and SEC attorney the two provision are Section 201 and sections 301-305. Both of these will allow general solicitation but are quite different.
According to Lee:
Section 201 has no investor protections other than it is limited to accredited investors and is unlimited in dollar amount.
Sections 301-305 (the crowfunding provisions) have many investor protections since the offering can be made to non- accredited investors. Some of the investor protections are:
- Issuer is limited to $1 million per year
- Investors can’t invest more than:
- Greater than $2,000 or 5% of the investor’s net worth or income, if his annual income or net worth is less than $100,000; or
10% of the investor’s net worth or income (Congress failed to state whether it is the greater or lesser of), not to exceed a maximum investment of $100,000, if his annual net income or net worth is $100,000 or more.
- The crowdfunding offering must be conducted through an intermediary (a registered broker-dealer or “funding portal” which must be registered with the SEC and an SRO, which is charged with insuring that investors have reviewed educational material about investing risk, and understand such risks;
- Issuers must file with the SEC their business plan, financial statements, disclosure concerning the risks of the investment, and other disclosures established by SEC rulemaking;
- Issuers must file annual reports with the SEC and make annual reports available to shareholders.
- Investors have a private right of action against the issuer for any material misstatements or omissions.
It is not clear what the SEC will do in their rulings. Until that happens we will not know how these investment vehicles will be set up. I am sure there will be both.
I am curious if any of you have any interest in investing money into something like this? For your information an accredited investor is people with a net worth of $1 million[ excluding your primary residents]or individual annual income of $200000 or household income of $300000.
Will any of you be seeking capital once these vehicles are established?
In the passage of the health bill the public option was taken off the table. Do you think now that it should have been included? Do you support single payer which goes beyond the public option?
In our survey a couple of years ago the majority of people were opposed to single payer but there was surprisingly about 40% of the survey respondents supporting it.
Scott Hauge
President
Small Business California
2311 Taraval Street
San Francisco, CA 94116
shauge@cal-insure.com
415-680-2188
The passage of the JOBS bill many see as the solution. There is a lot of confusion on what the JOBS bill does. There are two provisions which we are waiting to see how the SEC interprets. The SEC was supposed to put forth their guidelines within 90 days of passage which would have been early July. To date they have not put these forth and have not put forth a statement when they will be doing so.
According to Lee Petillon board member and SEC attorney the two provision are Section 201 and sections 301-305. Both of these will allow general solicitation but are quite different.
According to Lee:
Section 201 has no investor protections other than it is limited to accredited investors and is unlimited in dollar amount.
Sections 301-305 (the crowfunding provisions) have many investor protections since the offering can be made to non- accredited investors. Some of the investor protections are:
- Issuer is limited to $1 million per year
- Investors can’t invest more than:
- Greater than $2,000 or 5% of the investor’s net worth or income, if his annual income or net worth is less than $100,000; or
10% of the investor’s net worth or income (Congress failed to state whether it is the greater or lesser of), not to exceed a maximum investment of $100,000, if his annual net income or net worth is $100,000 or more.
- The crowdfunding offering must be conducted through an intermediary (a registered broker-dealer or “funding portal” which must be registered with the SEC and an SRO, which is charged with insuring that investors have reviewed educational material about investing risk, and understand such risks;
- Issuers must file with the SEC their business plan, financial statements, disclosure concerning the risks of the investment, and other disclosures established by SEC rulemaking;
- Issuers must file annual reports with the SEC and make annual reports available to shareholders.
- Investors have a private right of action against the issuer for any material misstatements or omissions.
It is not clear what the SEC will do in their rulings. Until that happens we will not know how these investment vehicles will be set up. I am sure there will be both.
I am curious if any of you have any interest in investing money into something like this? For your information an accredited investor is people with a net worth of $1 million[ excluding your primary residents]or individual annual income of $200000 or household income of $300000.
Will any of you be seeking capital once these vehicles are established?
In the passage of the health bill the public option was taken off the table. Do you think now that it should have been included? Do you support single payer which goes beyond the public option?
In our survey a couple of years ago the majority of people were opposed to single payer but there was surprisingly about 40% of the survey respondents supporting it.
Scott Hauge
President
Small Business California
2311 Taraval Street
San Francisco, CA 94116
shauge@cal-insure.com
415-680-2188
SB 1186-ADA Lawsuits/ Volunteers in Medicine
Americans with Disability Lawsuits have been a problem for many small businesses around the state. Senator Feinstein has sent a letter to Speaker Pro Tem Daryl Steinberg asking him to address this.
In response Senator Steinberg has introduced SB 1186. There is a lot of misinformation out there on this. Many believe that this prevents litigation giving the business owner time to correct the problem. This provision has been deleted from the legislation.
What it does do is prohibit an attorney from issuing a demand for money to a building owner or tenant. It also requires a commercial property owner to state on the lease or rental agreement if the property being leased has been inspected is CASp inspected. For more information go to www.leginfo.ca.gov
FYI on Tuesday I was appointed to the California Commission on Disability Access. See below.
I think you all know that I am Vice Chair of Volunteers In Medicine www.volunteersinmedicine.org
and Cofounder of Clinic by the Bay www.clinicbythebay.org
in SF. Volunteers in Medicine has surveyed its 84 eligible clinics about the impact they are having in their community. 74 responded and the results were that VIM provides free health care to 95391 patients with 362758 patient visits in 2011. A total of 11,193 people volunteer at the clinics. These are all free clinics and take no government money
Hope you had a great 4th.
Scott Hauge
President
Small Business California
2311 Taraval Street
San Francisco, CA 94116
shauge@cal-insure.com
415-680-2188
Steinberg Announces Rules Appointments
(Sacramento) – State Senate President pro Tempore Darrell Steinberg is announcing the following appointments made by the Senate Rules Committee:
Scott G. Hauge, a Democrat from San Rafael, has been appointed as a member from the business community to the California Commission on Disability Access. Hauge is a president of CAL Insurance and Associates. He is also founder and president of Small Business California, co-founder and vice-president of Clinic by the Bay, and a member of the boards of Volunteers in Medicine and the Pacific Business Group on Health. His term on the commission ends January 1, 2014.
The purpose of the commission is to publish a biennial report on the state of disability access compliance by the public and private sectors, and study and make reports to the Legislature on the following: (1) issues regarding compliance with state laws and regulations that are raised by persons with disabilities or businesses; (2) determine if public and private inspection programs are meeting the needs of both the business and the disability community; (3) determine if existing training and continuing education requirements are working to provide sufficient knowledge of the state and federal disability access laws and regulations; and (4) determine if training and continuing education requirements should be enacted for landscape architects, professional engineers and contractors.
from the fund; review plans for new and expanded vehicle recreation areas that have applied for grant funds; review and comment on the strategic plan developed the division pursuant to Section 5090.32; and to prepare a report on the program every three years.
