The Legacy of the ACA
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article … ation.html
This is just an example of what will likely be a widespread phenomenon.
Economics 101.It has to be paid for somehow, liberals never seem to understand that there is no such thing as free stuff.
No they don't understand the economics at all.
By their point of view the owner is supposed to just suck that loss up.
I would like to point something out here that oftentimes gets overlooked. Everyone screams and yells about these franchise owners being slammed by AHA but the fact of the matter is that if they have a franchise in MA they are paying for healthcare if they have more than 11 (yes, you read that right 11) employees. Here's how it is explained "According to the Christian Science Monitor "Under the 2006 law, Massachusetts businesses with more than 11 employees or their equivalent must offer a “fair and reasonable contribution” toward coverage or pay the state a “Fair Share Assessment” of $295 per full-time employee. The law also requires businesses to help employees pay for premiums using pretax dollars."" http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/20 … ax-on-jobs
Am I reading this wrong and have times changed?
Business Expense Tax Deductions
http://www.kiplinger.com/features/archi … pedia.html
Just a few that caught my eye
Wages. Wages paid to employees are a deductible business expense.
Employee benefit programs. Businesses can deduct the cost of fringe benefits provided to employees, such as health insurance and retirement plans.
And the list is a very long one!Boy I wish we only paid that amount!
http://www.nerdwallet.com/markets/corpo … rates/info
It is not always about the payment of something but more so the available cash flow to do so. Cash is king in the business world and it drains rather thin on a relative scale whether you have 11 employees or 11,000...that $295 multiplied that many times over each month may well be the difference between a profit or loss. If a business cannot remain profitable, it cannot sustain and the whole point becomes moot. Passing those costs on to the consumer may not be an option in certain generic industries such as the restaurant business which is keenly competitive. Many companies work very hard to control travel expense (which is tax deductible @ the rate of 50%) and that too is a function of cash flow. Money paid out does not exchange dollar for dollar in terms of taxation. In other words, just because an employer pays out one dollar in taxable expense does not mean the employer gets a dollar back....to the contrary, more like 15 to 30 cents on the dollar at best. Some employers already have cash flow issues which are so erratice that they have to go the the bank and secure loans to smooth out the seasonal aspect of the flow....bringing an interest load into the equation. In the business which exist today that will come under Obamacare, the additional payout for healthcare coverage for employees will come directly off the already thin margin of net profit which in most companies will be in the 5% of gross revenue range. It is easy to talk about paying for it, doing it is not so easy and may well be the straw that breaks the back of the business if there is no choice. ~WB
1. It's called the affordable health care act, not the free healthcare act. Having more people than ever covered by health care, costs money. No one said it wouldn't. But the potential long term return of investment (healthier people) is enormous.
2. Most of 'Pappa' John's business is done through franchises, not the parent company. Many of those would be exempt from being penalised under the Affordable Care Act due to their size (less than 50 employees).
3. No evidence for the "14 cents" figure has been presented by the business, and no information about how the calculation was made. Understandable given commercial sensitivities, but this means there is no way of verifying the exact figure.
4. The customers of 'Pappa' John's pizza should be the ones who contribute to the health care of people who make and deliver 'Pappa' John's pizza. Who else should? Before it would have been taxpayers who foot the bill. Now the business (and those who buy its product) do. Makes complete sense.Or the executives could pay themselves a little less, and actually provide quality health insurance for their employees, but I guess that's far too much to ask.
In any event, not all restaurants are doing this, and there are already calls for boycotting Denny's because of this.Great, they'll go out of business because the Dems won't buy from them for doing that. That's also Business 101.
I don't even bother with Daily Mail links, their "facts" are almost always not very factual.
I heard the owner of those Denny's on the radio and he said exactly what was reported. Get use to higher prices and less choices.
You notice the first thing is try to discredit the source. No folks....get ready. You asked for it and voted for it.
Oh yeah, that's always the first thing they do! They do not understand that the United States is the greatest nation on earth because of what we are not! We are not socialists!
The franchise owner of Denny's does not strike me as a sane and rational person.
But if getting working people healthcare means I don't get curly fries and pay and extra 50c, great--sign me up. I'd rather they get to go to a doctor than I save a few quarters per transaction.He is quite sane and rational....he is trying to run a business and the government just cut him off at the knees.
By requiring that his workers be able to get healthcare.
I'm okay with that. If his business requires full time laborers get no healthcare, it is badly structured. Plenty of other restaurant spent the last year finding a way to make it work. Healthcare coverage is at an all time high for restaurant workers even before the new rules hit.
I think he just sucks at managing restaurants and wants to blame everyone but himself.He owns 40 restaraunts and he sucks at business? Yeah, brilliant!
Things change. He needs to change with them or go out of business.
Why are we obliged to support the millionaire owner being profitable, and not care if the workers die of preventable illness or can't get life-saving surgery? Or get hepatitis and put it on our food?Health care is has and always will be available! Business does not exist to provide health care it exists to make a profit. Obamacare will ensure prices rise and fewer choices will be a available.
The American system requires healthcare to be employer based. Thus it is ration to require the employer to provide it.
Freelance worker insurance schemes are simply unaffordable. It costs 20 times was an empoyer-based scheme does and has lower caps. It's apparent availability is just an illusion to allow employers to deprive their workers of basic healthcare.
Honestly, I agree that employers shouldn't have to foot the bill. It should be socialized.
But whatever system you use, everyone has to get healthcare. I get it from my employer (cost shared). They should get it from theirs.Health care is available, you say? That is a fallacy.
How would you propose those minimum wage employees get health care outside of their employer?
The model the US has set up -- which I have been arguing for months is anti-business and makes America less competitive-- is that employers offers group health insurance to their employees.
Where specifically woud you propose Denny's uninsured employees -- who BTW work in a field where their own illness could have devastating effects on the public -- get health insurance coverage?
These businesses have been skirting around the benefits laws for years.
If they don't like it -- maybe they will lobby the government to restructure ACA the way they wanted it to be all along: government paid.
Maybe that's the idea all along. Get the businesses who have not provided health care to feel a little pain so they'll come running back in and lobby for universal.
Yeah. Maybe that's it.
Maybe the owner of PapaJohn's won't have a million free pizzas to advertise 25X a night with celebrity spokesperson Peyton Manning. He could sure pay for a lot of health care right there....How? Work as many jobs as it takes is how. No one owes anyone a damned thing. Work for what you want.
I think there may be some present here who actually think that employers only pay for th premiums for healthcare that that the insurance companies administering those programs are the ones footing the bill. Wrong....the insurance company is an outside contractor that is "administering" the program within the guidelines of the insurance industry for the company. The companies are "self-insured" with exception of a very large catastrophic loss rider. That means all the money paid out on the employer side of the equation comes off the bottom line of the company. This is the reason that premiums to the employee are carried by the employee as only a "partial burden" compared to buying individual coverage in the open market. There is no giant insurance pot of money here....insurance companies are making their money thru fees as a functionary. For a company with 60 employees who may have a rather high level of health issues...this could be very challenging. ~WB
Do you think he should be required to pay that without passing the costs along? No one can do that.
So he should just raise prices and stop whining and suggest it be taken out of tips.
It's an even playing field. All the other restaurants will have the same costs.
Fae, I laugh as he BLAMES Obamacare, My teens have been working in fast food places for years, I worked in a sandwich shop when I was a single mom, and this has always been the practice...keep the hours just low enogh to not have to offer insurance...Before Obabacare that would be 40 hours, so now this man is saying it is 30, I will have to look that up, but the truth of the matter is that as always, they want more profit for themselves and to pay the cheapest wage allowable in order to do so! Which in IMHO is greed!
