Restaurant Owner to Imposes Surcharge For Obamacare, page 16


Pages: <<  13    14    15    16    17    18    19  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 39 times


reply posted on 15-11-2012 @ 10:30 PM by Grimpachi
reply to post by Raist


I see a guy playing politics through a surcharge which in my opinion will hurt the employees which causes me to take my business somewhere I do not consider the owner to be a complete @hole which if enough people do the same it will only hurt the owner of the 20 something chains which you call a few.

The money gets spent just elsewhere and the employment will follow the money. If you think this is anything other than a vindictive political statement on the owner’s part I suggest you are fooling yourself.

I also have no doubt some people will take their business there because of his stance but I have a feeling those customers are mostly comprised of the same people that think 10% or less is the going tip. Anyone who has ever worked in that industry knows the people I am talking about.

Edit to add

To be honest I wouldn’t be surprised if his employees pulled a Tyler Durden (reference: Fight Club) and instigated a class action lawsuit over the urine content of the soup because he such an @ hole.

edit on 15-11-2012 by Grimpachi because:



reply posted on 15-11-2012 @ 10:32 PM by camaro68ss
Originally posted by defcon5
reply to post by camaro68ss
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.


Oh, that's right...
Only the rich are entitled to healthcare.
Everyone else can go eat cake.
Sorry, I forgot...

BTW... When employers, who pay little to nothing in taxes don't provide healthcare, the rest of us middle class folks have to pick up the tab through our tax dollars. Oh, but then again, I forgot that the rich are entitled to use up the lions share of social services that they don't even pay for.
Darn... there I am forgetting my place in society again.

As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.


edit on 11/15/2012 by defcon5 because: (no reason given)


how do employers pay little to nothing in taxes, are you kidding me? please show me these magical loop holes so i can jump on board. And lets pretend thats the case, WHO CARES. good for him if he can get out of paying taxes.

Why is it the burden of a privet citizen to provide healthcare to someone else at his expense at political gun point?

what are these lion shares of social services? i dont see "rich" people taking the city bus to work. Now if your talking about Corporate bailouts whom 95% of them are bankers, then they should hang and be thrown in jail.

These talking points wont get past me.

government was not intended to take the place of privet charities.
edit on 15-11-2012 by camaro68ss because: (no reason given)
edit on 15-11-2012 by camaro68ss because: (no reason given)
edit on 15-11-2012 by camaro68ss because: (no reason given)
edit on 15-11-2012 by camaro68ss because: (no reason given)



reply posted on 15-11-2012 @ 10:35 PM by FreebirdGirl
Originally posted by elouina
Originally posted by FreebirdGirl

First of all free cell phones were granted by G.W.Bush. They are a continuation of an old law established by the FCC.The money is provided by the universal tax on your cell phone bill. You would pay this tax regardless of the free cell phones. Secondly, Romney would have done the same as Obama or worse. Where was Romney's outcry when the bailouts were given? You believe Romney was against giving these guys money? He has corporate campaign donors as well. What is this "your Obama"? I don't personally know him and I did not vote for him. He is every American's president. So please keep me out of your partisan crap. Since you have partisan memory lapse let me remind you G.W. Bush was responsible for implementing the bailouts. Why the outcry over health and education entitlements? We spend as much on defense then welfare programs. I do not advocate war yet my tax dollars are spent on bullets and bombs. I would much rather my tax dollars go to improve education and healthcare for all citizens.The reality is that everyone who pays taxes are paying for some program that they may not agree with. The difference is most people don't make it a political issue.




Cell phones were not provided by Bush. It was a program that subsidized land lines for the poor so they would have access to emergency services. No it was not meant to hand out $50 a month cell service, phone included. And if there was any money left over, who is Obama to go and spend it while we are racking up a trillion dollars a year in debt under his leadership? I don't think anyone would have complained if it went to debt reduction.

As far as Romney, don't try to blame him for Obamas bailouts and handouts. He wasn't president remember? You don't seem very informed on Romney. Shouldn't you have learned his policies before you voted? Or did policies have nothing to do with your vote?

Providing for our military is one of the few jobs the Federal Gov. is allowed to do. This is what we pay them to do, and this is what should be expected of them. Everything else is unconstitutional. If you want a welfare state to hand you goodies, talk to your State government. They are the ones that deal with these issues.



Cell phones were not provided by Bush ?

Wrong
Link-Up program, created way back in 1984 during Reagan, initially targeted at providing landlines, so poor people who can't otherwise afford it have some connection with the world, and has been an item on your phone bill for more than two decades now. When cell phones became the norm, the program expanded to include them with carrier service as well, and was renamed Lifeline, since the idea was that everybody has access to the 911 emergency service at all times.

