Passing the Cost to the Consumer from a Business Owner's Perspective

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Hehe your funny.... I am a waiter who makes 25+ an hour in fine dining. Our cooks on the other hand get screwed. Think they start at 8.00. If you were making sure that your cooks/servers were making 15+ an hour. Then obviously you weren't a slumlord. You were a positive in society. Prob had a lot of loyal people too.

Walmart and fast food are slum lords.


Ps I really should make a thread about. "Small business: both sides hate me!" :p


Neither side helps you guys at all. Y'all are paying all the taxes while the big companies who were bribed to come into a town with tax breaks and the promise of cheaper labor then the next guy. Dems play to your employees down to the welfare queen and the GOP plays to the evangelicals and big buisness.

originally posted by: ArtemisE
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

No. Civilization is taking care of your weak and helpless. A civilization can be judged by how they treat there poor.

WOW.

Much Alsinsky with you.


I love when people re-define words to what they want them to mean.

originally posted by: ArtemisE


Hehe your funny.... I am a waiter who makes 25+ an hour in fine dining. Our cooks on the other hand get screwed. Think they start at 8.00.

So, if you truly care for those people getting screwed I assume that you give them a hefty percentage of YOUR earnings to offset their life choice of cook, instead of being a waiter (Where the good money is).

a reply to: macman

I do. I have to pay a chunk of the buser and bartenders salary, but the 2$ an hour employee shouldn't be paying for half the restraunts salary.

I think in the service industry when they raise min wage. It will create a demand for really skilled people. At 2$ an hour businesses just cram there floor full of waiters. The cost is minuscule. If they make server wages 5$ or6$. Then businesses will want less people. That are better at it.

originally posted by: ArtemisE

I do. I have to pay a chunk of the buser and bartenders salary, but the 2$ an hour employee shouldn't be paying for half the restraunts salary.

You have to, or you do it voluntarily???
So, you don't make $25 an hour. You make $18 an hour?

originally posted by: ArtemisE
I think in the service industry when they raise min wage. It will create a demand for really skilled people. At 2$ an hour businesses just cram there floor full of waiters. The cost is minuscule. If they make server wages 5$ or6$. Then businesses will want less people. That are better at it.

You really have no clue as to how a business is run.

So, what you want it less people, but higher skilled, doing more.
I thought people were bitching about this very thing.

Did you think this through, before you offered it?

originally posted by: ArtemisE
No. Civilization is taking care of your weak and helpless. A civilization can be judged by how they treat there poor.

I did not say poor, weak or helpless. I said unskilled, uneducated, untrained and/or unproductive.

originally posted by: DietJoke
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

No! ... It's according to semantic logic ... civilizations MUST be civilized, which means to care for everyone!

It is about ATTITUDE!

There is a huge difference between caring for people and compensating them based on perception and not performance and ability.

originally posted by: ArtemisE
Our cooks on the other hand get screwed. Think they start at 8.00.

I could not get away with paying my chefs and sous chefs $8.00 per hour, I would have been out of business and cooking by myself.

Y'all are paying all the taxes while the big companies who were bribed to come into a town with tax breaks and the promise of cheaper labor then the next guy. Dems play to your employees down to the welfare queen and the GOP plays to the evangelicals and big buisness.

The small businesses do not pay taxes either. That is the whole premise of this thread.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
Because it is a non sequitur and irrelevant. I do not want anyone, government included, telling me how to manage my profits, it is none of their business.

The reality is that government does tell you how to manage your profits, and in America, we have a "government of the People, by the People, for the People." When society fails to properly allocate its resources, then I will tell you how to manage your profits. Because, at the end of the day, in case if you missed it in your American education, profits come from We the People. Therefore, you cannot escape accountability to We the People. (If you don't like it, then go live in Roman Italy...)

There is nothing to dodge, your socio-economic model is not one relevant to the conversation. Tribal societies do not run businesses. Stick to the topic.

It does not matter how tribal societies lived. You seemed to forget that I only brought them up as an example to refute your claim that this is how "ALL economies work." You would be wrong.

It has nothing to do with greed and everything about ensuring that your business remains open. Give me a viable business model where the business owner does not have to pass escalating costs on to the end users and can fund them internally.

Simple. The owner is still able to maintain a decent level of quality while allowing the profits (which, correctly belong to We the People) to flow back to We the People.

Spare me. Too funny coming with the guy who equates people's avatars with their real life personas.

The personality you have expressed in your replies to me, as well in other posts (that I have read in this thread), are in-keeping with the mentality of Augustus. Therefore, pointing this out should not be whimsical to you, but rather, highlights the point that you have the backwards thinking mentality of a Roman Emperor. Rome failed, buddy, and if everyone continues to follow your model, America and Europe will likewise fail.

Slave labor implies no wages, I certainly paid my employees wages.