###
In response Senator Steinberg has introduced SB 1186. There is a lot of misinformation out there on this. Many believe that this prevents litigation giving the business owner time to correct the problem. This provision has been deleted from the legislation.
What it does do is prohibit an attorney from issuing a demand for money to a building owner or tenant. It also requires a commercial property owner to state on the lease or rental agreement if the property being leased has been inspected is CASp inspected. For more information go to www.leginfo.ca.gov
FYI on Tuesday I was appointed to the California Commission on Disability Access. See below.
I think you all know that I am Vice Chair of Volunteers In Medicine www.volunteersinmedicine.org
and Cofounder of Clinic by the Bay www.clinicbythebay.org
in SF. Volunteers in Medicine has surveyed its 84 eligible clinics about the impact they are having in their community. 74 responded and the results were that VIM provides free health care to 95391 patients with 362758 patient visits in 2011. A total of 11,193 people volunteer at the clinics. These are all free clinics and take no government money
Hope you had a great 4th.
Scott Hauge
President
Small Business California
2311 Taraval Street
San Francisco, CA 94116
shauge@cal-insure.com
415-680-2188
Steinberg Announces Rules Appointments
(Sacramento) – State Senate President pro Tempore Darrell Steinberg is announcing the following appointments made by the Senate Rules Committee:
Scott G. Hauge, a Democrat from San Rafael, has been appointed as a member from the business community to the California Commission on Disability Access. Hauge is a president of CAL Insurance and Associates. He is also founder and president of Small Business California, co-founder and vice-president of Clinic by the Bay, and a member of the boards of Volunteers in Medicine and the Pacific Business Group on Health. His term on the commission ends January 1, 2014.
The purpose of the commission is to publish a biennial report on the state of disability access compliance by the public and private sectors, and study and make reports to the Legislature on the following: (1) issues regarding compliance with state laws and regulations that are raised by persons with disabilities or businesses; (2) determine if public and private inspection programs are meeting the needs of both the business and the disability community; (3) determine if existing training and continuing education requirements are working to provide sufficient knowledge of the state and federal disability access laws and regulations; and (4) determine if training and continuing education requirements should be enacted for landscape architects, professional engineers and contractors.
from the fund; review plans for new and expanded vehicle recreation areas that have applied for grant funds; review and comment on the strategic plan developed the division pursuant to Section 5090.32; and to prepare a report on the program every three years.
###
City Contacting/ Business Tax
I received a copy of a letter from the Coalition For Economic Equity to the Mayor regarding contracting with SF. The letter calls for the transfer of oversight from the Human Rights Commission to the CAO, a 20% goal for SF with Locally owned businesses and oversight of Departments to meet goals. This is something many of us have been working on for years.
Hopefully the Mayor and the Board of Supervisors will move forward with these changes. If you are interested in this issue please let me know.
Please see attached letter to the Board of Supervisors copied to the Mayor regarding the Business tax. Thank you to all who added your name and business to the letter. As you can see we have four associations and 48 businesses sign on the letter. I will also be sending this to the Small Business Commission and Commissioners.
I will be following this issue closely
===========
July 2, 2012
Board of Supervisors
City Hall
1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place
San Francisco, CA 94102-4689
Dear Board of Supervisors:
As a diverse coalition of San Francisco small businesses and organizations, we write to express our strong support for reforming San Francisco’s business tax system towards one based on taxing revenues, not jobs.
San Francisco is currently the only city in California to levy a “payroll expense tax” on businesses, directly raising the cost of labor and creating a disincentive for companies to add jobs in our City. Moving towards a “gross receipts tax” – which taxes a business based on overall revenues and is used by a majority of other large cities in California – will end San Francisco’s direct tax on jobs, provide more stable and growing revenue for City services and incentivize job creation in diverse industries and businesses large and small.
Earlier this month, Mayor Ed Lee and Board of Supervisors President David Chiu introduced a comprehensive business tax reform measure for the November 2012 ballot that phases in a gross receipts tax over a five-year period beginning in 2014. This measure is the product of extensive outreach to diverse business sectors and business owners over the last six months conducted by the Mayor’s office, the Board President’s office and the Office of the Controller. We greatly appreciate this transparent and inclusive effort to engage the business community and understand our concerns and the potential impacts of business tax reform on our industries and on the City’s overall economy.
As a result of this extensive stakeholder outreach and approach, we strongly believe that the measure proposed by Mayor Lee and Board President David Chiu is the appropriate starting point for the legislative discussion and debate that will occur at the Board of Supervisors in July.
Significantly, the Mayor and Board President’s proposed measure includes a small business exemption for gross receipts of less than $1 million. This will provide our local micro and small businesses a needed boost. It also preserves existing payroll tax exclusions until their expiration for Central Market, biotech and clean-tech industries and local enterprise zone areas. It is important that the City continue to honor commitments it has made to businesses that made long-term investment and other decisions based on these exemptions. We all believe that tax reform must be broad based, equitable and fair and not create undo winners and losers. In addition to protecting the smallest businesses, we must protect our largest employers who have been paying a significant share of taxes for many years.
There is still plenty of work to be done to further refine and finalize the legislation before it is heard at the Board of Supervisors next month and considered for placement on the November 2012 ballot. As business tax reform moves to consideration at the Board of Supervisors in July, we hope that the business community and diverse business owners will continue to be consulted and considered throughout the legislative process. A topic this complex and this important impacts every San Francisco business and resident in some manner, and will require building the widest consensus possible to succeed in November.
With more than 30,000 San Franciscans still out of work, 2012 is the year to reform our business tax system. We strongly urge the Mayor and the members of the Board of Supervisors to work together to place ONE consensus business tax reform measure on the ballot this November that will end San Francisco’s direct tax on jobs for most businesses and build a strong and stable economic foundation for our City’s future. Please see the list of signatures below who are in support of this letter.
Associations:
• Sarah De Young, Executive Director, California Association of Competitive Telecommunications Companies (CALTEL)
• Hut Landon, Executive Director, San Francisco Locally Owned Business Alliance (SFLOMA)
• Kim Parker, Executive Vice President, California Employers Association (CEA)
• Stephen Cornell, Chairperson, Small Business Advocates (SBA)
• Robert T Roddick, President, Noe Valley Merchants and Professional Association (NVMPA)
Small Business Owners:
• Scott Hauge, President, CAL Insurance & Associates, Inc
• Robert Legallet, Owner, Bayview Industrial Park
• Richard Parker, Principal 450 Architects, Inc.