Indeed. he said he would cut to 30 hours (to avoid the charge) then also add 5%.
So, not get the charge and increase profit?Exactly, he found a loop-hole and a scape goat, in order to increase his profits, nifty
That is why business exists, to make a profit.
Liberals think businesses exist to serve their needs. No they exist to make a profit. That seems real hard for some to understand. Just like corporations exist to make a profit and pay dividends to their shareholders. All these whiny babies slay me. Work for what you want the way many of us have had to.
So the people working for those organizations don't matter right? Who cares about the grunts that actually do the labor right?
If you aren't grunting hard enough then grunt harder. That's the American way.
Should businesses only be concerned with making a profit? I mean, yes, it is clear that is what a business is primarily for. But is that all they should be concerned with when there is more to a business than just the profits? There are actual living people doing the dirty work. Those people happen to live in a country where it is much more affordable to have healthcare via their employer.
If anything, that is part of the problem. If you don't think that employers should have to make sure all of their employees have available insurance, then how about we all come together to change things so that healthcare is affordable for EVERYONE apart from their employer? It shouldn't only be affordable to the people who make all the money (kind of circular) or work a certain number of hours. So how about we change how insurance companies work. But owe wait, their goal is to make a profit, not really to take care of people's health. That's obvious in story after story of the people with a pre-existing condition being turned down and other scenarios. If it wasn't a problem, people wouldn't be angry about it!
This is a grand country, really. While I don't daresay it's the best, it certianly does provide a lot of opportunities to people. But here's the thing.There are poor and middle class people in this country. They exist. They bleed the same blood as the upper middle and high class citizens. But they are often left to work the more menial, lower-income jobs. And it's not so simple to say "work for what you want!" because life isn't that simple and a lot of them are already working like dogs. Growing up, my mother "worked for what she wanted," but where did that leave me? We're certainly not wealthy, but we do better than some. But I needed her, and was left to fend for myself (emotionally/psychologically etc), basically. So many wealthy people are disconnected from their children because they're "working for what they want."
So many wealthy people don't realize how their decisions affect everyone else because quite frankly they don't much care about everyone else. How do their choices affect their children? Or their employees? Or their employee's children? The people who work the ridiculously low-income jobs, who have to get 2 or 3 jobs just to live a somewhat decent life, what meaning does their life actually have? Just to have a decent standard of living in this type of society if you can't get the higher paying jobs you have to basically sacrifice your livelihood, it's ridiculous. But no one wants to say the system is broken, and god forbid you introduce an idea that "sounds" "socialist." Nobody even knows what that word means, but they hear it and everybody's running in circles like they're being chased by Godzilla or something.So really if he can just run that business on zero sum gain he should be happy?
His happiness is not all that's relevant is more of the point, actually. The system is broken. There's no way around it. But how can we change it so that he still earns a profit, and the people working for him don't get screwed, either?
First things first.....let's stop painting these business owners as evil people when for the most part they are not.
Secondly let's recognize the possibility they started out in the same place as their employees and maybe know a little about it.
Thirdly let's acknowledge they maybe don't net what you would be led to believe and you really have no idea what they have to deal with life wise.
Or....we can take the viewpoint of the union boss who admitted they knew they might put Hostess out of business.
Your choice.I'm sorry, when did I say that they were evil?
How is it that you think I am unaware of the fact that some of them were once in the same position as the people who are struggling?
You jump to a lot of conclusions, don't you?
The owner of a business' happiness is not all that relevant is precisely what I said. I didn't say it was irrelevant. At no point did I say they were evil. They are not. But they are perpetuating a system that really sucks for the people who don't have the opportunities to be in those higher paying positions, because let's face it. Those positions are limited and competitive. Does it mean that the people who make it have then should only be concerned with their own needs ? Maybe they should take a look at the fact that they were once in that position, and make their decisions accordingly.
Again, I also said if one doesn't believe it should be a business' job to offer all its employees decent healthcare at a reasonable rate, then there should be something happening within the insurance companies themselves to make sure that all people have the opporunity to afford some form of healthcare for basic needs and if they can't afford it, that they should still be able to get coverage when meeting certain conditions, because everyone gets sick, no matter what class they belong to.
Insurance companies are actually businesses that should be concerned with more than just earning a profit but are often, not always, more likely to screw people. You can deny all day that it happens, but it does, because making money becomes more important than the product, which in this case is healthcare, and it should be made available to people whether they have a pre-existing condition or not, whether they are rich or dirt poor.
He wasn't trying to increase his profits Tammy.
Just maintain them. Get it?
No see there is this underlying thing that he should be willing to suffer FOR Obamacare. Why?
He is not going to be the only one doing this and of course that makes them greedy!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
No it means they are trying to maintain. Period.You might as well give up, nothing you say will make a difference. They know we are right they just can't stand it.
It's just the way business has been done and has ALWAYS been done...BUT....for this ACA everything is supposed to change.
I am going to be very curious to see how many LIBERAL business owners actually do the same thing....who back the law....and then we can see what we can see.How do we know this person isn't a liberal? Whether liberal or conservative a business owner will pass the cost along to the consumer or go under! Less choices are what is headed our way! You said it best ,they voted for it now they have to live with it!
Well I guess we don't. I just think the ones we deal with here don't believe this will happen on a larger scale and I know better.
Its not that they don't know its that they don't understand. Its actually kind of sad.
There seems to be a view of business owners as inherently greedy and heartless types when in reality they probably are trying to make the payment on their daughter's braces or something like that. They are used to earning the way to do that and this will undermine that. And NO they aren't thinking about ACA helping them personally.
Fae, Do you not understand those workers have daughters that need braces as well? The workers deserve insurance too Fae..
Not just braces, but pre-natal care, preventative medications, insulin, you name it.
Everyone needs healthcare and if the employer is not made to provide the base plan, someone else needs to. You can't just deprive people and their dependents of healthcare.Most jobs worth having provided something to their employees. If they didn't you should have left. that's called voting with your feet and how you control it. If you can't hire people you can't stay in business. Instead we will pass a law which no one can get away from and will cause the death of who knows how many businesses that were trying to deal with it HONESTLY!!!!!!!!
Or do you really believe all these business owners are greedy and evil?So now you are saying the job is so bad no one should do it. This is the business plan you are defending? That seems a bit like trying to have it both ways.
There's some pretty bad places out there. You should have seen the on my daughter just got out of that I had to call their corporate offices over.
My business plan is make it so the owner can provide for their employees without the onerous stuff like getting to look over their shoulder for the IRS. That's who will be regulating this thing.
Oh indeed I do dear. Went through that with mine myself. If you will read between the lines of the story you will see the business owner had it in hand until ACA which is going to cost him more. Some times it's better to leave well enough alone.
Unless you are a waitress with a child who has a heart defect. And you work all day and come home to watch them die of a preventable condition--while being asked to feel sympathy because the bosses kid needs braces.
That's not a valid thing and you know it.
Noibody...not the business owner and not me or you either.
That;s ok....screw everybody for it. We will learn to live with it. It and all the other mandatory crap coming down the road. Make sure it's a law so you HAVE to do it even when only a few need the help. It would have been easier to help the 30 million than to put 350 million under a law...but whatever.
Do you not get that?
Actually, they will all pass the cost along which is the way all business handles all taxes, I'm sorry but this speaks to the business persons morality...I am always shocked how the right spouts responsibility until they have to pay their fair share of taxes, that is the responsibility of all Americans, there is no free lunch!
