Restaurant Owner to Imposes Surcharge For Obamacare

Originally posted by CALGARIAN
RIDICULOUS!

If I, or my daughter, worked at Denny's and this was passed off I'd immediately quit but not before speaking my mind.

Epitome of greed. The man owns 20 GODDAMN restaurants.

EVERYONE is going to have to chip in to make this a reality. I pay 30% of my gross pay to taxes, about 800$ every 2 weeks, but I don't complain. My brother just had massive brain surgery in Eastern Canada (free, btw) which would have cost 380k in the U.S, so I don't mind paying my cut.

That'd be the difference between Canada and the United States. In Canada you pay 30% and you have decent infrastructure and health care and basic needs. In America we pay 30% and have #ty and very expensive health care and terrible infrastructure and 20-25% poverty. Don't worry the same thing Mexico is doing the USA, The USA is about to do to Canada. People will leave because it is impossible to over turn the corruption without a civil war. Same spot Mexico is in.

Originally posted by macman

Originally posted by Indigo5

Originally posted by macman

Who owns the business?

Indigo5



More to the point is the is nature of the difference. Is a waiter or cook less deserving of getting treated for cancer than the business owner?

You have still failed to answer this direct question.

No you are engaging in distraction. Asking who owns the business is as idiotic a question as...who is driving the car...the passenger or the driver? Honestly if you don't know the answer to your own question then you have a cognitive handicap of some kind. I assumed you weren't mentally disabled and were making a point in the context of the argument that somehow the business owner through thier personal risk and investment is entitled to perogative and perks that his emplyee is not...and that is true..in the form of profit for that risk. BUT you extend that to healthcare and the idea that somehow since he owns that business he is more deserving of recieving medical treatment than his employees...and that is false and frankly disgusting logic. He is no more deserving of getting treated for cancer than his wait staff...cancer is not part of the capitalistic equation because it cares not for wealth or investment, it kills indiscriminately...not only the lazy...not only the poor or rich...it doesn't give a ef who you are or how hard you work and that is why the GOPs "free-market" let the poor die, darwinian view of healthcare is BS at it's very core. Healthcare costs were the #1 cause of bankruptcey in the USA for the past decade...even during the mortgage crisis...healthcare costs remained the number one cause of bankruptcy.

reply to post by Phagette

Originally posted by Phagette
reply to post by windword

 

It is misconception that your employer will be required to pay any part of your premium. First of all, if, and only if, a company employs 50 people or more, then it must OFFER a plan or coverage. The employee can be asked to pay for the entirety of the plan. If the cheapest plan possible is more than 8% of the employee's income, then the employee wont be compelled to purchase it, cannot be taxed/fined for not purchasing it and in fact will be offered a tax credit if that employee still decides to purchase it. If the cheapest plan possible is more than 9.5% of the employee's earnings, then the employer is penalized BUT NOT FOR THE FIRST 30 PEOPLE IT SCREWS OVER. The company gets a pass on the fine for the first 30 people. Every person after that though for whom the cheapest plan possible would cost the employee more than 9.5% of their income, then the company is fined.

Which brings me back to the present and the reality of restaurants. In my experience (and I'm sure the experience of most of my friends and family still in the restaurant biz), restaurants rarely offer insurance to servers, much less to dishwashers and other back of the house people. My boyfriend works as the controller for a company that manages 8 bars and restaurants and his company used to be very much the same. Only managers and officers (like vice president, etc) were offered insurance, and even then, the employee paid half of their premiums and all of any additional cost family members added.

In the insurance biz, offering insurance to managers only is called Manager Carve-out and it results in a penalty to the company. In fact, their premiums are higher than if they offered insurance to everyone. So my boyfriend, being the controller (which sounds like a wonderful, god-like job, but really means he's the guy that is expected to know all about the money in/money out, financial reports, and even analyzing profit/loss reports) realized he could actually SAVE the company money if they offered insurance to everyone. After much research, they found three different plans with more or less coverage for more or less money - the employees voted on the cheapest one with the least coverage, especially since they were going to have to pay the entire premium.

So how much did that cost the company? How much of a hit is the owner taking in his own pocket? NOTHING. Well, a few days worth of research and speaking to insurance brokers. And, it actually brought down the cost of premiums for the managers and officers in the company even though they are on a different (better coverage but more expensive) plan.