• Jerry Becerra, President, Barbary Insurance Brokerage
• Kevin Wallace, President, Wallace Remodeling, Inc.
• William Brugger, Partner, Kuschel & Company, LLC
• Denise Collins, CEO, Aunt Ann's Home Care
• Steve Sarver, Founder, SF Soup Co.
• Will Wenham, President, Cut Loose
• Norman Ishimoto, Owner, KI Associates
• Sam Mogannam, Owner, Bi-Rite Market
• Stephen Cornell, Owner, Brownie’s Hardware
• Scott Rodrick, President, Rodrick Foods
• Scott Rodrick, Owner, Guy Enterprises
• Benjamin Horne, President, DBA Horne Services & Sales
• Henry Karnilowicz, Owner, Occidental Express
• Ruthie Norton , Senior Vice President, CCI Financial and Insurance Solutions
• Deborah Taylor, Principal, DesignTree Studio
• Steve Mayer, CEO, Burr Pilger & Mayer
• Joanne Gomez, Owner, West Bay Counters , Inc
• Cathy Murphy, Owner, Home Instead Senior Care
• Lori Shannon, Owner, See Jane Run
• Sharon Gadberry, Director, Gadberry and Associates
• Grace Santana, Owner, Grace Santana Plumbing Contractor
• Lesley Leonhardt, Owner, Images of the North
• Steve Lombardi, Owner, Lombardi Sports
• Irwin A. Phillips, Past President: Council of District Merchants Assoc., P.P. Noriega Merch. Assoc. P.P., Clement Merch. Assoc.
• Scott S. Nelson, Founder, Tax Incentives Group
• Paul Bonini, Owner, Harrison & Bonini Inc
• Jean Eddy, President, The People Connection, Inc.
• Suzanne Tucker, Owner, Marking Solutions/One Stop Graphics
• Janet Hildreth, Owner, Tree Lovers Floors, Inc.
• Ben Stiegler, CEO, SynerTel
• Philip De Andrade, OwnerGoat Hill Pizza
• Jerome D Cizek, CFO, Morling & Co.
• Todd Parent, CEO, Extreme Pizza
• David Sahagun, Owner, Pacific Heights Chevron
• Alice Ray, CEO, Ripple Effects
• Bob McLennan, Planet Fitness San Francisco
• Joanne Ireland, President, Ireland Presentations, Inc.
• Arnie Lerner, Principal, Lerner & Associates Architects
• Joseph Ruiz, Founder, Rhapsody Painting & Environmental Services
• Rick Karp, President, Cole Hardware
• Matt Rogers, Owner, Papenhausen Hardware
• Jim Carter, Partner, Suhr Risk Services of California
• Eric L Steckel, Vice President, Bars+ Tone
• Calvin Y. Louie, CPA, CYL
• Stephen Cornell, Owner, Brownies Hardware
• Robert T Roddick, President, Noe Valley Law Office
• Michael Bernick, Attorney and Former EDD Director, Sedgwick, LLP
cc: Mayor, Ed Lee
Hopefully the Mayor and the Board of Supervisors will move forward with these changes. If you are interested in this issue please let me know.
Please see attached letter to the Board of Supervisors copied to the Mayor regarding the Business tax. Thank you to all who added your name and business to the letter. As you can see we have four associations and 48 businesses sign on the letter. I will also be sending this to the Small Business Commission and Commissioners.
I will be following this issue closely
===========
July 2, 2012
Board of Supervisors
City Hall
1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place
San Francisco, CA 94102-4689
Dear Board of Supervisors:
As a diverse coalition of San Francisco small businesses and organizations, we write to express our strong support for reforming San Francisco’s business tax system towards one based on taxing revenues, not jobs.
San Francisco is currently the only city in California to levy a “payroll expense tax” on businesses, directly raising the cost of labor and creating a disincentive for companies to add jobs in our City. Moving towards a “gross receipts tax” – which taxes a business based on overall revenues and is used by a majority of other large cities in California – will end San Francisco’s direct tax on jobs, provide more stable and growing revenue for City services and incentivize job creation in diverse industries and businesses large and small.
Earlier this month, Mayor Ed Lee and Board of Supervisors President David Chiu introduced a comprehensive business tax reform measure for the November 2012 ballot that phases in a gross receipts tax over a five-year period beginning in 2014. This measure is the product of extensive outreach to diverse business sectors and business owners over the last six months conducted by the Mayor’s office, the Board President’s office and the Office of the Controller. We greatly appreciate this transparent and inclusive effort to engage the business community and understand our concerns and the potential impacts of business tax reform on our industries and on the City’s overall economy.
As a result of this extensive stakeholder outreach and approach, we strongly believe that the measure proposed by Mayor Lee and Board President David Chiu is the appropriate starting point for the legislative discussion and debate that will occur at the Board of Supervisors in July.
Significantly, the Mayor and Board President’s proposed measure includes a small business exemption for gross receipts of less than $1 million. This will provide our local micro and small businesses a needed boost. It also preserves existing payroll tax exclusions until their expiration for Central Market, biotech and clean-tech industries and local enterprise zone areas. It is important that the City continue to honor commitments it has made to businesses that made long-term investment and other decisions based on these exemptions. We all believe that tax reform must be broad based, equitable and fair and not create undo winners and losers. In addition to protecting the smallest businesses, we must protect our largest employers who have been paying a significant share of taxes for many years.
There is still plenty of work to be done to further refine and finalize the legislation before it is heard at the Board of Supervisors next month and considered for placement on the November 2012 ballot. As business tax reform moves to consideration at the Board of Supervisors in July, we hope that the business community and diverse business owners will continue to be consulted and considered throughout the legislative process. A topic this complex and this important impacts every San Francisco business and resident in some manner, and will require building the widest consensus possible to succeed in November.
With more than 30,000 San Franciscans still out of work, 2012 is the year to reform our business tax system. We strongly urge the Mayor and the members of the Board of Supervisors to work together to place ONE consensus business tax reform measure on the ballot this November that will end San Francisco’s direct tax on jobs for most businesses and build a strong and stable economic foundation for our City’s future. Please see the list of signatures below who are in support of this letter.
Associations:
• Sarah De Young, Executive Director, California Association of Competitive Telecommunications Companies (CALTEL)
• Hut Landon, Executive Director, San Francisco Locally Owned Business Alliance (SFLOMA)
• Kim Parker, Executive Vice President, California Employers Association (CEA)
• Stephen Cornell, Chairperson, Small Business Advocates (SBA)
• Robert T Roddick, President, Noe Valley Merchants and Professional Association (NVMPA)
Small Business Owners:
• Scott Hauge, President, CAL Insurance & Associates, Inc
• Robert Legallet, Owner, Bayview Industrial Park
• Richard Parker, Principal 450 Architects, Inc.