I won't hide, but I will watch...you see I live in TN where we have had an exact replica of Obamacare for years now call TNCARE, I assure you, everybody will survive
Tammy, are you talking about TennCare? I could not find anything under TNCare but TennCare is not a mirror of ObamaCare. It is your state's Medicaid Program, under a waiver from HHS, where they have been trying some different things in order to offer Medicaid to more of the population without increasing costs. It does not mandate coverage, it does not affect businesses at all. Further, to date, I could find no specifics on whether or not it has been successful in not increasing the associated costs with expansion of the program.
Fae, yes maintain there deep pockets, geesh, how many stores did this man own in the Denneys Franchise? And I believe another restaurant? Poor millionaire, I know it just breaks his heart he can't provide healthcare to his employees...give me a break, I worked for a Heavenly Ham, huge franchise, had to be a millionaire to even buy in, my boss lady filthy rich paid us grunts $6 an hour, we were allowed to work 39 hrs a week because at 40 she would have to offer insurance...Fae, why do you want to help out these poor millionaires so much, is it not more important that people have access to health coverage?
Tammy, businesses are in business to earn a profit. Period. That is their sole purpose for existing. If they do not, then they go under. They do what they have to do to increase profits because otherwise they do not exist. ObamaCare has reduced full time hours to 30. That means, you want this business to now incur the cost of insurance, an expense they did not have before. They are not going to do that, as a majority. The ones who do will pass any cost along to the consumer. That means the average American, who also can't afford it. Policies that punish businesses only succeed in punishing the workers and the consumers. That does not help the majority of Americans, which makes it bad policy.
Was your food service experience ever as an owner operator?
Did you know that, industry-wide, the average profit margin for a sandwich shop/pizzaria/Denny's, is about 3% - that's 3 cents on a dollar?. So a successful restaurant that does $2,000,000 in sales only nets around $60,000 - before income taxe
And that restaurant owner probably works 60 - 80 hrs a week for that pre-tax sixty grand.
Damn right, I'd want to maximize my profits too. But of course I'm a greedy bugger.
As a small one-shop owner you all would probably feel almost like family working with them. But let them mortgage their house and risk everything they have ever worked for to open a second and third shop - and all of a sudden that nice boss of yours is well on their way to becoming a greedy profit monger.
Geesh....
GAYou've got to be mistaken. It is common knowledge that every person running or owning a business is a multi-multi-millionaire that has risked nothing and makes additional millions each year off the backs of their downtrodden and mistreated employees. They don't work at all, just sit on their yacht swilling expensive drinks and whipping the deck hands to work harder. They pay zero taxes while receiving huge sums of money each year from the government and the evil banksters they are in cahoots with to steal from the people that work for them at wages that are usually illegal and always immoral. Don't you know anything?
Hi GA. I’m glad to run across you once again.
Discussing the financial aspects of Mr. Metz’s decision to impose a 5-% surcharge on his customers appears to be a bit ludicrous to me. His highly publicized announcement has all the trappings of a political statement disguised as a hardship. I can not imagine any businessman going to such lengths if his real estate taxes were raised or a bunch of suppliers hit him with higher prices. The reasons behind his actions are not likely to be found by crunching numbers.
Never the less, here are a few facts about both Denny’s Franchises and Mr. Metz that are worth taking into account. The return on investment for a Denny's franchise is about $85,000 per year. {1} He owns forty! A vague hypothetical that may not apply in this case. The risk factors for a Denny’s franchise are rated neutral. First time franchisees must have a net worth of a million dollars or more that includes at least $350K in liquid assets. They do not expand by placing everything they have at risk. Therefore, Mr. Metz must be a mega-millionare considering he is (a) the franchisor of Hurricane Grill & Wings, now in 48 locations; and (b) the owner of RREMC Restaurants, with about 40 Denny's plus several Dairy Queen locations.
Putting his wealth aside, two things about Mr. Metz’s actions are disturbing. First, just like the Koch Brothers sending 50,000 emails to their employees urging them to vote for Mitt Romney {2}, Mr. Metz is urging his employees to apply political pressure from which he stands to benefit. "What we're going to ask them [his employees] to do is to speak to their elected officials, to try to convey what this means in terms of their jobs and their livelihoods," Mr. Metz said. {3}
Then, after cutting back his servers' hours, he turns about and advises his customers they can deduct the proposed surcharge from his servers’ tips if they are unhappy with paying it. “If I leave the prices the same, but say on the menu that there is a 5 percent surcharge for Obamacare, customers have two choices. They can either pay it and tip 15 or 20 percent, or if they really feel so inclined, they can reduce the amount of tip they give to the server, who is the primary beneficiary of Obamacare," Metz told The Huffington Post.
The servers working for a five location Denny’s franchise highlighted on FranchiseWisdom.com are paid $2.65 per hour before tips. {1}Maybe, GA, you should direct this sentiment at Mr. Metz in West Palm Beach rather than at Ms. Barnette.
It is nice to chat with you again, GA.
{1} http://franchisewisdom.com/dennys-revie … gle_dennys
{2} http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/1 … 65366.html
{3} http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/1 … 22412.htmlQuill, I appreciate everytime you enter a conversation
You have a way of cutting to the chase and the facts with a gentlemen's touch.I agree. He's one of those people you'd enjoy having a discussion with in a coffee shop during which you'd be secretly hoping that some of his knowledge and grace would wear off on you somehow. LoL. I'd see him being a great mentor.
Greetings Quill,
As usual your response is very well researched, but in this case I believe you have made an inaccurate assumption.
Your response appears to address my response to tammybarnette as if the subject was the Denny's controversy of the thread.
I can see how someone primed to make a point might perhaps read my response as they expected it to be, instead of what it was - and make such an error.
Assumptions and generalities can be dangerous things.
For the record
- my response, which you disected to illustrate its errors as it applies to Metz and Denny's - was actually a response to the following post by tammybarnette - not Metz and Denny's
.... tammybarnette wrote:
...My teens have been working in fast food places for years, I worked in a sandwich shop when I was a single mom, and this has always been the practice...keep the hours just low enogh to not have to offer insurance...Before Obabacare that would be 40 hours, so now this man is saying it is 30, I will have to look that up, but the truth of the matter is that as always, they want more profit for themselves and to pay the cheapest wage allowable in order to do so! Which in IMHO is greed!"
It was the generalities of this statement that I addressed, as you will see - not the Metz/Denny's situation as you appeared to assume.
Also, as a former owner/operator of a two-shop restaurant operation - I am speaking from personal experience - not Google research.
My reading of her post, (the one I responded to), appeared to indicate she had two points to make;
1) she and members of her family had experience working in the fast food and sandwich shop segments of the food service industry. - and from this experience she has determined that all restaurant owners were callous profit mongers.
2) because they wanted to make a profit - they were greedy.
*Of course she did qualify that as her opinion - and that is why I responded as I did - to help her develop a more informed opinion.
My first point, re. the 3% profit margin, (which is an industry average for restaurants in the under-$15 check average segment - which is the segment Denny's falls into), was made to counter popular public opinion that restaurants are cash cows for the owners. (hopefully I don't have to do the "there are exceptions... qualifier to that statement)
So your research that "...The return on investment for a Denny's franchise is about $85,000 per year." could mean a couple things - either they operated in an more efficient manner that could perhaps elevate their profit margin. Or, that they average approx. $2.8 - $2.9 million in sales (annual of course)
That doesn't appear to conflict with my statement - as my 60 grand was based on approx. $2 mil. in sales
The number of restaurants he has, (40 by your data), isn't really germane to my response - as the structure and example illustrations I used were directed to an owner/operator operation expanding to multiple shops in the type of "sandwich shop" situation she used as illustration. So even using your data and perspective, and applied to my response to tammy - it seems I was in the ballpark.