Actually, slaves were paid in "food" and "shelter." It does NOT matter if you now pay "wages." You cannot just say, "I pay money, they are not slaves." No, they are still slaves, and you are benefiting off of slave labor. Perhaps, feudal system might ring a better bell for you, Augustus.

It certainly is beyond your comprehension if you have to cite tribal economics as a viable comparator to the topic. And no need to dumb it down, your initial posts were pretty dumb as is.

Au contraire, just above your level of comprehension. You got your education in the West. I wouldn't expect you to understand. (As noted, the citation to tribal economics was a clear example to refute the bold statement you made that "All economies work on greed."

Here, you are using fallacious reasoning to, once again, dodge the very valid points I bring up. Why do you bother replying to me if you are just going to evade?

I benefited from others labor and they benefited from my employing them and compensating them monetarily (and in some cases with product).

That's what the aristocrats, or someone like Augustus would tell you...

The topic of the thread is not the employee-employer relationship nor whether my job, or anyone else's who runs a business, is 'demanding'.

When the costs are passed on to the end user, all aspects of the business are relevant, and should be explored. This would include the employee-employer relationship, and how demanding the job is. And you were the one who justified the higher costs by stating how demanding your job is to. Again, you are distorting things to evade the ugly truth in the mirror.

You. Are. Greedy. You further justified this greed by de-humanizing fellow humans as "uneducated, unskilled, etc." Well, why not design a society where they can be educated and skilled? Why not afford them the same opportunities you had? (Of course, if we did that, you would be out-of-a-job and couldn't justify your high costs and extravagant lifestyle, so let's keep the de-humanization so you can feel "good' about yourself. Smh.)

Neither is it a forum for you to rail against whatever economic system that crawled up your rectum and expired. It is about passing the costs on to the end user when the false dichotomy is that businesses pay taxes and other increase when in actuality it is the end user. Stick to the topic or go troll someone else's thread.

The topic is why you feel the need to pass the costs on to the end user. As noted above, this requires a discourse on economics, the "demanding" nature of your job, and the employee-employer relationship, as well as, the United States Constitution, which reads, "We the People."

I am, and everyone else who runs a business, entitled to make what I feel is appropriate based on my requirements, not yours.

And that's the exact line of reasoning a slave owner used in the South. I kid you not. Go read.

I do not idolize anyone, with the possible exception of my mother who came to this country with nothing and ended up making something of her self.

And should not every human have that opportunity? To benefit off of the fruits of their labor? But thanks to capitalism and greedy businessmen[/women], like yourself, these opportunities are now denied to the People at large.

'Demanding' in so much that I was also an employee of my business and had obligations to prepare people's food. I also had to function as a corporate officer and disburse payroll and deal with vendors. Because of this, as a shareholder, I was entitled to take as much as I deemed fit for my 70+ hour weeks because it was my business. Not yours and not anyone else's.

As noted above, your business is only possible because of We the People. Therefore, you do NOT have the right to be greedy.

Says you and honestly, your opinion of what I should or should not have been doing is totally irrelevant.

As you would say, "See above."

And being that the only person having comprehension issues in this thread at this point is yourself

I am glad to see that others have started to explore the pitfalls of the economic system that have resulted in you needing to even post this thread.

What were your points again? Oh yeah:

You confuse people's avatars with reality
You confuse tribal economics as a desired way of living by persons other than yourself
You confuse escalating costs borne by end users as purely capitalistic
You confuse employees with slavery

No, the points I made were:
The similarities between your mindset and that of Augustus. You were the one who mentioned "mud tribes" had it wrong to be communal, but I think Augustus had it wrong considering the Roman Empire collapsed, and America is heading down that same path.
(The other points were addressed above.)

Are you seeing the theme here?

The theme is that you still continue to distort and dodge.

But I am not so surprised that you are confused with a great many things when you make absurd statements like the one below:

Ah, and you get mad that I underscore the failure August was, and point out the similarities between you and him, but you resort to this...

a reply to: iosolomon

And that response there is the Progressive's take on America.

No wonder we are in trouble.

a reply to: macman

And that response there is the Progressive's take on America.

No wonder we are in trouble.

America is in trouble because under capitalism only "your" interest is looked out for. If you want to keep your precious Bill Gates and Michael Bloombergs, because they do "oh so much" for you, then so be it, but progress would be to do away with them. That progress has not come to fruition. Therefore, you cannot blame the "trouble" America is in on "progress" since there is no progress.

As Jon Stewart brilliantly quipped, "If the opposite of con is pro, then isn't congress the opposite of progress? Or did we just #ing blow your mind?"

There is NO progress being made in this country.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

I work for a small buisness owner and I know he pays taxes. According to him a lot. He could be playing it up of course. I've never seen his tax info. It really would be crappy to pay min wage while you don't pay taxes. That definitely means your dumping your employees on tax payers and your not even paying your part.