• Jerry Becerra, President, Barbary Insurance Brokerage
• Kevin Wallace, President, Wallace Remodeling, Inc.
• William Brugger, Partner, Kuschel & Company, LLC
• Denise Collins, CEO, Aunt Ann's Home Care
• Steve Sarver, Founder, SF Soup Co.
• Will Wenham, President, Cut Loose
• Norman Ishimoto, Owner, KI Associates
• Sam Mogannam, Owner, Bi-Rite Market
• Stephen Cornell, Owner, Brownie’s Hardware
• Scott Rodrick, President, Rodrick Foods
• Scott Rodrick, Owner, Guy Enterprises
• Benjamin Horne, President, DBA Horne Services & Sales
• Henry Karnilowicz, Owner, Occidental Express
• Ruthie Norton , Senior Vice President, CCI Financial and Insurance Solutions
• Deborah Taylor, Principal, DesignTree Studio
• Steve Mayer, CEO, Burr Pilger & Mayer
• Joanne Gomez, Owner, West Bay Counters , Inc
• Cathy Murphy, Owner, Home Instead Senior Care
• Lori Shannon, Owner, See Jane Run
• Sharon Gadberry, Director, Gadberry and Associates
• Grace Santana, Owner, Grace Santana Plumbing Contractor
• Lesley Leonhardt, Owner, Images of the North
• Steve Lombardi, Owner, Lombardi Sports
• Irwin A. Phillips, Past President: Council of District Merchants Assoc., P.P. Noriega Merch. Assoc. P.P., Clement Merch. Assoc.
• Scott S. Nelson, Founder, Tax Incentives Group
• Paul Bonini, Owner, Harrison & Bonini Inc
• Jean Eddy, President, The People Connection, Inc.
• Suzanne Tucker, Owner, Marking Solutions/One Stop Graphics
• Janet Hildreth, Owner, Tree Lovers Floors, Inc.
• Ben Stiegler, CEO, SynerTel
• Philip De Andrade, OwnerGoat Hill Pizza
• Jerome D Cizek, CFO, Morling & Co.
• Todd Parent, CEO, Extreme Pizza
• David Sahagun, Owner, Pacific Heights Chevron
• Alice Ray, CEO, Ripple Effects
• Bob McLennan, Planet Fitness San Francisco
• Joanne Ireland, President, Ireland Presentations, Inc.
• Arnie Lerner, Principal, Lerner & Associates Architects
• Joseph Ruiz, Founder, Rhapsody Painting & Environmental Services
• Rick Karp, President, Cole Hardware
• Matt Rogers, Owner, Papenhausen Hardware
• Jim Carter, Partner, Suhr Risk Services of California
• Eric L Steckel, Vice President, Bars+ Tone
• Calvin Y. Louie, CPA, CYL
• Stephen Cornell, Owner, Brownies Hardware
• Robert T Roddick, President, Noe Valley Law Office
• Michael Bernick, Attorney and Former EDD Director, Sedgwick, LLP
cc: Mayor, Ed Lee
Health Bill
I try to return all emails I receive and was just overwhelmed yesterday on my email on the Supreme Court decision.
First let me say that about 60% of the respondents agreed with the decision with 40% opposing.
Many of you asked why I agreed. I can’t respond individually to all of you so I will give you my thoughts in this email.
First I agree with those of you that made the point that this is not a perfect bill. In my opinion it did not have enough cost containment measures and at the end of the day the effectiveness of the bill will be judged on how it controls and reduces cost.
The reason I supported the bill is that clearly and I think almost everyone will agree our health system is broken. The US spends 50% more on health care cost than any other industrial nation. I is now about 18% of our gross domestic product.
This bill has the potential to bend the cost curve of health care cost and get more people insured. The guaranteed issue portion of the law could only be done with the individual mandate. It has been estimated that there could be a 3% to 9% reduction in cost by the people that will be obtaining health insurance.
But more importantly there is the potential that we now have in place the mechanism to reduce cost. The Exchanges could be a game changer. In California the Exchange will not only negotiate rates but can demand efficiencies from providers and insurance companies
If we put in place pay for performance guidelines[ currently we are a pay for procedures], evidence based medicine, an integrated delivery system, disease management , implementation of electronic medical, records and reduced administrative cost just to name a few reforms we can truly impact health cost in this country.
But we must do more than just reduce cost. We must increase the quality of our health care. Right now we are near the bottom the pact in the areas such as infant mortality and longevity of life.
The only thing we lead the world in is life expectancy once you reach 80. The problem is you have to reach 80 first
This will not be easy as we are talking about $2.8 trillion dollars and there is a lot of special interest. We as small business owners and citizens must better understand the health bill and demand that our health system be more efficient.
I welcome your comments.
Scott Hauge
President
First let me say that about 60% of the respondents agreed with the decision with 40% opposing.
Many of you asked why I agreed. I can’t respond individually to all of you so I will give you my thoughts in this email.
First I agree with those of you that made the point that this is not a perfect bill. In my opinion it did not have enough cost containment measures and at the end of the day the effectiveness of the bill will be judged on how it controls and reduces cost.
The reason I supported the bill is that clearly and I think almost everyone will agree our health system is broken. The US spends 50% more on health care cost than any other industrial nation. I is now about 18% of our gross domestic product.
This bill has the potential to bend the cost curve of health care cost and get more people insured. The guaranteed issue portion of the law could only be done with the individual mandate. It has been estimated that there could be a 3% to 9% reduction in cost by the people that will be obtaining health insurance.
But more importantly there is the potential that we now have in place the mechanism to reduce cost. The Exchanges could be a game changer. In California the Exchange will not only negotiate rates but can demand efficiencies from providers and insurance companies
If we put in place pay for performance guidelines[ currently we are a pay for procedures], evidence based medicine, an integrated delivery system, disease management , implementation of electronic medical, records and reduced administrative cost just to name a few reforms we can truly impact health cost in this country.
But we must do more than just reduce cost. We must increase the quality of our health care. Right now we are near the bottom the pact in the areas such as infant mortality and longevity of life.
The only thing we lead the world in is life expectancy once you reach 80. The problem is you have to reach 80 first
This will not be easy as we are talking about $2.8 trillion dollars and there is a lot of special interest. We as small business owners and citizens must better understand the health bill and demand that our health system be more efficient.
I welcome your comments.