As to the first point I listed;
I was supporting a wife and infant on that 60 grand - damn right I wanted to maximize profits - I was also working 70+ hours every week because every task that I hired someone to do - instead of doing myself - reduced that pre-tax 60 grand. I was a restaurant owner - did that make me greedy?
And yes, with the exception of a couple full-time cooks, everyone else was part-time. I could not afford full-time wages and still make a profit.
*(and I was relatively successful at about $2 million p/yr in sales)
But, the largest portion of a restaurant's labor pool is front-of-the-house; hostesses, servers, busers. Also they are typically teenagers, or young adults - who were fine with part-time hours. So was I abusing them in a quest for profit?
Also, yes - the tipped employees were paid about 30% of minimum wage, (again, your data of approx $2.65 p/hr - seems reasonable) and they were fine with that too! Because with tips included - most of them made at least twice minimum wage, and the good ones even more.
So was I greedy to pay less than minimum?
*A quick note to folks that have a problem with that 30% of minimum wage stuff - bone-up on typical restaurant operation and you will understand why it is necessary for the operator - and happily accepted by good servers.
Then you, Quill, proceeded to instruct me about the;
1)number of Denny's/other shops - pertinent?
2)required "millionaire" status of prospective franchisees - *which isn't really as it seems because both franchise requirements can be met with borrowed money and a clean employment/personal/credit history - so if a poor fellow like myself could find investors willing to back me - I could do it too.
But those points aren't really pertinent, because they aren't germane to the content of the post you responded to.
As the rest of your response continued to address points I wasn't addressing - I'll leave it here.
I stand by everything I posted to tammybarnette.
But I do enjoy our exchanges. They are much more fulfilling than many of the rants expressed in discussions of political topics...
@tammybarnette - yes, Quill does have a touch for responding with a fortified and reasoned position - but in this case, his was a mistake of assumption. And I hope this lengthy reply has also helped clear up your apparent mis-interpretation of my response to you.
Whew!... I'm tired.
GAGA, First let me clarify that the woman I worked for and the owner operators of the chains my daughters have worked for are indeed millionaires. Yes, I understand the restaurant business is a hard business with high overhead. Kudos to you for working 60-80hrs, in our cases the owners were either never there or maybe a couple of hours a day. I am glad you have a wait staff that enjoys $2 and hour because I do not know anyone who does. Yes when I worked waiting tables, which is very hard work, I made good tips because I was a good waitress, but no I was not at all okay with less than min wage. Of course any business must make a profit, my point is not to the detriment of the workers that make that business happen.
You were supporting a wife and child on $60,000 a year, I was supporting two children on $6 an hour....Tammy
I too have seen "absentee" owners like the ones you speak of, but as I tried to point out - that scenario isn't the norm. It isn't indicative of "all" restaurant owners.
Also, I did not say the tipped employees were happy to work for $2 p/hr, (or more accurately - approx. 30% of min. wage), - no one would work for that amount in today's economy. What I did say was they happily accepted that as the employer's part of their actual earnings. Actual take-home earnings that typically amounted to more than double min. wage.
For instance; a 6 hour shift at min. wage would be in the neighborhood of $42. A 6 hour tipped position would be approx. $14 paid wage, plus $40 - $100 tips. (just an estimated range - not hard data) So in reality that "$2 wage" is actually more like $9 - $19 p/hr.
Your experience indicates you should know this. You should also know that well-run successful restaurants typically having more good servers vying for open positions there - because they know they can make a lot more than min. wage working there.
It appears that your problem is that the employer doesn't have to pay them even more - greedy buggers.
Alas, I must admit you have "out-woe-is-me'd" me. $6 p/hr and two kids had to be very difficult.
GAGA, It seems you keep trying to back me into corner of saying ALL restaurant owners are "greedy buggers" which is not exactly the point. I do try to stay on topic in the threads which you also seem to take to mean myself and others are some how misusing the forums...when in fact I believe that is the nature of a converstaion, it leads to other conversations, and of course, we all draw conclusions from our personal experiences.
So, let's try this again. I do not believe all business owners are greedy buggers. I did work for a very wealthy woman in a sandwich shop, who could have and should have paid better....my kids have had similar experiences working for fast food franchise chains. In my experience and my girls, we were always kept to that number of hours right under having to be offered benefits, so the employers get the very most of the employee, in my case 39 hrs, and then cut it off their to not have to pay benefits.
Now I believe that you take offfense to my point of view because the industry has worked this way for so long that it has become "normal" people expect to be paid badly and not to be offered benefits...however, just because it has become the "norm" that does not make it right...
I hope we are clear now, I am not calling you a greedy bugger, I am saying the system, the practice, the norm, is wrong, and far leans to the benefit of the owner operator and not to the employees that actually make it all happen...Well, it is obvious we just have different perspectives - relative to restaurant operations at least. (but not, perhaps, about Metz's statements)
I apologize if any of my responses implied that you were "mis-using" the forums - that was not my intent, and it is my error if that is how it seemed to you.
GAHey there Tammy. Well said. Furthermore, I agree with you, as if that matters.
I recommend a first hand account “The Restaurant Trade -- equitable employers or sweat shops?” by a respected hubber lmmartin. It was an eye opener for me.
http://lmmartin.hubpages.com/hub/The-Re … weat-shops
I think you may find it interesting.Thank you Quill, I will check that out. I have such a passion for fairness, some people see that as socialism, I do not. I always refer to talent competitions, such as the singing shows of American Idol or the Voice, the playing field is even, the most talented rise to the top. If some had more given to them, more practice etc, it would no longer be an even playing field. This country needs to have that even playing field, so that those who really want a better life can stiil acheive it in this great country. I believe this is what we stand for as Americans. Some unwritten rules have been in place so long people begin to identify these problems as social norms. I have worked many low paying labour jobs in my life before achieving a degree and a better career. I think because I have had to struggle I understand how some may feel left behind in this world. I have been a waitress, so I am a very big tipper...I understand that business owners such as GA work hard and deserve to make a good profit. But when the price of tomatoes increases do they stop buying tomatoes?
Always nice to talk to you Quill, Happy ThanksgivingWell... hmmm... I have this prickly feeling somebody is talking about me.
Excellent link, and since I was rather vocal in my discussions of restaurant operations - it feels like a comment would be appropriate.
First, it was obvious the hub was written from first-hand knowledge - and well done too.
In my defense, (I'll probably need it), my discussions were relative to independent restaurants - which I optimistically hope operate a cut-above chain operations. Primarily because independents frequently have an owner/operator on-premise much of the time they are open - greeting guests, "eyeing" operations, judging customer's experience, looking for issues, etc. etc.
Whereas a chain's "owner/operator" is usually a regional or district manager looking at the P&L - not the customer.
With that said - her article was spot on. And I would venture a guess there are more food service operations as she describes than there are independents like I experienced.
Regarding her "pooled tips," "cut" hours, forced to work sick, no breaks - that's just plain bad, (very bad), management. But again, probably more the norm than the exception.
I could expound on the ways I handled operations to try to mitigate those labor issues - they are there in every operation - but it would be beside the point. Although I would not go so far as to call the operation she described as typical, or the norm - it probably is more than frequently an apt description.
Good article.
GA
ps. just saw tammy's response - FYI, as a matter of fact there were times when we really did reduce tomato slices on subs and pizzas,(sliced slightly thinner), and at times only include them by request. our profit margin was such that when a $9 box of tomatoes went to $29, (real example, and we used about 3 - 5 boxes/day).GA, The sandwich shop I worked for did the same thing, with the tomatoes...Funny part I will share with you, I watched as many workers. who were very bad with the slicer. throw away tomatoes...I guess this loss went largely unnoticed? But when the prices rose we only put them on the sandwich by request...Funny what different people notice and react too...