That was, however, done back in 2008, before Obama took office, without regards for the ballooning costs, which mushroomed from $772 million in 2008, to $1.6 billion last year for the Lifeline program's more than 10 million low-income subscribers. A 2011 audit revealed that 269, 000 of them were receiving free phone and service from two or more carriers.
www.phonearena.com...

As far as Romney, don't try to blame him for Obamas bailouts and handouts

What were you reading? I only said that Romney would have served the same interest as Obama. Both had huge donations from major corporations.

Secondly, Romney would have done the same as Obama or worse. Where was Romney's outcry when the bailouts were given? You believe Romney was against giving these guys money? He has corporate campaign donors as well.

Providing for our military is one of the few jobs the Federal Gov. is allowed to do. This is what we pay them to do, and this is what should be expected of them

True. However we should not pay to police the world.

Please tell me what in my post gave you the impression that I want a welfare state? No disrespect but your ranting sounds like a sound bite you heard on a radio or talk show.



reply posted on 15-11-2012 @ 10:38 PM by FreebirdGirl
Originally posted by camaro68ss
Originally posted by defcon5
reply to post by camaro68ss
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.


Oh, that's right...
Only the rich are entitled to healthcare.
Everyone else can go eat cake.
Sorry, I forgot...

BTW... When employers, who pay little to nothing in taxes don't provide healthcare, the rest of us middle class folks have to pick up the tab through our tax dollars. Oh, but then again, I forgot that the rich are entitled to use up the lions share of social services that they don't even pay for.
Darn... there I am forgetting my place in society again.

As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.


edit on 11/15/2012 by defcon5 because: (no reason given)


how do employers pay little to nothing in taxes, are you kidding me? please show me these magical loop holes so i can jump on board. And lets pretend thats the case, WHO CARES. good for him if he can get out of paying taxes.

Why is it the burden of a privet citizen to provide healthcare to someone else at his expense at political gun point?

what are these lion shares of social services? i dont see "rich" people taking the city bus to work.

These talking points wont get past me.

government was not intended to take the place of privet charities.
edit on 15-11-2012 by camaro68ss because: (no reason given)
edit on 15-11-2012 by camaro68ss because: (no reason given)
edit on 15-11-2012 by camaro68ss because: (no reason given)


Here's your proof:
1) Exxon Mobil made $19 billion in profits in 2009. Exxon not only paid no federal income taxes, it actually received a $156 million rebate from the IRS, according to its SEC filing
Bank of America received a $1.9 billion tax refund from the IRS last year, although it made $4.4 billion in profits and received a bailout from the Federal Reserve and the Treasury Department of nearly $1 trillion.



3) Over the past five years, while General Electric made $26 billion in profits in the United States, it received a $4.1 billion refund from the IRS.



4) Chevron received a $19 million refund from the IRS last year after it made $10 billion in profits in 2009.



5) Boeing, which received a $30 billion contract from the Pentagon to build 179 airborne tankers, got a $124 million refund from the IRS last year.



6) Valero Energy, the 25th largest company in America with $68 billion in sales last year received a $157 million tax refund check from the IRS and, over the past three years, it received a $134 million tax break from the oil and gas manufacturing tax deduction.



7) Goldman Sachs in 2008 only paid 1.1 percent of its income in taxes even though it earned a profit of $2.3 billion and received an almost $800 billion from the Federal Reserve and U.S. Treasury Department.



8) Citigroup last year made more than $4 billion in profits but paid no federal income taxes. It received a $2.5 trillion bailout from the Federal Reserve and U.S. Treasury.



9) ConocoPhillips, the fifth largest oil company in the United States, made $16 billion in profits from 2007 through 2009, but received $451 million in tax breaks through the oil and gas manufacturing deduction.



10) Over the past five years, Carnival Cruise Lines made more than $11 billion in profits, but its federal income tax rate during those years was just 1.1 percent.
blogs.suntimes.com...

By the way these are only the top ten.
edit on 15-11-2012 by FreebirdGirl because: (no reason given)



reply posted on 15-11-2012 @ 10:45 PM by Raist
reply to post by Grimpachi


The only way it hurts the employees is if people like you do not go there.

Plain and simple your action of not going there will hurt employees more. He will likely fire some if he loses business the keep from losing money. The actions of not going there could put a someone out of a job.


If he were a jerk as you claim he would cut hour, fire people or simply pay the fine for not providing it. He is providing it keeping his employees and not cutting their hours. He is upfront and saying why he is charging the extra.