Scott Hauge
President
Healthcare Alert Webinar 7/18 @ noon
Many of you have asked if Small Business California was going to do a webinar now the Supreme Court has made their decision. We will be doing so July 18 from 12 to 1 working with California Employers Association, CAL Insurance and Vista Point Insurance. You can register by clicking on the link below. Scroll to the bottom of the linked in page.
You will note our speaker is Lucian Wulsen who did the webinar for us when the law was first passed. We will be answering questions during the webinar
Scott Hauge
President
================
Healthcare Alert Webinar
Date: Wednesday, July 18, 2012 At 12:00 PM
Duration: 1 Hour
Cost: FREE
Register link: http://www.employers.org/calendar-of-events/2012-07-18/healthcare-update?utm_source=MagnetMail&utm_medium=email&utm_term=Message%20Subject
On Thursday, June 28th, the Supreme Court upheld the 2010 federal health care law requirement that individuals get insurance. The decision will have sweeping ramifications for consumers, state officials, employers and health care providers.
While some of the key features don't kick in until 2014, the law has already altered the health care industry and established a number of consumer benefits.
Join CEA, CAL Insurance and Vista Point Insurance on Wednesday, July 18th for a lunch and learn live webinar to hear about some of the law's provisions that are already in effect and major features of what's to come. Our esteemed Guest Speaker, Lucien Wulsin, JD, Center Associate, UCLA Center for Health Policy Research Director, Insure the Uninsured Project (ITUP) will spend an hour with us, including time for questions.
Issues To Be Discussed Include:
• I don't have health insurance. Under the law, will I have to buy it?
• I get my health coverage at work and I'd like to keep my current plan. Will I be able to do that? How will my plan be affected by the health law?
• What parts of the law are now in place?
• What if employees want health insurance but can’t afford it?
• I own a small business. Will I have to buy health insurance for my workers?
About the Speaker: Lucien Wulsin is an attorney specializing in health law and health policy; he is director of the Insure the Uninsured Project (ITUP).
While some of the key features don't kick in until 2014, the law has already altered the health care industry and established a number of consumer benefits.
You will note our speaker is Lucian Wulsen who did the webinar for us when the law was first passed. We will be answering questions during the webinar
Scott Hauge
President
================
Healthcare Alert Webinar
Date: Wednesday, July 18, 2012 At 12:00 PM
Duration: 1 Hour
Cost: FREE
Register link: http://www.employers.org/calendar-of-events/2012-07-18/healthcare-update?utm_source=MagnetMail&utm_medium=email&utm_term=Message%20Subject
On Thursday, June 28th, the Supreme Court upheld the 2010 federal health care law requirement that individuals get insurance. The decision will have sweeping ramifications for consumers, state officials, employers and health care providers.
While some of the key features don't kick in until 2014, the law has already altered the health care industry and established a number of consumer benefits.
Join CEA, CAL Insurance and Vista Point Insurance on Wednesday, July 18th for a lunch and learn live webinar to hear about some of the law's provisions that are already in effect and major features of what's to come. Our esteemed Guest Speaker, Lucien Wulsin, JD, Center Associate, UCLA Center for Health Policy Research Director, Insure the Uninsured Project (ITUP) will spend an hour with us, including time for questions.
Issues To Be Discussed Include:
• I don't have health insurance. Under the law, will I have to buy it?
• I get my health coverage at work and I'd like to keep my current plan. Will I be able to do that? How will my plan be affected by the health law?
• What parts of the law are now in place?
• What if employees want health insurance but can’t afford it?
• I own a small business. Will I have to buy health insurance for my workers?
About the Speaker: Lucien Wulsin is an attorney specializing in health law and health policy; he is director of the Insure the Uninsured Project (ITUP).
While some of the key features don't kick in until 2014, the law has already altered the health care industry and established a number of consumer benefits.
Heath Bill/2081/SF Gross Receipts Tax
Last week I sent an email indicating that I think the Affordable Care Act while not perfect and short on cost controls had potential to drive down
cost, reduce the number of uninsureds and provide better quality health care. Please see below a comment from Les Bowne a friend in Massachusetts
Scott:
I agree with you 100%. In Massachusetts, as you know, it has been a few years since we implemented something similar. It took about 3 years for the cost savings to start being realized and the catalyst was the state’s imposed limits on healthcare insurance rate increases, which forced everyone to start finding ways to cut costs, especially the hospitals. My company’s increases over the past three years have been at about the general rate of inflation. It is amazing how different the costs are at different hospitals for the same procedures. When this became known and widely publicized, the “rogue” providers with the highest costs stuck out like sore thumbs. Incentives were provided for patients to go elsewhere. Now everyone is looking to find ways to cut costs while remaining competitive in terms of patient satisfaction.
When the easiest cost reductions have been made, we will have to look beyond this to more politically sensitive ones, like tort reform. Better that the money gets spend on providing healthcare than paying lawyer.
Les
Last week was a difficult week for Small Business California. We were the sponsor of SB 2081 which would allow solicitation of accredited investors. Now you may be saying the JOBS bill passed in Washington already did that. Well the rules have not been written by the SEC but it is expected they will allow this.
What makes our bill different is that we put in place protections for Accredited Investors that most likely will not exist under the JOBS bill.
For example our bill requires a suitability study and would limit investments to 10% of an investors net worth[excluding the investors equity in their principal residence]
It further requires the issuer to have a reasonable belief after reasonable inquiry that each investor is an accredited investor.
This bill passed the Assembly on a 66 to 2 vote. It was being heard at the Senate Banking and Finance Committee. While we received a positive vote from Chairman Juan Vargus and Senator Noreen Evans we had opposition from Senator Christine Kehoe and surprisingly Republican Sam Blakeslee. I say surprisingly because the Republican Caucus recommended a do pass.
We also had a recommendation of do pass from the staff of the Committee.
We had the support of Alex Padilla but he did not get to Committee in time to vote.
The big surprise was Lois Wolk who supported our bill. She is currently the target of a very negative piece by the Sacramento Bee. She therefore recused herself.
Obviously we were disappointed because unless we get this passed at some point investors will have very little protections in the JOBS bill.
We are concerned that if the JOBS Bill goes into effect there may be scandals and we may see the bill overturned down the road.
For those of you in SF we will be sending a letter to the Board of Supervisors today supporting the gross receipts tax and asking that the Mayor’s proposal be the basis of doing this. If you would like to sign onto the letter please let me know by 4 today. If you need another copy of the letter please let me know. I don’t need you to do anything except giving me authorization to do this.