Quill, Yes an eyeopener to anyone who hasn't lived through it, but I have and can atest to every single action. The worst is working for a inexpensive restaurant, you get paid $2 an hour and then maybe $2 a table, all the while being treated as some second class citizen. I recall while working in one of the "less expensive," variety, The Cracker Barrell, I had told my manager that I would be out the next Monday, weeks notice, for a doc appt. He replied that I could feel out a request but he couldn't promise anything. I told him that I would feel out the request, but I would NOT be there...His bullying never worked on me, but a lot of the younger workers were afraid of him, really sad...Hi GA, Quill and Tammy,
I feel the need to jump in here. I've read the Hub linked here, and while I cannot dispute their personal experience in one restaurant, I can say this is certainly NOT the norm.
There are laws governing the pooling of tips and the restaurant must have an up front policy, in writing, regarding the pooling of tips. Furthermore, hosts/hostesses, cooks and dishwashers are paid minimum wage. Servers, and in some states, bussers are the only two job designations subject to the reduced hourly wage. It is true that these particular labor laws vary greatly from state to state it seems.
I would advise anyone working for the restaurant described in the linked Hub to contact their Labor Board immediately.
Now, back to the ACA effect. Restaurants have very few full time workers. Never have and never will. That is because it is the nature of the business. Work comes in shifts. Therefore, the restaurants are most likely only covering some cooks, hostesses and dishwashers as a result of ObamaCare. Previously those servers and bussers could work up to 39 hours a week. Now they can only work 29. Most likely, the majority of those workers sit right on the line as far as the expanded Medicaid is concerned. Let's say that now that we've reduced their hours by 10 every week, they qualify for that expanded Medicaid. What have we really done? We've only succeeded in making them poorer. Sure, we've put them into the category where they can now live off the Government teat but do we really consider that an accomplishment? I'm sure that the bulk of these workers would rather have their ten hours back. Do you comprehend that many of those dishwashers and hostesses are part time as well? That means we've just taken away over $70 a week from their earnings. When is any law a good thing that automatically reduces someone's pay each week?
Let's assume that we haven't put them under the poverty line. Guess what? ObamaCare isn't going to help them one bit. All it will do is tax them for not purchasing what they can't afford.
You can justify it all you like and try to find this reason and that reason why the owner is an evil, greedy sob but that is not the case. They are there to make a profit. They are going to maintain their profit. If supplies go up, they either cut down on how much is included, begin to charge for extra requests, or raise prices across the board. That is just good business not greed. The same goes for ObamaCare. While they may not be paying to cover servers and bussers, they will be paying for those full time employees. The prices will go up. You say, "fine, I'll pay an extra 50 cents". Good for you but here is the reality. Times are tough out there and many people might pay the higher prices (some will simply not eat out, or reduce the amount they eat out) but I guarantee you that most will leave a smaller tip because of it. Because they are just like the business owner. They have a budget. It allots x amount to eat out each month. That includes tip. So if the meal costs more, the tip is less. This does not help out those servers in any fashion. Less people coming in, less tips. Higher prices, smaller tips. And we've already reduced their base pay on top of that.Sassy, I am going to just throw this out to think about and will have to excuse myself to go to bed, I am doing a lot og cooking tomorrow...So, look at this from the opposite side, let's say they do just keep cutting hours and wages, so employees decide they can work at the mall and do better, so massive amounts of wait staff leave the "proffession." Then, how does the businessman restaurant owner survive? Dining out will become like all fast food service, much like wal-mart replacing people with self-check out long befor the ACA...My thought, you can blame ACA all you want, but it just doesn't hold water...
Happy ThanksgivingTammy,
ACA is the REASON they will have to cut hours. It is the ACA that sets the limit at 30 hours. Cut and slice it anyway you want. The hour cut is the fault of the law that sets the hours, not the businessman attempting to maintain his profit margin.
Get some sleep, safe & pleasant cooking.
Happy Thanksgiving to you too.
Hi GA,
You are right. Although Ms. Barnette was talking about the Denny’s franchise holder blaming Obamacare and the thread is about the Denny’s franchise holder blaming Obamacare, I was too quick to assume you too were talking about the Denny’s franchise holder blaming Obamacare. Me bad!Greetings
No, that particular post by tammy was not about Obamacare and Metz/Denny's, it was about her perspective, that restaurant owners were greedy profit mongers with no regard for their employees.
A point I took issue with because of personal experience.
Yes, the thread was about Metz/Denny's/Obamacare, but we both have seen how frequently poster responses go off on tangents unrelated to the thread topic.
But, to the point of your original response - I don't see Metz's multi-unit ownership, or the fact the he is a multi-millionaire as a problem. Or the fact he will alter restaurant operations to maintain, (or maximize), profit levels.
But his "5% surcharge" statement, although probably just the bluster of trying to make a point, is dumb.
It is his crack about customers reducing tips to compensate for the surcharge that is most telling.
He has obviously lost sight of the importance of his employees. Being a smart businessman is one thing - being a jerk is another.
Of course, he may have just been caught up in the heat of the moment. I would need to know more about him to feel comfortable sticking with the "jerk" label.
GA
The freedom to have life saving healthcare is very important to me.
If you don't think employers should pay for it, socialize it and have it supported by the entire tax base.
Employers who don't provide insure or sick days are basically just poisoning their customers.
And the fact you can only rebut my arguments with insults is pretty revealing.Your argument is a successful business owner sucks at business! Translation, you have no argument!
If he is successful off of the backs of the underpaid and underinsured workers that's okay, right?
They made the choice to work! And where is the evidence they are underpaid? Oh, you made that up to fit your nonargument.
Generalized statement, but I have waited tables, have you? I have worked min. wage jobs while raising two children, have you?
The lefties always have strawmen to support their argument. They are famous for creating them. You know that.
Did you get the part where he didn't want to do that?
You think he is delighted to be able to do that don't you?I think he would make any excuse that did not cut into his profit Fae, what would be great, is if his employyees found new jobs and he was forced to care about the employees he makes his living off of...Or hell, lets just go back to the days of slavery and force people to work for nothing and makes all the Millionaires our owners!
See you believe that they will have have malicious intent if they have to raise prices or cut hours or anything.
You do not understand what you are allowing to happen to our economy. Wait around a bit and we will talk about it again.
It will be just like a post or two back which was like when they were debating this law and lawmakers came trying to explain what this was going to do. Harry Reid sat in front of them and read letters about birth defects and the like and the President got mad when he saw the bill sitting there three feet high and called it a "prop".
He called it that because he was completely oblivious to the bureaucracy of it and would not have cared anyway.
Tammy you were raised like me....trust anybody who says they are a Democrat.I never expected for things to be easy Fae, I want this country to start doing what is right. I have had it that the right has painted the left as a bunch of hillbilly dimwits living off of the government, because that is a lie! It is BS! People on the left want what is best for everyone, which is morally right, so the right finds ways to paint an ugly picture, and it is so obvious; their hypocrisy, so obvious how they shape legislation to benefit the wealthy off of the backs of the middle class..The right has been so successful for years now with the propaganda that has made at least half the country believe we shouldn't have to pay taxes and those that say we do need to get a job...do you see how deranged that statement is, it flip flops mid sentence...we have no responsibility to pay taxes and if those lazy so and so's would just take resonsibility we will all benefit...That is insane, and evil genious apparently because it has been working for 20 yrs now! Why don't you guys see through that, I just will never understand.
Tammy.......