The taxes that affect (reduce) employee wages the most are

The payroll tax. The employee would presumably get paid a large portion of this.

The unemployment tax. The employee could be paid this money up front.

Social Security Tax. Thousands of dollars per year at the average wage.

a reply to: iosolomon

WOW. You really are pulling out all the stops here.

John Stewart quotes, the use of "Progress" as defining what a Progressive is about, the assumption that Bloomberg is some great person.

Yeah, never mind that whole individual rights and such. The collective is all that matters now.

originally posted by: Semicollegiate
The taxes that affect (reduce) employee wages the most are

The payroll tax. The employee would presumably get paid a large portion of this.

The unemployment tax. The employee could be paid this money up front.

Social Security Tax. Thousands of dollars per year at the average wage.

You presume wrongly. At best, the business would expand and hire additional workers.

Businesses hire and pay at or near the minimums; as little as they can get away with without it affecting their profits.

After all, remember what the small business owners in this thread have said - their profits are what's important and you're already paid what your skills and knowledge are valued at.

originally posted by: iosolomon
The reality is that government does tell you how to manage your profits...

News to me, I manged my own profits as I saw fit. Government influenced price to the end user but my profits ramined at nearly the same margin rate.

and in America, we have a "government of the People, by the People, for the People."

Well considering you had no influence on my profits what you are bloviating about is strictly hot air. In the end You the People are going to pay every single increase that You the People ram down the business person's throught in some mistaken attmept to modulate profits and earnings. Does You the People get it or is there some sort of terminal cranial density disorder in place here?

It does not matter how tribal societies lived. You seemed to forget that I only brought them up as an example to refute your claim that this is how "ALL economies work."

You could have brought up stone age economincs and it would have been as relevant. Oh wait, you did.

Simple. The owner is still able to maintain a decent level of quality while allowing the profits (which, correctly belong to We the People) to flow back to We the People.

Is that not cute. Someone else takes the monetary risk to start a business and You the People determine what is fair and equiatbale for that person to keep while you sit on your collective asses. Guess what? Still does not solve the problem of cost of business increases passed to the end user.

The personality you have expressed in your replies to me, as well in other posts (that I have read in this thread), are in-keeping with the mentality of Augustus.

How would you know the mentality of Augustus Caesar? Did you speak with him? Oh, right. You claimed to be his Great Uncle Julius in another thread. *twirls finger next to temple*

Therefore, pointing this out should not be whimsical to you, but rather, highlights the point that you have the backwards thinking mentality of a Roman Emperor. Rome failed, buddy, and if everyone continues to follow your model, America and Europe will likewise fail.

We are failing, but not because of entrepreneurs like me but becasue of lazy slugs who feel they are entitled to the fruits of other's labor.

Actually, slaves were paid in "food" and "shelter." It does NOT matter if you now pay "wages." Perhaps, feudal system might ring a better bell for you, Augustus.

Sorry, another poor analogy. The fuedal serf had a lifetime tie to their lord or lady and none of my employees were tied to me by anything execpt a continued desire to work for me.

Au contraire, just above your level of comprehension. You got your education in the West. I wouldn't expect you to understand. (As noted, the citation to tribal economics was a clear example to refute the bold statement you made that "All economies work on greed."

Here, you are using fallacious reasoning to, once again, dodge the very valid points I bring up. Why do you bother replying to me if you are just going to evade?

The comical part is in your overly verbose and constipated replies you have yet to lay down a economic model that does not pass increased costs on to end users.

That's what the aristocrats, or someone like Augustus would tell you...

Or my experience which trumps your ideology as one is real and the other exists in a fever state where practical application is ignored in favor of a masturbatory utopian fantasy.

When the costs are passed on to the end user, all aspects of the business are relevant, and should be explored.

Explore them all you like, they all lead to the same place, higher business costs lead to higher end user costs.

You. Are. Greedy. You further justified this greed by de-humanizing fellow humans as "uneducated, unskilled, etc." Well, why not design a society where they can be educated and skilled? Why not afford them the same opportunities you had? (Of course, if we did that, you would be out-of-a-job and couldn't justify your high costs and extravagant lifestyle, so let's keep the de-humanization so you can feel "good' about yourself. Smh.

Considering you do not know anything of my opportunities and what I may or may not have had your point is irrelevant. But I am fairly certain the vast majority of people in this country had the same or better than I did based on my family’s socio-economic background.

The topic is why you feel the need to pass the costs on to the end user. As noted above, this requires a discourse on economics...

Close. The topic is why cost of business increases get passed to the end user regardless of what they are or where they are generated from. The Constitution is irrelevant to the conversation as it makes no determination of the topic of the thread. Much like your examples and rantings.

And that's the exact line of reasoning a slave owner used in the South. I kid you not. Go read.