Scott Hauge
President
cost, reduce the number of uninsureds and provide better quality health care. Please see below a comment from Les Bowne a friend in Massachusetts
Scott:
I agree with you 100%. In Massachusetts, as you know, it has been a few years since we implemented something similar. It took about 3 years for the cost savings to start being realized and the catalyst was the state’s imposed limits on healthcare insurance rate increases, which forced everyone to start finding ways to cut costs, especially the hospitals. My company’s increases over the past three years have been at about the general rate of inflation. It is amazing how different the costs are at different hospitals for the same procedures. When this became known and widely publicized, the “rogue” providers with the highest costs stuck out like sore thumbs. Incentives were provided for patients to go elsewhere. Now everyone is looking to find ways to cut costs while remaining competitive in terms of patient satisfaction.
When the easiest cost reductions have been made, we will have to look beyond this to more politically sensitive ones, like tort reform. Better that the money gets spend on providing healthcare than paying lawyer.
Les
Last week was a difficult week for Small Business California. We were the sponsor of SB 2081 which would allow solicitation of accredited investors. Now you may be saying the JOBS bill passed in Washington already did that. Well the rules have not been written by the SEC but it is expected they will allow this.
What makes our bill different is that we put in place protections for Accredited Investors that most likely will not exist under the JOBS bill.
For example our bill requires a suitability study and would limit investments to 10% of an investors net worth[excluding the investors equity in their principal residence]
It further requires the issuer to have a reasonable belief after reasonable inquiry that each investor is an accredited investor.
This bill passed the Assembly on a 66 to 2 vote. It was being heard at the Senate Banking and Finance Committee. While we received a positive vote from Chairman Juan Vargus and Senator Noreen Evans we had opposition from Senator Christine Kehoe and surprisingly Republican Sam Blakeslee. I say surprisingly because the Republican Caucus recommended a do pass.
We also had a recommendation of do pass from the staff of the Committee.
We had the support of Alex Padilla but he did not get to Committee in time to vote.
The big surprise was Lois Wolk who supported our bill. She is currently the target of a very negative piece by the Sacramento Bee. She therefore recused herself.
Obviously we were disappointed because unless we get this passed at some point investors will have very little protections in the JOBS bill.
We are concerned that if the JOBS Bill goes into effect there may be scandals and we may see the bill overturned down the road.
For those of you in SF we will be sending a letter to the Board of Supervisors today supporting the gross receipts tax and asking that the Mayor’s proposal be the basis of doing this. If you would like to sign onto the letter please let me know by 4 today. If you need another copy of the letter please let me know. I don’t need you to do anything except giving me authorization to do this.
Scott Hauge
President
Supreme Court Ruling/ LA Business Journal
By now you have all heard about the Supreme Court decision upholding the individual mandate which now has been renamed a tax. I know many of you will disagree with me but I think it was a good decision and will help small businesses in the future. This will allow the Exchange to move forward to reduce the cost of health insurance for small business and increase the options for small business. It will also be a great benefit for sole proprietors who now have to go through medical underwriting to get coverage.
What do you think?
Some of the people that said they would talk to the media have been contacted and one of them is being interviewed by CNN. Thank you to all that said you would speak to the media.
I received a call from LA Business Journal looking for someone who would talk to him about SB1234. This is the mandate that would require all businesses with 5 or more employees to provide a retirement plan. Is anyone in the LA area who would be willing to talk to him. He is looking for someone with 5 or more employees who does not provide any kind of retirement plan. Small Business California opposed this
Scott Hauge
President
What do you think?
Some of the people that said they would talk to the media have been contacted and one of them is being interviewed by CNN. Thank you to all that said you would speak to the media.
I received a call from LA Business Journal looking for someone who would talk to him about SB1234. This is the mandate that would require all businesses with 5 or more employees to provide a retirement plan. Is anyone in the LA area who would be willing to talk to him. He is looking for someone with 5 or more employees who does not provide any kind of retirement plan. Small Business California opposed this
Scott Hauge
President
IIPP Reqs/25 most freq. cited T8 CCR Standards in CY 2011
Yesterday I was at a meeting with Ellen Widess the head of Cal OSHA. Pease see some material she passed out.
The first piece is the 25 most common citations by OSHA. Note not having an Injury and Illness Protection Plan [IIPP]is far and away number one. The fines can be up to $5000.
The second piece is what is required to be in a IIPP. Please note all busine3sses are required to have an IIPP. If you have over 10 employees it must be in writing. If you have less than 10 it can be verbal but honestly that doesn’t make a lot of sense to me. If you do decide not to do this in writing make sure you have documentation that you have met the requirements and told your employees.
If you want more information about how to do an IIPP please let me know.
The first piece is the 25 most common citations by OSHA. Note not having an Injury and Illness Protection Plan [IIPP]is far and away number one. The fines can be up to $5000.
The second piece is what is required to be in a IIPP. Please note all busine3sses are required to have an IIPP. If you have over 10 employees it must be in writing. If you have less than 10 it can be verbal but honestly that doesn’t make a lot of sense to me. If you do decide not to do this in writing make sure you have documentation that you have met the requirements and told your employees.
If you want more information about how to do an IIPP please let me know.
updated: Supervisor's Tax Letter
The attached letter has been signed by the SF Chamber, Small Business Network,JOBS, SF Made and sf.citi. The only change in the letter is that I changed it from associations to small business
I am asking you if you would be willing to sign the letter attached as your business. I would really appreciate it. I think I have heard from you in the past that most of you agree with this.
If you are okay with this send me your company name and address
Scott Hauge
President
CAL Insurance and Associates, Inc.
2311 Taraval Street
San Francisco, CA 94116
www.cal-insure.com
Phone: (415) 680-2109
Fax: (415) 680-2137
License #0A32315
"Always looking out for you"
=======================================
July 2, 2012
Board of Supervisors
City Hall
1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place
San Francisco, CA 94102-4689
Dear Board of Supervisors:
As a diverse coalition of San Francisco small businesses and organizations, we write to express our strong support for reforming San Francisco’s business tax system towards one based on taxing revenues, not jobs.
San Francisco is currently the only city in California to levy a “payroll expense tax” on businesses, directly raising the cost of labor and creating a disincentive for companies to add jobs in our City. Moving towards a “gross receipts tax” – which taxes a business based on overall revenues and is used by a majority of other large cities in California – will end San Francisco’s direct tax on jobs, provide more stable and growing revenue for City services and incentivize job creation in diverse industries and businesses large and small.
Earlier this month, Mayor Ed Lee and Board of Supervisors President David Chiu introduced a comprehensive business tax reform measure for the November 2012 ballot that phases in a gross receipts tax over a five-year period beginning in 2014. This measure is the product of extensive outreach to diverse business sectors and business owners over the last six months conducted by the Mayor’s office, the Board President’s office and the Office of the Controller. We greatly appreciate this transparent and inclusive effort to engage the business community and understand our concerns and the potential impacts of business tax reform on our industries and on the City’s overall economy.