How many times do you think I have been called WHAT for being Conservative?
Who do you think did that?
Teatard? Moron? How many other things?
I am not into the names but the fact is and I don't care who has what document that says it won't affect anything.
It most certainly will. At least you realize it's not free but many.......many...don't because it has been presented to them that way.I would never call you a name for your beliefs Fae, I have been callled a rainbow riding hippie tree hugging idiot more than once on the hub pages, so I understand...I don't think most people think it is free, it has not been presented to be free...
Well they think it has....
We are hippies Tammy...we don't like shoes remember?You are an exception to the rule. You actually think about the effects of name calling. Most of the liberals I debate with are under the impression that calling me stupid will bring me in line.
Watch closely the next couple years. Watch the societal shift.
We are the good kind of non shoe hippies
yes we are...Things really are going to be okay Fae, don't let them scare you with the propaganda, just research and look up the data...we have had this same healthcare in TN for a while now, and everybody freaked out and the business owners whined and moaned and it all worked out fine...It isn't a perfect system I am sure, There will be kinks to work out I am sure...but if those boobs on the hill will just start compromising on details instead of stearnly and obnoxiously wasting money and time, the right could add to the plan and make it even better, ya know
You're free to have healthcare and free to pay for it. It is your responsibility.
Yes, I am sure the denny's waitresses can afford the $700 a month, that's of course just for themselves, so I wonder how much it would be if you have some children? How much do waitresses make these days? Ten yrs ago I made $2.13 an hour plus tips...I guess that is why I did not have health insurance back then...but now, my husband works for a company that offers insurance, we have co-pays at office visits, and it covers basically 80% of anything else, and the dental pays half and the other half is out of pocket...So now with the ACA these waitresses will have that option
She can get another job then can't she? Or she can improve her lot where she doesn't have to work as a waitress huh? The possibilities are endless. This is the land of opportunity, not free stuff.
Oh really, what job should she get...let's see how about a lawyer, they make great money! Why was she slinging hash and busting her tail, didn't she know she could just go to college, oops, oh yea, how will she pay for college?Hmmmm, what job do you suggest?
I suggest that she reach up and pull herself up by her bootstraps and do what it takes to succeed. Each successful person has drawn their own road map and I sure won't don't it for them.
Seeing is believing. In the meantime she, and you, need to get your hands out of other people's pockets.
I guess you do not know this Frog, but my family does very well, my taxes will increase under Obama, my pockets will be paying for others, and I am happy to do my part as a citizen of the USA
The American insurance system makes that impossible for average to low income people. Trying costing a plan for yourself from a freelance/self-employed/non-employer based company. You pay 20 times more for half the coverage. On minimum wage you would have no money for food and still not be covered if you got diabetes or cancer.
It's like saying, you can have the moon, just flap your arms and fly there. Reassuring for those who have their own rocket ship and don't want to share, but that;s about all.
Sometimes when you run a business it appears you aren't sane and rationale. In the meatime just continue being a worker bee and wonder where your life went.
I find amazing the apparent delusion that none of these things existed before but ACA will make it happen.
Which "things", I was explaining to RG that we have had this same model for years in TN, aren't you from TN Fae? We have TNCARE here, remember? It is the exact same thing...Has TNCARE impacted you in a negative way in our State Fae?
Well I haven't lived there for almost 20 years but I remember it.
I don't think it and the ACA are the same thing.actually it is exactly the same, and many states have these programs, like MA, which someone posted earlier in the thread, now the states will discipate these programs into the fedral program, probably saving the states a lot of money which can be redirected into repairing our infrastructure...When I was a single mother TNCARE made sure my children got shots and check ups and braces...this is a good thing Fae, everyone deserves to have access to healthcare.
For one thing I don;t recall TNCARE being linked into the state tax system which I don't think they have. Didn't when I lived there.
The IRS is woven into ACA and they will be regulating it. it will be different.
Not to mention how the law may get amended. i am not aware of any tax that does not go up and any tax that is not mishandled by politicians.Yes Fae, a State funded program is linked into the tax system...The devil is in the details, but what people need to realize here is that Americans need to quit thinking they are entitled to live in this country frr of charge, we pay our taxes and the government uses our tax dollars to pay our countries bills...you know that fiscal cliff, well we fought two wars on a credit card for China, it is time to pay our bills and learn to be frugal and pay our own way...it's time to cut up the credit cards, grow up, and be responsible
Nobody said anything about living for free......
They do however want you to live without choice.You talk to me of fiscal responsibility with the Democrats?
You forget I was raised one. They never saw a tax they not only loved but wanted increased every year and as I say there is no guarantee it will do what they say.I do understand corruption Fae, I joined an organization who has made this their goal, to find and corruption and spread awareness and actually be able to approach the hill...That little diddy, "never saw a tax they didn't love" yea my Republica papaw said that all the time, so it has been going on for more than 20 yrs....
I am trying to get you to understand that that owner did not do that because he is evil or corrupt but because he is trying to feed his family. AND YES he is trying to take care of his employees family.
Basically what it will take to satisfy ACA and the folks who put it there is business has to reform to THEIR image and it ain't gonna happen.To what "image," The socially responsible image of paying a fair wage and offering health benefits to employees?
T H E Y W E R E D O I N G T H A T!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Then comes ACA.
Sometimes government IS WRONG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!They were not doing that Fae, or they wouldn't be bitching about offering health benefits to employees....Can you imagine how those same people would fight against raising min wage, they finally did after 10 yrs and it still only keeps a person under the poverty line! Wake up Fae, we do not owe the fat cats anything!
Tammy he was talking about having to CUT BACK! That means he had it and they were getting it.
You know that.No Fae, if they had insurance, nothing changes...
Their image is too bad employer.....you have to lose money because WE say so.
You know that. You know that is EXACTLY what is required.no fae, the image is you get what you pay for...
NO...
The NEW image is these people lose. You know that is is what has been pounded out for the past how many years?
No one has to lose. But that's not how the administration and the rest want it. If it hurts that business owner it is only what he deserves right?
Do you not see what's wrong with that?
Because we say you can't abuse your employees.
I agree with that.
Maybe some people on this forum have never had to work a minimum wage job. There are some levels you should not let an honest worker or their children sink below. Dying of preventable illness is one of them.He wasn't abusing his employees.
The idea here is to give the impression that business owners in the US were really whipping the backs of their people and sitting back and laughing. Only a naive fool believes that crap.
It may be the exception But it is NOT the rule. Especially in small businesses who are going to bleed because of this law.Only a naive fool believes millionaires should have lower taxes than middle class citizens because their party says so, and only naive fools believe a waitress trying to raise children should have to do without healthcare so a millionaire keeps getting richer...BS!
I guess I'm having problems with this because these folks are whining about something they already have to provide in their MA franchises. All of these guys (Papa Johns, Applebees and some of the other more "vocal") are all required to provide insurance or pay a fine of $295 per person if they fail to make insurance available. In the case of MA, this is paid through the MA Dept of Revenue and it applies to anyone who employs 11 or more "full time equivalents". Their screeching on this issue is disingenuous in my opinion.
The guy who sold weapons to Iran to be a hero for freeing the hostages...yes I am sure his wisdom should be the rule...Medicaid is social medicine, did that turn us into a socilaist country? Or worse yet, communist...being that some believe socialism to be the path between capitalism and communism...
Yeah and the guy who just let four Americans die in Benghazi loves you too right? LMBO What a farcial line of thought.
Or we could blame Bush for the 3000 that died on our soil, or the tens of thousands in Iraq, geesh....LMBO
Whereas it is much better to just let people die of preventable disease and pretend its their fault.