So I think it's bullshido that this restaurant owner wants to add a 5% surcharge just in case he has to pay something out of pocket when the likelihood is that he (like my boyfriend's boss - come on, all millionaires are the same) will pass the entire bill on to the employees anyway.

Well then what are the employees paying? Between $70-90 per month for single people. $90 per month is 8% of $13,500 per year. And, $90 per month is 9.5% of $11,368. That means, assuming there is no change to insurance premiums (and I have read pretty interesting debates suggesting rates will either go up because insurance companies will now have to insure everyone even the sick or go down because there will be a very large pool of healthy young adults for whom little will have to be paid out), over 30 FULL TIME employees in a company of more than 50 FULL TIME employees will have to earn less than $11,368 and be offered a plan for more than $90 per month before an employer is penalized and that would be only if the employee agrees to purchase the plan, which the employee would not be compelled to because it would cost more than 8% of their income. Even then, the employer is only fined after the first 30 full time employees.

There are a lot of great places to read more about the actual law, but I liked what Kaiser offered:
[PDF]
www.kff.org/healthreform/upload/8061.pdf

BUMP!
I just had to repost this ^.

Thank you for taking the time to give us that very informative post. I didn't know that many employers would actually benefit, on their bottom line, through the ACA, Obamacare.

I certainly am ignorant to the ins and outs of what employers will really be paying and who and many employees they are required to cover, or what kinds of fines would be issues. I'm sure most Americans are too.

This info just reinforces the lengths of douchebaggery politics some people will resort too. As other posters have observed, this guy, Metz, is just throwing a hissy fit tantrum, hoping to gather angst to his side, all the while throwing his servers under the buss!

Thanks!

I wouldn't say it the way he is, but it's a fact of life all business's will raise their prices to cover the extra expense of Oboma care. I would just put on the menue a statement that all prices reflect a 5% increase to cover the cost of Oboma care.

reply to post by Indigo5


WOW. What a lengthy diatribe to a simple question.
Are you afraid to answer it?

Originally posted by camaro68ss
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.

You seriously don't understand this, its been so well documented over the years I cannot imagine how you missed it. Its been a major talking point here on ATS in many of these threads....

According the US Accounting Office:
www.gao.gov...
>60% of both US and foreign controlled corporations paid nothing in taxes from 1998 through 2005.

Look at the amount of corporate tax that is paid on the US budget:
Tax Income
Corporate income comprised 8% of US tax income, as opposed to the 47% paid by us civilians.

For example, GE is now paying somewhere in the neighborhood of -11% taxes, despite its vast income:
Mr. Immelt's $84 Billion
At the same time, their profits climbed from $15billion to $84billion...
Then they want a “tax holiday” claiming that they will “trickle” this back into the US economy, which is nothing more then a lie:

Like the CEOs of most U.S. multinationals, Jeffrey Immelt wants the option of repatriating GE's accumulated $84 billion under the provisions of a temporary tax "holiday" where U.S. tax would only be 5.75 percent instead of the full 35 percent corporate tax rate. Immelt and his CEO brethren argue this will create jobs although evidence from the prior holiday (enacted in 2004) does not support this.

Originally posted by camaro68ss
And lets pretend thats the case, WHO CARES. good for him if he can get out of paying taxes.

When corporations do not pay their employees a fair livable wage, or provide benefits, they force their employees to have to rely on social services to make up the difference. Some companies, for example Walmart, actually hold employee workshops where they show them how to apply for government social services. In effect this means that the US taxpayer is therefore making up the difference so the company can further line its pockets using taxpayers to fund their employees benefits and supplement their salaries to a survivable level.

Again using Walmart as an example because their numbers are easy to find. UC Berkley did research into this, and actually found that every Walmart store costs the US taxpayer somewhere in the range of $400K/year to supliment their employees benefits, while at the same time the corporation is earning record profits. This amounts to nothing short of theft from the American taxpayer...

Look this stuff up yourself, the numbers do not lie...

Originally posted by camaro68ss
Why is it the burden of a privet citizen to provide healthcare to someone else at his expense at political gun point?

If a corporation is not paying their employees a fair livable wage, and no benefits, they are steeling from the US tax payer to make up the difference. Look at it as though employees are little corporations unto themselves, they deserve to make a profit each year that they work to make your company a profit. They are the ones making you your money, despite the entitled riches feelings that they are simply something to be exploited by those who feel they are superior and entitled to exploit the US workforce for their own profit. That's all this really comes down too, the rich feel that they are entitled to exploit those with less power and assets them themselves...