As a result of this extensive stakeholder outreach and approach, we strongly believe that the measure proposed by Mayor Lee and Board President David Chiu is the appropriate starting point for the legislative discussion and debate that will occur at the Board of Supervisors in July.
Significantly, the Mayor and Board President’s proposed measure includes a small business exemption for gross receipts of less than $1 million. This will provide our local micro and small businesses a needed boost. It also preserves existing payroll tax exclusions until their expiration for Central Market, biotech and clean-tech industries and local enterprise zone areas. It is important that the City continue to honor commitments it has made to businesses that made long-term investment and other decisions based on these exemptions. We all believe that tax reform must be broad based, equitable and fair and not create undo winners and losers. In addition to protecting the smallest businesses, we must protect our largest employers who have been paying a significant share of taxes for many years.
There is still plenty of work to be done to further refine and finalize the legislation before it is heard at the Board of Supervisors next month and considered for placement on the November 2012 ballot. As business tax reform moves to consideration at the Board of Supervisors in July, we hope that the business community and diverse business owners will continue to be consulted and considered throughout the legislative process. A topic this complex and this important impacts every San Francisco business and resident in some manner, and will require building the widest consensus possible to succeed in November.
With more than 30,000 San Franciscans still out of work, 2012 is the year to reform our business tax system. We strongly urge the Mayor and the members of the Board of Supervisors to work together to place ONE consensus business tax reform measure on the ballot this November that will end San Francisco’s direct tax on jobs for most businesses and build a strong and stable economic foundation for our City’s future. Please see the list of signatures below who are in support of this letter.
Associations:
• Sarah De Young, Executive Director, California Association of Competitive Telecommunications Companies (CALTEL)
• Hut Landon, Executive Director, San Francisco Locally Owned Business Alliance (SFLOMA)
• Kim Parker, Executive Vice President, California Employers Association (CEA)
• Stephen Cornell, Chairperson, Small Business Advocates (SBA)
• Robert T Roddick, President, Noe Valley Merchants and Professional Association (NVMPA)
Small Business Owners:
• Scott Hauge, President, CAL Insurance & Associates, Inc
• Robert Legallet, Owner, Bayview Industrial Park
• Richard Parker, Principal 450 Architects, Inc.
• Jerry Becerra, President, Barbary Insurance Brokerage
• Kevin Wallace, President, Wallace Remodeling, Inc.
• William Brugger, Partner, Kuschel & Company, LLC
• Denise Collins, CEO, Aunt Ann's Home Care
• Steve Sarver, Founder, SF Soup Co.
• Will Wenham, President, Cut Loose
• Norman Ishimoto, Owner, KI Associates
• Sam Mogannam, Owner, Bi-Rite Market
• Stephen Cornell, Owner, Brownie’s Hardware
• Scott Rodrick, President, Rodrick Foods
• Scott Rodrick, Owner, Guy Enterprises
• Benjamin Horne, President, DBA Horne Services & Sales
• Henry Karnilowicz, Owner, Occidental Express
• Ruthie Norton , Senior Vice President, CCI Financial and Insurance Solutions
• Deborah Taylor, Principal, DesignTree Studio
• Steve Mayer, CEO, Burr Pilger & Mayer
• Joanne Gomez, Owner, West Bay Counters , Inc
• Cathy Murphy, Owner, Home Instead Senior Care
• Lori Shannon, Owner, See Jane Run
• Sharon Gadberry, Director, Gadberry and Associates
• Grace Santana, Owner, Grace Santana Plumbing Contractor
• Lesley Leonhardt, Owner, Images of the North
• Steve Lombardi, Owner, Lombardi Sports
• Irwin A. Phillips, Past President: Council of District Merchants Assoc., P.P. Noriega Merch. Assoc. P.P., Clement Merch. Assoc.
• Scott S. Nelson, Founder, Tax Incentives Group
• Paul Bonini, Owner, Harrison & Bonini Inc
• Jean Eddy, President, The People Connection, Inc.
• Suzanne Tucker, Owner, Marking Solutions/One Stop Graphics
• Janet Hildreth, Owner, Tree Lovers Floors, Inc.
• Ben Stiegler, CEO, SynerTel
• Philip De Andrade, OwnerGoat Hill Pizza
• Jerome D Cizek, CFO, Morling & Co.
• Todd Parent, CEO, Extreme Pizza
• David Sahagun, Owner, Pacific Heights Chevron
• Alice Ray, CEO, Ripple Effects
• Bob McLennan, Planet Fitness San Francisco
• Joanne Ireland, President, Ireland Presentations, Inc.
• Arnie Lerner, Principal, Lerner & Associates Architects
• Joseph Ruiz, Founder, Rhapsody Painting & Environmental Services
• Rick Karp, President, Cole Hardware
• Matt Rogers, Owner, Papenhausen Hardware
• Jim Carter, Partner, Suhr Risk Services of California
• Eric L Steckel, Vice President, Bars+ Tone
• Calvin Y. Louie, CPA, CYL
• Stephen Cornell, Owner, Brownies Hardware
• Robert T Roddick, President, Noe Valley Law Office
• Michael Bernick, Attorney and Former EDD Director, Sedgwick, LLP
cc: Mayor, Ed Lee
I am asking you if you would be willing to sign the letter attached as your business. I would really appreciate it. I think I have heard from you in the past that most of you agree with this.
If you are okay with this send me your company name and address
Scott Hauge
President
CAL Insurance and Associates, Inc.
2311 Taraval Street
San Francisco, CA 94116
www.cal-insure.com
Phone: (415) 680-2109
Fax: (415) 680-2137
License #0A32315
"Always looking out for you"
=======================================
July 2, 2012
Board of Supervisors
City Hall
1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place
San Francisco, CA 94102-4689
Dear Board of Supervisors:
As a diverse coalition of San Francisco small businesses and organizations, we write to express our strong support for reforming San Francisco’s business tax system towards one based on taxing revenues, not jobs.
San Francisco is currently the only city in California to levy a “payroll expense tax” on businesses, directly raising the cost of labor and creating a disincentive for companies to add jobs in our City. Moving towards a “gross receipts tax” – which taxes a business based on overall revenues and is used by a majority of other large cities in California – will end San Francisco’s direct tax on jobs, provide more stable and growing revenue for City services and incentivize job creation in diverse industries and businesses large and small.