Why is socialism evil for medical treatment, but fine for fire fighting, roads and policing. Seems arbitrary. As a renter I would rather risk losing my housing temporarily and know I could go to a doctor if I needed to. Let the landlord pay firefighting fees if he wants to protect his investment.Socialism is fine until you run out of other people's money. Watch what is occurring in Europe and coming to your neighborhood soon.
What? People need to take responsibility and pay their taxes, that is not socialism, that is capitalism...
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-07-0 … -view.htmlSo pay your fair share like the rest of us do. Good advice huh? LMAO There is no free lunch - health care or otherwise. Get it yet?
I do silliy willy, I am a responsible citizen, I don't mind to pay my taxes, don't care if they have to increase so we can become energy independent, have healthcare for all, have a strong infrastructure(which will be a big expense with the Sandy damage) I do not believe I am entitled to live here for free and believe somehow the government should be my daddy and pay for the policeman and fireman and teachers and healthcare why I use my money to go buy gum
It becomes socialism when about 50% of the population that file income taxes (meaning they are working) are not paying anything in taxes and a large percentage of them are also receiving money BACK from the government exceeding the amount they paid.
Sassie - It's hard to explain to dense people what it is we are talking about. They want to preach fair share but let 50% of the workers pay zero. Right...
You want me to innudate you with links barnette? Save your straw man links and go to government reporting websites and take a look rather than using those left wing loon opinion sites. LMAO
Frog as you know I have many links from the BLS, from the CBO and from the treasury, but you can search through those, you do not need my help
Try the IRS barnette. Or the CBO barnette. I don't rely on the BLS for anything reliable. Your best bet on income tax stats is the IRS. They are sitting at 47% who pay nothing. Got that? I won't do your research for you barnette though you want people to. A lazy liberal really is just that.
The BLS is the actual administrative body for the statistics being discussed, any other body does not have the responsibility or data necessary to fully compile this data for example the IRS has no official access to census data (which the BLS does) and as such cannot make population proportional statements. You are dismissing the only reliable source because reliable information usually disagrees with you.
Oh I know you are the victim of a grand conspiracy which includes the BLS, poor little thing.
I am trying to follow the "exceeding" part, I have 3 young adults, they get back every penny they pay in and not a dime more? Are you saying if these same persons also recieve benefits such as food stamps? I am trying to follow your thought train...
We try to follow your thought train too barnette but your train seems to be running down a dirt road. You want the last word. That's your problem. Rather than engage your mind you want to continue to engage your mouth. That is something I don't follow at all. Is that a female thing with you?
Actually Frog, I use my brain, do a lot of research and actually know what I am talking about,lol...you however like to call names and start a personal fight because you can not back up your wide bass mouth,lol
Wow and there is the sexism.
Yes almost 47 of people do not pay INCOME tax (they still pay other taxes) but a huge proportion of those are #1 retirees, #2 Disabled #3 Veterans an #4 below the international poverty line. There is nothing to tax there.BS Josak. The other 53% pay all those other taxes in a greater proportion. Son, stay out of adult conversations because you usually have your lunch eaten.
What by you?! AHHAHA I have had my lunch eaten plenty of times there are educated well informed people on hubpages that know many topics better than I ever will but you have no relevant education or knowledge at all and the only time you have "eaten anyone's lunch" in when you block responses on your hubs so people can't argue back
Obviously the sign of a courageous master debater.- Frog, Josak will help you out, you can learn from him, he is an economist
Don't you know economists are part of the government conspiracy too
Now that cracks me up. He's a what? ROTFLMAO. You believe that crap barnette? Oh my.... ROTFLMAO STOP! YOU'RE KILLING ME!!! I've forgotten more about economics than Josak ever thought about knowing. ROTFLMAO
It's actually a bit more nuanced than that:
Here’s the rest of the breakdown:
22 percent receive senior tax benefits — the extra standard deduction for seniors, the exclusion of a portion of Social Security benefits, and the credit for seniors. Most of them are older people on Social Security whose adjusted gross income is less than $25,000.
15.2 percent receive tax credits for children and the working poor. That includes the child tax credit and the earned income tax credit. The child tax credit was enacted under Democratic President Bill Clinton, but it doubled under Republican President George W. Bush. The earned income tax credit was enacted under Republican President Gerald Ford, and was expanded under presidents of both parties. Republican President Ronald Reagan once praised it as “one of the best antipoverty programs this country’s ever seen.” As a result of various tax expenditures, about two thirds of households with children making between $40,000 and $50,000 owed no federal income taxes.
The rest ended up owing no federal income tax due to various tax expenditures such as education credits, itemized deductions or reduced rates on capital gains and dividends. Most of this group are in the middle to upper income brackets. In fact, the TPC estimates there are about 7,000 families and individuals who earn $1 million a year or more and still pay no federal income tax.
Earned Income Credit: http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefing … y/eitc.cfm
The Millionaires: http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/numbers/ … ocTypeID=1
The Earned Income Tax Credit, the Child Care Tax Credit. This refunds tax payers for every child they claim in excess of what they have paid into the system in taxes. For example, I work with a girl who pays $900 a year into the Federal tax system. She receives all of this back, in addition to credits for each child she has plus child care credits. At the end of the year, she receives over $7000 back from the Government.
There are more extreme cases than 7K Sassy. There's a few who are pulling in in excess of 10K. And they are paying their fair share? No they are baby factories milking the system. Good grief.
Can you prove in any way that you can make more money in welfare for children than it costs to raise them?
One needs only to make just over $4000 to collect the EIC credit. That isn't much working is it? They also receive food stamps and cash assistance every month, and that is increased for every child they have. Not to mention Housing as well. When everything is being paid for you, how is it not profitable to get a nice check from the IRS at the end of the year? Sure this is not true for every single person but I have grown tired of the idea that it is somehow the government's job to raise their children. No. It is their job.
So how else would a single mother making minimum wage make it? They need to be paid better, that would help..
The problem Tammy is all the dipping. It isn't one or the other, it is both. Tax payers are paying for their rent, their food, their insurance, their child care plus handing them a check for spending cash each month. Then handing them over $7000 or more at the end of the year.
I will give you this example, When I divorced my first husband(dead beat, never paid child support) I worked at a sandwich shop making $6.00an hour, About $650 a month, my rent was $500 a month...we survived because of government help, and that is the way I got a college education and a business and accounting degree, then I made good money, paid into the system that built me...I remarried, my husband makes a good living as well, so when we had our baby I chose to stay home with her, we cut back and lived tight because we have 5 children between us...My baby will start Kindergarden next year and I will go back to work...This is why I fight hard to help people climb from the ditch to the middle class...Our taxes will increase under Obama, but I truly do not mind to help our country as a whole be a better society...
I will say, I never got back more than $2000...I always used it to pay off a big debt, or fix my car, buy tires,etc....The day I walked in that office and thanked them for all of their help was one of the proudest moments of my life
Sassy, She only pays in $900? She must be in the very bottom bracket...Are the child tax credits something to use for daycare or education expenses? Do not forget they still pay sales taxes, etc.
Child care credits are intended to help with child care while you work. Her mom watches her kids for free. Apparently, there is not a very good check system in place. Everyone pays sales taxes, that's true, but the President is talking about income taxes. Someone making over $250,000 is already paying way more in sales taxes than the average person because they have the means to purchase more plus they make the big dollar purchases.
And I have no issue with her receiving the bulk of her tax money back but over $7000 in excess of that?I understand, but poor people have to buy those big ticket items as well Sassy, refrigerators, ovens, washers and dryers, etc.
My sister in-law and her husband get back about %7000, they make very good money however...
How many kids do they have to get that much back in child credit?