Sure you can go elsewhere and pay the same with someone hiding the real increase costs. After all we have a corrupt government why do we need honest business owners.


Raist


reply posted on 15-11-2012 @ 10:46 PM by camaro68ss
Originally posted by FreebirdGirl
Originally posted by camaro68ss
Originally posted by defcon5
reply to post by camaro68ss
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.


Oh, that's right...
Only the rich are entitled to healthcare.
Everyone else can go eat cake.
Sorry, I forgot...

BTW... When employers, who pay little to nothing in taxes don't provide healthcare, the rest of us middle class folks have to pick up the tab through our tax dollars. Oh, but then again, I forgot that the rich are entitled to use up the lions share of social services that they don't even pay for.
Darn... there I am forgetting my place in society again.

As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.


edit on 11/15/2012 by defcon5 because: (no reason given)


how do employers pay little to nothing in taxes, are you kidding me? please show me these magical loop holes so i can jump on board. And lets pretend thats the case, WHO CARES. good for him if he can get out of paying taxes.

Why is it the burden of a privet citizen to provide healthcare to someone else at his expense at political gun point?

what are these lion shares of social services? i dont see "rich" people taking the city bus to work.

These talking points wont get past me.

government was not intended to take the place of privet charities.
edit on 15-11-2012 by camaro68ss because: (no reason given)
edit on 15-11-2012 by camaro68ss because: (no reason given)
edit on 15-11-2012 by camaro68ss because: (no reason given)


Here's your proof:
1) Exxon Mobil made $19 billion in profits in 2009. Exxon not only paid no federal income taxes, it actually received a $156 million rebate from the IRS, according to its SEC filing


your linking exxon mobil, a huge company with tons of lobbyist in washington who pay off GOVERNMENT Officials to write tax code in there faver, to the average joe business owner on the street.


reply posted on 15-11-2012 @ 10:49 PM by camaro68ss
Originally posted by FreebirdGirl
Originally posted by camaro68ss
Originally posted by defcon5
reply to post by camaro68ss
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.


Oh, that's right...
Only the rich are entitled to healthcare.
Everyone else can go eat cake.
Sorry, I forgot...

BTW... When employers, who pay little to nothing in taxes don't provide healthcare, the rest of us middle class folks have to pick up the tab through our tax dollars. Oh, but then again, I forgot that the rich are entitled to use up the lions share of social services that they don't even pay for.
Darn... there I am forgetting my place in society again.

As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.


edit on 11/15/2012 by defcon5 because: (no reason given)


how do employers pay little to nothing in taxes, are you kidding me? please show me these magical loop holes so i can jump on board. And lets pretend thats the case, WHO CARES. good for him if he can get out of paying taxes.

Why is it the burden of a privet citizen to provide healthcare to someone else at his expense at political gun point?

what are these lion shares of social services? i dont see "rich" people taking the city bus to work.

These talking points wont get past me.

government was not intended to take the place of privet charities.
edit on 15-11-2012 by camaro68ss because: (no reason given)
edit on 15-11-2012 by camaro68ss because: (no reason given)
edit on 15-11-2012 by camaro68ss because: (no reason given)


Here's your proof:
1) Exxon Mobil made $19 billion in profits in 2009. Exxon not only paid no federal income taxes, it actually received a $156 million rebate from the IRS, according to its SEC filing
Bank of America received a $1.9 billion tax refund from the IRS last year, although it made $4.4 billion in profits and received a bailout from the Federal Reserve and the Treasury Department of nearly $1 trillion.



3) Over the past five years, while General Electric made $26 billion in profits in the United States, it received a $4.1 billion refund from the IRS.



4) Chevron received a $19 million refund from the IRS last year after it made $10 billion in profits in 2009.



5) Boeing, which received a $30 billion contract from the Pentagon to build 179 airborne tankers, got a $124 million refund from the IRS last year.



6) Valero Energy, the 25th largest company in America with $68 billion in sales last year received a $157 million tax refund check from the IRS and, over the past three years, it received a $134 million tax break from the oil and gas manufacturing tax deduction.



7) Goldman Sachs in 2008 only paid 1.1 percent of its income in taxes even though it earned a profit of $2.3 billion and received an almost $800 billion from the Federal Reserve and U.S. Treasury Department.



8) Citigroup last year made more than $4 billion in profits but paid no federal income taxes. It received a $2.5 trillion bailout from the Federal Reserve and U.S. Treasury.



9) ConocoPhillips, the fifth largest oil company in the United States, made $16 billion in profits from 2007 through 2009, but received $451 million in tax breaks through the oil and gas manufacturing deduction.