Earlier this month, Mayor Ed Lee and Board of Supervisors President David Chiu introduced a comprehensive business tax reform measure for the November 2012 ballot that phases in a gross receipts tax over a five-year period beginning in 2014. This measure is the product of extensive outreach to diverse business sectors and business owners over the last six months conducted by the Mayor’s office, the Board President’s office and the Office of the Controller. We greatly appreciate this transparent and inclusive effort to engage the business community and understand our concerns and the potential impacts of business tax reform on our industries and on the City’s overall economy.
As a result of this extensive stakeholder outreach and approach, we strongly believe that the measure proposed by Mayor Lee and Board President David Chiu is the appropriate starting point for the legislative discussion and debate that will occur at the Board of Supervisors in July.
Significantly, the Mayor and Board President’s proposed measure includes a small business exemption for gross receipts of less than $1 million. This will provide our local micro and small businesses a needed boost. It also preserves existing payroll tax exclusions until their expiration for Central Market, biotech and clean-tech industries and local enterprise zone areas. It is important that the City continue to honor commitments it has made to businesses that made long-term investment and other decisions based on these exemptions. We all believe that tax reform must be broad based, equitable and fair and not create undo winners and losers. In addition to protecting the smallest businesses, we must protect our largest employers who have been paying a significant share of taxes for many years.
There is still plenty of work to be done to further refine and finalize the legislation before it is heard at the Board of Supervisors next month and considered for placement on the November 2012 ballot. As business tax reform moves to consideration at the Board of Supervisors in July, we hope that the business community and diverse business owners will continue to be consulted and considered throughout the legislative process. A topic this complex and this important impacts every San Francisco business and resident in some manner, and will require building the widest consensus possible to succeed in November.
With more than 30,000 San Franciscans still out of work, 2012 is the year to reform our business tax system. We strongly urge the Mayor and the members of the Board of Supervisors to work together to place ONE consensus business tax reform measure on the ballot this November that will end San Francisco’s direct tax on jobs for most businesses and build a strong and stable economic foundation for our City’s future. Please see the list of signatures below who are in support of this letter.
Associations:
• Sarah De Young, Executive Director, California Association of Competitive Telecommunications Companies (CALTEL)
• Hut Landon, Executive Director, San Francisco Locally Owned Business Alliance (SFLOMA)
• Kim Parker, Executive Vice President, California Employers Association (CEA)
• Stephen Cornell, Chairperson, Small Business Advocates (SBA)
• Robert T Roddick, President, Noe Valley Merchants and Professional Association (NVMPA)
Small Business Owners:
• Scott Hauge, President, CAL Insurance & Associates, Inc
• Robert Legallet, Owner, Bayview Industrial Park
• Richard Parker, Principal 450 Architects, Inc.
• Jerry Becerra, President, Barbary Insurance Brokerage
• Kevin Wallace, President, Wallace Remodeling, Inc.
• William Brugger, Partner, Kuschel & Company, LLC
• Denise Collins, CEO, Aunt Ann's Home Care
• Steve Sarver, Founder, SF Soup Co.
• Will Wenham, President, Cut Loose
• Norman Ishimoto, Owner, KI Associates
• Sam Mogannam, Owner, Bi-Rite Market
• Stephen Cornell, Owner, Brownie’s Hardware
• Scott Rodrick, President, Rodrick Foods
• Scott Rodrick, Owner, Guy Enterprises
• Benjamin Horne, President, DBA Horne Services & Sales
• Henry Karnilowicz, Owner, Occidental Express
• Ruthie Norton , Senior Vice President, CCI Financial and Insurance Solutions
• Deborah Taylor, Principal, DesignTree Studio
• Steve Mayer, CEO, Burr Pilger & Mayer
• Joanne Gomez, Owner, West Bay Counters , Inc
• Cathy Murphy, Owner, Home Instead Senior Care
• Lori Shannon, Owner, See Jane Run
• Sharon Gadberry, Director, Gadberry and Associates
• Grace Santana, Owner, Grace Santana Plumbing Contractor
• Lesley Leonhardt, Owner, Images of the North
• Steve Lombardi, Owner, Lombardi Sports
• Irwin A. Phillips, Past President: Council of District Merchants Assoc., P.P. Noriega Merch. Assoc. P.P., Clement Merch. Assoc.
• Scott S. Nelson, Founder, Tax Incentives Group
• Paul Bonini, Owner, Harrison & Bonini Inc
• Jean Eddy, President, The People Connection, Inc.
• Suzanne Tucker, Owner, Marking Solutions/One Stop Graphics
• Janet Hildreth, Owner, Tree Lovers Floors, Inc.
• Ben Stiegler, CEO, SynerTel
• Philip De Andrade, OwnerGoat Hill Pizza
• Jerome D Cizek, CFO, Morling & Co.
• Todd Parent, CEO, Extreme Pizza
• David Sahagun, Owner, Pacific Heights Chevron
• Alice Ray, CEO, Ripple Effects
• Bob McLennan, Planet Fitness San Francisco
• Joanne Ireland, President, Ireland Presentations, Inc.
• Arnie Lerner, Principal, Lerner & Associates Architects
• Joseph Ruiz, Founder, Rhapsody Painting & Environmental Services
• Rick Karp, President, Cole Hardware
• Matt Rogers, Owner, Papenhausen Hardware
• Jim Carter, Partner, Suhr Risk Services of California
• Eric L Steckel, Vice President, Bars+ Tone
• Calvin Y. Louie, CPA, CYL
• Stephen Cornell, Owner, Brownies Hardware
• Robert T Roddick, President, Noe Valley Law Office
• Michael Bernick, Attorney and Former EDD Director, Sedgwick, LLP
cc: Mayor, Ed Lee
Exchange Health Plan
One of the options an employer may have in the Health Exchange health plan is to enable employers to make a defined contribution and allow each of their employees to choose their own health insurance company. The Exchange would handle enrollment and provide employers with a single billing.
Would this be attractive to you?
I say may because the Board has not set the guidelines.
I expect to receive calls from the media once the Supreme Court comes down with a decision. Would you be willing to talk to the media?
If so please provide your contact information. If you feel you need some talking points please let me know and I will provide them after the decision. You of course can say whatever you want.
Scott Hauge
President
Small Business California
2311 Taraval Street
San Francisco, CA 94116
shauge@cal-insure.com
415-680-2188
Would this be attractive to you?
I say may because the Board has not set the guidelines.
I expect to receive calls from the media once the Supreme Court comes down with a decision. Would you be willing to talk to the media?
If so please provide your contact information. If you feel you need some talking points please let me know and I will provide them after the decision. You of course can say whatever you want.
Scott Hauge
President
Small Business California
2311 Taraval Street
San Francisco, CA 94116
shauge@cal-insure.com
415-680-2188
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