The rates of reimbursement are NOT that high and come with some restrictive provisions including someone with less than $3 k in the bank
http://www.hrblock.com/taxes/tax_calcul … ldtax.htmlHer husband is a truck driver who has worked for the same company for many years, my sister-in-law works for the post office doing pretty good as well, they both claim 0 dependants, but have two children; they purposely pay in more through out the year...
So do this. Write that extra check to the US Treasury and make a copy of it and post it here so we can all see it. In other words put your damned money where your mouth is. Otherwise duct tape works fine. Warren Buffet says that to but we see nothing. Obama says the same thing but where's the money? Get real.
LMBO
Sure, I will pay more than my fair share, I pay in plenty froggie, but thanks....Your mouth always pays a lot I'm sure. You whine and cry and tell us how the government has been your Nanny. Give it a rest. Some of us actually built our success ourselves.
Oh I know froggie, mine was given too me,lol...You are one to talk, whining over paying taxes, I guess you guys want the government to be your daddy
I sure don't like having to pay for your damned free lunches as often as I have to barnette.
You need to run along Josak. Recess is over boy.
Wow, and there is the racist! You don't pay squat for me BOY I pay for you and your disability insurance!
So basically to sum up this thread:
Republicans believe anything that Fox News tells them...
A business owner has RAISED PRICES, CUT BENEFITS AND people feel sorry FOR HIM!
These talking points about this country being socialist are really getting old.
It's astonishing how many people have bought into them hook, line and sinker
*sigh*No to sum it up. Businesses are in business to make a profit. Worker bees like you work to earn a living and get paid. After the businesses pay their overhead what is left is what they make. That about sums it up for you does it?
I don't feel sorry for him. I feel sorry for the people that depend on his business for their living. I feel sorry for those who need what he produces and now must pay more. A policy that punishes the business owner forces his hand and it is the average worker and consumer who winds up paying the price.
A business cannot run in the red. It will do what the policies and the business environment force upon it in order to make a profit.Again *sigh*
It's not Obamacare that is ruining his business...
Business owners will look for ANY excuse to raise prices and cut benefits to workers.
It just so happens that people are more than willing to let this one slide.ObamaCare changed the definition of full time from 40 hours to 30 hours. The cutting of hours is a direct result of his policies.
You seem under some impression that a business exists solely for the good of the people. No. They exist to make a profit. Otherwise, they do not exist. Naturally, anything that cuts into that profit is going to be passed onto the consumer or taken out of the backs of the workers.
It seems more that the left is willing to let this bad policy slide. There was absolutely no reason at all to reduce the full time hours. If they had been left alone then the cuts in hours would not be an issue.Actually a lot of states define full time as 30 hours or more. Generally speaking, the states set the "guidelines' for full-time employment. I don't think that 30 hours is ridiculous to be considered "full time" since that means you're working at least 1/4 of a day (e.g., 6 hours)
This is different than unions how? As they demand more money each year for the same (or less) work, as they demand additional benefits (including free health care) for no more work, as they demand more and more paid time off (for less work) how is it different than the business owner making a living himself?
Greed is most definitely NOT limited to evil business owners.Yes, I love it when companies give the executives big yearly bonuses but are reluctant to give the people who do most of the work a 2% a year raise.
So? Is it better for the company to provide an extra $100,000 to a (supposedly) superior executive that will operate the company at an increased profit (maybe even enough to give all employees a good raise) or to give 10,000 employees an extra $100 per year (5 cents per hour) knowing it will do little or nothing for the company? If it were YOUR income being affected, as owner of the company, which do you choose?
You have to know, too, that giving every employee in the country a 2% raise does nothing but increase inflation by 2%. Net result to the employee = 0.
I wasn't aware that Denny's employees were unionized?
Yes, Hostess can afford to pay retiring executives over $500,000 dollars just before claiming bankruptcy but can't afford to make a deal with unionized employees or pay anything towards health care. I imagine some of their products have been selling less and less every year due to most people changing their diets to pick healthier snacks.
Your argument holds no water. The Teamsters, the largest union that Hostess employs, reached an agreement. It was the smaller union for the bakers that refused to negotiate. Hostess did not have the financial capabilities to withstand a long strike, so they are selling. Even the Teamsters' Union came out against the bakers' union.
The Teamsters have become strong enough, and experienced enough, to know that in many cases they can destroy the livlihood of their members by bankrupting a company, and sometimes (often) take care not to do that. It is a welcome change from years ago when no such care was taken and business owners often suffered from a complete loss of their income just as their employees did when their company went under.
Obviously the bakers' union has not evolved enough to understand the demands of the business world; that unlimited pay is not possible without causing a company to go bankrupt.But, they still could afford to pay off executives...
http://seattletimes.com/html/soundecono … stess.html
But I still think a lot of it has to do with changing tastes as well. Twinkies don't sell as well as they used to.These corporations want to Scare the American Public. And it appears to be working! They want to play ball, play hardball back. Boycott those businesses. As you stated these execs won't let loose of a dime, but can sleep at night knowing they are running many families. The same families that made them the money to begin with! Without the workers, they wouldn't have the money!
No, this is an example of pure GREED! These corporations doing the layoffs and/or cutting of hours are a prime example of Non Americans! Only care about themselves. They put MONEY ahead of human life! It's a sad day for America!
lol But it isn't greedy for the unions to demand more and more and more from a company that is already struggling? You can take this same scenario to the big three auto makers. More and more and more want the unions when they sit on the verge of bankruptcy every year.
Again, businesses are there to earn a profit. If they don't, then no one has a job. Don't think that helps the company, the workers nor the average consumer any.
- An AYMposted 11 years ago
0Sure is a lot whiny rhetoric response to what Denny's, of all places, is doing. I don't think I understand why everyone cares so hard/at all about this. If 5 percent is too much of a burden to bear for uninspiring food, maybe more people will sullenly drag themselves back to their stoves to make it themselves.
I'm more concerned over the gigantic line at that Denny's in the picture. Why does no one else find that terrible and funny at the same time?
Related Discussions
- 17
this may put health care in perspective...
by salt 14 years ago
whilst americans are saying its unfair to provide healthcare to all.... think about those in haiti, lost their homes, their jobs, their businesses and an exhert from a journalist on the ground in Haiti.... "Laborde checked on Rodney Patrick, who was shot three times in the back by thieves. His...
- 421
Let's raise the minimum wage to $45 an hour!
by Barefootfae 11 years ago
Once again there is a call to raise the minimum wage.Now....common sense and a little education will tell you that when you raise the minimum wage, prices go up to compensate. Also, you stand the chance of having a nice little spike in unemployment from the smaller businesses that can no longer...
- 61
Democrats Using Sex and Race to Hyper-Control its Voters ?
by ahorseback 6 years ago
Whatever you do follow those party lines or pay for it dearly , you WILL be shamed ?
- 54
I had a much different title - About the genius Paul Krugman
by uncorrectedvision 12 years ago
What was my title? I thought about it and decided that Paul Krugman was the real point of this forum. I do know something about economics, politics and Paul Krugman. I know very little about the products of Summer's Eve. Krugman is a partisan, a warrior for one side and no...
- 20
Are Coal Jobs Worth Saving?
by John Coviello 7 years ago
Are Coal Jobs Worth Saving?I feel for anyone who experiences a devastating job loss. But, given the fact that so many types of jobs, from blacksmiths to elevator operators, have been rendered obsolete by technological changes, should we really spend so much time and effort trying to save the...
- 116
To those who think American healthcare does not need reform
by egiv 14 years ago
And also to those who claim liberals don't argue with statistics:http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/05/opini … ref=global