10) Over the past five years, Carnival Cruise Lines made more than $11 billion in profits, but its federal income tax rate during those years was just 1.1 percent.
blogs.suntimes.com...

By the way these are only the top ten.
edit on 15-11-2012 by FreebirdGirl because: (no reason given)



yeah those companys should pay but your lumping these Fortune 100 companies to main street businesses. Main street businesses don’t have the loop holes like that. those fortune 100 companies pay GOVERNMENT congress man off to write the tax code in there favor. Again GOVERNMENTS fault for making those loop holes. the same government your trusting your healthcare and life with.
edit on 15-11-2012 by camaro68ss because: (no reason given)



reply posted on 15-11-2012 @ 10:49 PM by Raist
reply to post by camaro68ss


Some times apples are orange right? Or is that just the GMO crap the government wants us to eat?


Raist


reply posted on 15-11-2012 @ 11:04 PM by Grimpachi
Originally posted by Raist
reply to post by Grimpachi


The only way it hurts the employees is if people like you do not go there.

Plain and simple your action of not going there will hurt employees more. He will likely fire some if he loses business the keep from losing money. The actions of not going there could put a someone out of a job.


If he were a jerk as you claim he would cut hour, fire people or simply pay the fine for not providing it. He is providing it keeping his employees and not cutting their hours. He is upfront and saying why he is charging the extra.

Sure you can go elsewhere and pay the same with someone hiding the real increase costs. After all we have a corrupt government why do we need honest business owners.


Raist


Well I have to say we have come to an impasse because I disagree with everything you just said except the part about the government being corrupt on that we agree.

Side note:

One thing I find peculiar is just how he came to the conclusion that it will cost him 5% more in sales while most big businesses haven’t even been able to accurately forecast their additional cost. Could it be that part of that 5% will simply be profit in which case he is being fraudulent to the public? If that is the case then your assertion about him just being upfront would be off base. Just so I am being clear I do not believe he is just being upfront I think he is just being an @ hole.


reply posted on 15-11-2012 @ 11:12 PM by Ahabstar
So let me get this straight. People are not going to go there because he is going to charge 5% in order to insure his employees. So by not going there, he will be forced to make cuts (typically labor costs) in order to afford to insure his remaining employees. And as more people refuse to patron the business, eventually the business will close. Of course the formally employed will not be patrons at other places of business, which in turn forces layoffs and business closures elsewhere. And since the other businesses are making adjustments due to decreased revenues, they likely won't be hired elsewhere. Thus in the end, none of the people that were employed by this guy will have insurance and will have to seek out medicaid or other government doled insurance programs.

Who exactly is the greedy and heartless again?

As for me, I won't be a patron to his places either, not because of the 5% surcharge but because I don't live in the area. And for the record, Denny's tends to have good breakfast items without the bulk prepared taste of a McDonald's. And breakfast items are all I ever eat at a Denny's. As for Dairy Queen, I go for the ice cream, the food is meh and overpriced for the taste.

Not that it matters if it is a hidden cost increase or a spelled out surcharge, the expense of having to comply with Obamacare means I won't be eating out as much anyway. As will many people. Especially those like myself that are single.

And that is the point that should be addressed. Added costs of living stagnate the economy. Obamacare is going to hurt far more people than it helps.


reply posted on 15-11-2012 @ 11:15 PM by elouina
Originally posted by FreebirdGirl

Wrong
Link-Up program, created way back in 1984 during Reagan, initially targeted at providing landlines, so poor people who can't otherwise afford it have some connection with the world, and has been an item on your phone bill for more than two decades now. When cell phones became the norm, the program expanded to include them with carrier service as well, and was renamed Lifeline, since the idea was that everybody has access to the 911 emergency service at all times.

That was, however, done back in 2008, before Obama took office, without regards for the ballooning costs, which mushroomed from $772 million in 2008, to $1.6 billion last year for the Lifeline program's more than 10 million low-income subscribers. A 2011 audit revealed that 269, 000 of them were receiving free phone and service from two or more carriers.
www.phonearena.com...


Ok Obamaphones.... Here it is straight from the horses mouth. Like I said this was created to SUBSIDIZE (discount) phone service. It was originally created for landlines only, then later modified in 2008 to SUBSIDIZE both wireless and land lines. Not pay for a cell phone and service entirely like it was changed to in 2009. In fact you will be pleased to know that it was modified even further under Obama to include broadband! Not certain what all happened with this...