Except anyone who worked for me was free to leave for greener pastures anytime the desired, unlike the slave in your hyperbolic reply.

And should not every human have that opportunity?

I saved my money and opened a business. Are people not able to save and work hard to open a business? Did I miss that or are you just exaggerating again?

As noted above, your business is only possible because of We the People. Therefore, you do NOT have the right to be greedy.

You the People did not save my money for me from my first job. You the People did not open my business. You the People did not work 70+ hours a week. You the People were not responsible for my obligations. Therefore You the People are unable to tell me what I am able to charge at my business for my goods and/or services. Is You getting that?

Rhetorical question, I know that you are not.

I am glad to see that others have started to explore the pitfalls of the economic system that have resulted in you needing to even post this thread.

By ‘system’ you meant to say systems. Unless of course we go back to the stone age as you proposed earlier.

The similarities between your mindset and that of Augustus.

I am sorry, what was Augustus’s mindset? Could you clue all of us in who were not related to him? If you were that disgusted with his mindset why did you not do anything when you were Uncle Julius? Or maybe you could have straightened him out when you were Allah. America is heading down the same path as Rome because the bloated government and lazy slugs want to suck the teet of the hard working citizen so they can enjoy their pet ideologies and programs.

The theme is that you still continue to distort and dodge.

Sorry Krishna, maybe I missed your all-encompassing solution to the problem. Besides stone age economics that is.

Ah, and you get mad that I underscore the failure August was, and point out the similarities between you and him, but you resort to this...

Resort to what? I am not the person who has god-delusions and opts to post them for everyone to see. I was just a simple businessman who posted how the real world works.

You know, that place where you do not seem to be operating.

originally posted by: ArtemisE
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

I work for a small buisness owner and I know he pays taxes.

Jesus H. Christ on his ever loving cross. I never said I did not pay taxes. I paid plenty of taxes on my personal wages and dividends. The business did not pay taxes. Any increases that affected gross margin on a sustained level went right to the end user.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

I wasn't argueing that. I was taking your word that they weren't over taxed. I assumed small buisness got hit the hardest per percent.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

I appreciate the directness this time around. There are only a few things to reply to.

Except anyone who worked for me was free to leave for greener pastures anytime the desired, unlike the slave in your hyperbolic reply.

And where can they really go? What choice do they really have? But it isn't just your workers, it is the other 3.5 billion People in this world, who, without their slave labor, your business would not be possible.

But I am fairly certain the vast majority of people in this country had the same or better [to keep it in context: opportunity] than I did based on my family’s socio-economic background.

If that was so, why are they working for you?

You the People did not save my money for me from my first job. You the People did not open my business. You the People did not work 70+ hours a week. You the People were not responsible for my obligations. Therefore You the People are unable to tell me what I am able to charge at my business for my goods and/or services. Is You getting that?

Rhetorical question, I know that you are not.

But you did not understand one of the recurring themes of my posts in this thread. What can We the People do to make your life easier? What can We the People do to make it so that you won't feel justified in silently and legally robbing us?

In regards to saving the money, one of the solutions would be a system like Benjamin Franklin's bequeath to the City of Philadelphia. Small businesses were able to take-out a risk-free loan, and repay it back only if they made money. This worked for 200 years (and it would have lasted longer, except Benjamin Franklin requested it terminate after 200 years).

So, you see, your justification for the overpriced services you are offering are truly without water when you get to the root of the problem.

America is heading down the same path as Rome because the bloated government and lazy slugs want to suck the teet of the hard working citizen so they can enjoy their pet ideologies and programs.

Most People in America want to work. They just don't want to do menial work for jack squat. If society could share the wealth and resources instead of a handful of people hogging them, and a bunch of others (like yourself) justifying this greed, then, maybe then, we can truly build a better tomorrow where AugustusMasonicus would actually feel bad for legally robbing We the People.

I am sorry, what was Augustus’s mindset?

Augustus felt that he was unwarrantably entitled to a better quality of life. Augustus was an adherent to Plato's Noble Lie, which you, too, are also.

The Constitution is irrelevant to the conversation as it makes no determination of the topic of the thread.

The Constitution has EVERYTHING to do with Americans. Since you are an American, or live in America, you are BOUND by the Constitution. I guess they didn't each you that...

How can the costs be prevented from being passed onto the end consumer? Simple. A wealth cap or maximum wage. Then, when the owner is placed with the dilemma of raising costs or giving back to society, this dilemma never arises because the owner cannot make more than a prescribed amount.

And how is the government telling you how to manage your profits "news to you"? Every aspect of your business is regulated and monitored by the government.

originally posted by: ArtemisE
I wasn't argueing that. I was taking your word that they weren't over taxed. I assumed small buisness got hit the hardest per percent.

Everyone that pays taxes is over taxed.