BR&F - Match formula based on YOS

[austin3515]

Does anyone have a good template or article on BR&F testing for a match formula based on YOS that has a 1,000 hour/last day rule?

Specifically, my question is, do I need to treat people who termed as not benefitting in the higher match rates solely because they terminated (with more than 500 hours).

So in my case, the match increases after 5 YOS from 50% of 6% to 100% of 6%. If someone with 7 years terminates, do I need to treat them as not benefitting in the higher rate of match?

Since it's coverage testing, I presume the answer is yes.

[Tom Poje]

well, 1.401(a)(4)-4(b)(1) says current availability requirement...

an employee is treated as benefiting only if the benefit, right, and feature is currently available to the employee.

I'd say if they termed that benefit was not available, since they termed > 500 hours they can't be excluded.

[Lou S.]

I agree with Tom.

Which is easy to do because he's usually right.

[austin3515]

If Tom told me 2 +2 was 5, I'd go buy a new calculator

[Tom Poje]

no need to buy a new calculator

it already does equal that

4x^2 + 4x = 5 * (x+1) * x
Factor out x on the left side
(4x + 4) * x = 5 * (x+1) * x
Factor out 4 on the left side
4*(x + 1)* x = 5 * (x + 1) * x
But 4 can be written as (2 + 2)
So
(2 + 2) * (x + 1) * x = 5 * (x+1) * x
Divide both sides by (x + 1)*x
And you have
2 + 2 = 5

[austin3515]

BRB, I'm running out to Staples

[GMK]

And you have

2 + 2 = 5

but only if x does not equal zero or -1.

and Austin, if you went paperless (as discussed in another thread), you wouldn't need staples.

[John Feldt ERPA CPC QPA]

In this equation, x * (x + 1) = 0

Thus, you have (2 + 2) * 0 = 5 * 0

Looks like dividing by zero can really take you places.

[GMK]

Looks like dividing by zero can really take you places.

To infinity ... and beyond!

or at least to Staples.

[austin3515]

This has been one of my favorite threads in a long time... I don't follow the math (I'm pretty sure it was all made up except that I felt I recognized some of it from high school algebra), but it was hilarious anyway.

I went back and looked at it again. I'm thinking the algebra is all true but the equation was never "equal" in the first place. Did I get it?

[John Feldt ERPA CPC QPA]

Casino Dealer to Austin: 5.

Austin: I'll stay.

Casino: I suggest you hit, sir.

Austin: I also like to live dangerously.

Casino: 20 beat your 5 sir. I'm sorry, sir.

Austin: Well I must admit, cards aren't my bag, baby.

[austin3515]

Ah yes, I remember it well...

[Belgarath]

Hmph. I say 2 + 2 = 1

How, you may ask? 2 pecks plus 2 pecks equals 1 bushel

What's a peck?

A quick kiss on the cheek.

Math just doesn't make any sense...

[GMK]

We Benefit from the equation, because Mr. Poje posted it.

We know the solution to the equation (given in the first line in Mr. Feldt's post #8) is Right.

And the thread Features some clever repartee.

Um, what was the question again?

[Tom Poje]

the math - algebra is correct except for one thing:

you can never divide by zero.

In this example, x=-1 or 0

hence

you can't 'cancel' things out by dividing both sides by either (x + 1) or x

because you would be dividing by zero.

but I do thank you, I was wondering if and when I would ever be able to work an equation like that into the response. but I could have modified the numbers to be anything 1 = 8, 7 = 3 or whatever.

now if I was an actuary then of course it would have been

2 + 2 = "what do you want the answer to be"

[austin3515]

Tom, an actuary's got nothing on those math skills!

[Tom Poje]

ah, Dr Evil told me I could trick you.

the formula was

4(x^2) + 4x = 5 * (x+1) * x

without dividing (which of course is the fun part because people miss what is going on):

4(x^2) + 4x = 5(x^2) + 5x

moving everything to the right side you get

0 = x^2 + x

the only answers that work are x = 0 or -1