Originally posted by Tbrooks76
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan

 

i don't think a 5% percent markup would cover anything.
I don't know now days, but about 12 years ago in Texas when I was helping run a business the markup on person wages to cover payroll, taxes, workman’s comp, and company insurance (not an individuals) was about 27% and that’s without factoring in overhead or profit which varies and be up to a 50% increase on top of the 27% depending on how much overhead you’re company has.

Its nothing for 10 an hour person to cost the company 20 an hour and not make a profit off them.

This is the reason factories and jobs won't be coming back to america for a very long time.

reply to post by defcon5


That only applies to big corporations, not small business.

Thats their right of course.

Although I would think his clientelle would eat elsewhere due to the rising cost. Customers will eat where the owner isn't pouting and gouging prices. There are plenty of places who's ownership responsibly pay and benefit their employees without whining. There are businesses who do not put profit over employee well being and cost of living.

Eat there


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

reply to post by spinalremain


Until the prices rise at all the other places as well.

The cost of running a business is going up. It is just that this guy is displaying to the customer what that increase is due to.

Originally posted by MegaMind

Originally posted by dogstar23

Originally posted by MegaMind
All this arguing is moot. 2014? really?

I tell you now this country won't survive in its current form to 2014.

The economy will crash before then and at the same time the US will be engaged in WW3.

When 50% or more of the population of the earth is gone through warfare and starvation no one will be thinking about obamacare ...

I know ... I'm a kook, a doom and gloomer, a paranoid, blah blah blah

go back to sleep ... enjoy your nap while you can

edit on 16-11-2012 by MegaMind because: (no reason given)

At least preface by saying something like, "I have a weird feeling that...", or "I had a dream that..." otherwise, might as well juat file this with billions of other statements which have been posted on the internet about the certain demise of the US, whose doom dates have passed.

Its clear people understand very little about how things really work if they truly think the US is in peril.

edit on 11/16/2012 by dogstar23 because: moar!

Yeah everything is just fine and dandy ... please pass the kool-aid, don't be a hog!!

edit on 16-11-2012 by MegaMind because: (no reason given)

Well if ATS is still around after the US collapses completely sometime in the next 13 months, I'll eat my words in a thorough thread discrediting myself for questioning why I got this one wrong, when I've been right about the last 20 years telling people the US wasn't going to collapse within the next year. I keep hearing it, and I'm not sure why, but it never seems to happen.

reply to post by mrnotobc


It applies to anyone that is making a profit via exploiting their workforce to supplement that profit.

For example, I work for a small business. I have not received so much as a cost of living increase in more the seven years, and they have tried to cut my benefits until I actually had to threaten to get both the state an a lawyer involved. They have cut the cost of all their overhead to nothing, are micromanaging the hell out of us, and they are making millions in profits/year (which us employees know since we do the billing), yet they claim no profits. How are they not getting profits? Because they own the building we are in. They charge each division rent. If my division makes $2million that year, we will pay $2million in rent = no profit, raises, or benefits that year. Guess what else... Because they list no profit, and they take all the profit via rent, they also don't have to pay squat for taxes on that money.

Greed and exploitation, nothing more, nothing less...
Don't hand me this, “poor small business owner” crap, because most of these folks are experts at making sure that they won't lose any of their personal profit.

Now on the other hand. My father was the owner of a big manufacturing facility for years. He held the patent on something that almost everyone on this site has used at some point (not going to tell what because its easy to look it up). Anyway, 3M found a way to bypass the patent by altering the manufacture process. My fathers company was struggling to stay afloat, and he never made much off it despite having invented it. For years he drew no personal income from that plant just so he could pay his employees salaries. He stayed in that business, despite that our family were about to have to go live in a cardboard box, just to keep his employees from losing their jobs. If my mother had not gone to work we would have been on the street for sure....

Now how many of these business owners can say that they care enough about their employees to ruin themselves personally just to protect them? I bet that its extremely few and far between...

reply to post by defcon5


So, you know intimately the books and banking of the company?

I hear SO many people talk of the same thing, yet really have no clue as to the operating expenses that the business incurs.

reply to post by windword


John Metz is the type of person who years ago would have been a Dickensonian bad-guy. He was the guy who screamed at Oliver for asking for more. Sorry, Denny's I don't feel for ya! Time to join the civilized western world which has universal healthcare.

Originally posted by defcon5
reply to post by mrnotobc

 

It applies to anyone that is making a profit via exploiting their workforce to supplement that profit.