Low-Income Program participation and support payments have increased since 2005 due to many factors. Program participation was stable from 2005 to 2008, from 6.9 million to 7.1 million participants, but increased to 8.6 million in 2009. Likewise, support payments were relatively stable from 2005 to 2008, from $802 million to $823 million annually, before increasing to approximately $1 billion in 2009. The increases in 2009 were primarily due to the addition of a prepaid wireless service option in certain states, which allows program participants to obtain a free wireless handset and an allotment of free minutes each month. The Low-Income Program has no funding cap and USAC officials project its support payments to reach $1.4 billion in 2010. They said participation and payments will likely continue to increase beyond 2010 as prepaid wireless service options become available in additional states.


According to USAC and FCC officials and other stakeholders, such as the Florida Public Service Commission, increases in Lifeline in 2009 were primarily due to the addition of free, prepaid wireless cell service by TracFone. Instead of discounting a monthly telephone bill for Lifeline service, TracFone’s Lifeline service (SafeLink Wireless) converts the total amount of the USF subsidy into an allotment of free minutes each month. The company provides a free handset and offers an option of three calling plans that provide from 68 to 250 usage minutes per month with no contracts, recurring fees, or monthly charges.48 Consumers may purchase additional usage minutes for $0.20 per minute.49


Improved Management Can Enhance FCC Decision Making for the Universal Service Fund Low-Income Program - PDF file

Originally posted by FreebirdGirl
Please tell me what in my post gave you the impression that I want a welfare state? No disrespect but your ranting sounds like a sound bite you heard on a radio or talk show.


You gave me the impression that you were all for Obamacare and free Obamaphones. Thus why you were defending both.



reply posted on 15-11-2012 @ 11:26 PM by elouina
Originally posted by defcon5
reply to post by windword


Don't sweat it...
This entitled moron is going to learn the heard way that its us little 'surfs' that made him rich to begin with. Customers will simply not patronize his businesses when they see his attitude toward the 'little guy'.


Denny's was in first place as a restaurant most likely to file for bankruptcy in Dec 2011. How are the little smurfs making him rich when he is on a ledge ready to fall. He barely makes it this far, then along comes Obamacare. What do you think happens next to such a fragile company? And all the others on the top 14 list in my post? Wouldn't you be angry if you were in his shoes?

The economy can't afford Obamacare.
edit on 15-11-2012 by elouina because: (no reason given)



reply posted on 15-11-2012 @ 11:31 PM by Thepump
Originally posted by Americanist
Originally posted by CALGARIAN
I GUESS Papa John is doing the SAME THING!!



Take two:



Scratched a couple of places off my dining experience list.


Word, $%#$# that greedy buster!

I'd rather eat dog meat.


reply posted on 15-11-2012 @ 11:32 PM by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by CALGARIAN


Except jobs are hard to come by. If only the politicians would see how their policies affect people and business owners, workers and everybody. Bascially, the restaurant owner is passing the cost on to his customers. If his customers don't like it he will lose business.


reply posted on 15-11-2012 @ 11:36 PM by Thepump
Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by CALGARIAN


Except jobs are hard to come by. If only the politicians would see how their policies affect people and business owners, workers and everybody. Bascially, the restaurant owner is passing the cost on to his customers. If his customers don't like it he will lose business.


I don't like that he is such a petty bastard -

I wouldn't eat there based on that


reply posted on 15-11-2012 @ 11:38 PM by elouina
reply to post by Americanist


Wow you are right, such a man would be sooo very evil. Except for one small problem. Papa Johns are individually owned franchises that pay 5% of their net sales to the main corporation. Plus they also have to pay up to 7% of net sales for those advertising promos. So the big Papa says free pizzas for everybody, and the mom and pop franchise owner has to jump. Which may mean mom and pop don't get to pay their homes mortgage that month.
edit on 15-11-2012 by elouina because: (no reason given)



reply posted on 15-11-2012 @ 11:39 PM by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by Thepump




I don't like that he is such a petty bastard -


You miss the point entirely. Do you know the guy personally? Do you know what his proift margin is which is necessary just to stay alive? Are you a business owner and know what it entails? I bet not. He is telling it like it is, and I imagine we will see more of this in the near future. Obamacare has to go, it is hurting everyone.
Pages: <<  13    14    15    16    17    18    19  >>    ^^TOP^^



A Really Sad Picture That I Saw Today, Left Me Speechless
  Posted 12 days ago with 148 member flags
Fact Check: First Lady\'s False Fairy Tale of Struggle
  Posted 6 days ago with 81 member flags
Coal miners say they were forced to attend Romney event and donate
  Posted 14 days ago with 71 member flags
Stephen King\'s Message
  Posted 10 days ago with 71 member flags
Paul Ryan Exposes Elite Agenda, "Shut Up" Says Banker
  Posted 10 days ago with 40 member flags