For example, I work for a small business. I have not received so much as a cost of living increase in more the seven years, and they have tried to cut my benefits until I actually had to threaten to get both the state an a lawyer involved. They have cut the cost of all their overhead to nothing, are micromanaging the hell out of us, and they are making millions in profits/year (which us employees know since we do the billing), yet they claim no profits. How are they not getting profits? Because they own the building we are in. They charge each division rent. If my division makes $2million that year, we will pay $2million in rent = no profit, raises, or benefits that year. Guess what else... Because they list no profit, and they take all the profit via rent, they also don't have to pay squat for taxes on that money.

Greed and exploitation, nothing more, nothing less...
Don't hand me this, “poor small business owner” crap, because most of these folks are experts at making sure that they won't lose any of their personal profit.

Now on the other hand. My father was the owner of a big manufacturing facility for years. He held the patent on something that almost everyone on this site has used at some point (not going to tell what because its easy to look it up). Anyway, 3M found a way to bypass the patent by altering the manufacture process. My fathers company was struggling to stay afloat, and he never made much off it despite having invented it. For years he drew no personal income from that plant just so he could pay his employees salaries. He stayed in that business, despite that our family were about to have to go live in a cardboard box, just to keep his employees from losing their jobs. If my mother had not gone to work we would have been on the street for sure....

Now how many of these business owners can say that they care enough about their employees to ruin themselves personally just to protect them? I bet that its extremely few and far between...

Amazing, I'm moved and impressed. It takes great strength to maintain dignity in both adversity or success. What a blessing to have had such a father!

reply to post by defcon5


something to keep in mind is that while they may not be paying income taxes, they are paying payroll taxes.

Roughly, for every dollar you spend in taxes, your employer spends as well to employ you. It is nearly dollar for dollar between SS EE and SS ER (while MED EE and MED ER are always the same).

There are 5 taxes in the state of Texas related to payroll (FUTA, SUI, Medicare, SS, and FICA) that you pay every pay period. Only 3 include the employee (Medicare, SS, and FICA). I would imagine it is very similar in other states.

Originally posted by macman
So, you know intimately the books and banking of the company?

At my particular company, yes we do.
Its not really too hard to figure out. As I am the only person in my 'division', I do all the ordering, inventory, am aware of what the overhead is, what my personal salary and benefits cost, and what they are charging in profit for it. On top of that we can check what the actual billing is as its entered into the same software that we use for everything we have to do. After that it becomes simple math.

I know about the 'rent trick' from my previous boss, who was a partner in that division, and that he used to complain that he never made a dime out of there because they always made sure that it showed zero profit. Now couple that with the fact that during one of my disputes with them about cutting benefits, they actually let slip about how much rent they were paying, and that we all know that they own that building (paid off, full owners), and have tried to rent out space to other businesses at such inflated prices that no one will rent from them. Also there is a website, I think its called business wiki, which shows every company, and its relation to other companies, and who is the CEO, etc... Its not hard to figure out that the owners made a dummy corporation (with them listed as the CEO's), that is the one charging us rent.

Because its business rent, they only have to pay capital gains (15%) tax on their profit, minus everything they “write-off” for business expenses. Therefore they are most likely not paying any corporate taxes on our business.

Like Starbucks and others that were caught in the UK not paying anything by claiming "zero growth!" I like capitalism but it needs to be regulated.

reply to post by windword
What a bunch of hypocrites!

So it’s ok for Obama-jad to push obamanation care unto Americans against their will, but when a business owner decides to put forth a surcharge to even out the playing field, it’s a problem?

When are you Obama folk going to realize that obamanation care is just another form of welfare? When you take a certain amount of money against peoples will, and put it into a pot to pass onto those less fortunate, its welfare!

I have NO pity for the union workers! I’m going to laugh my azz off when they lose their jobs and run to Little Debbie expecting to make the same amount they’re making now. I guarantee Little Debbie isn’t going to even pay half of what they’re making!

I feel really bad for all the union workers who were happy and grateful for what they had, and are now going to lose their jobs due to the greedy idiots! I can see these inconsiderate ba$turds now, standing in the unemployment line with one thumb in their mouth, and the other up their azz! You made your bed, NOW SLEEP IN IT!

Oh, and one more thing, I HOPE every other business follows suite! If Obama-jad can go against the grain, and force business owners to do his bidding, there’s no reason why business owners can’t oppose him in any way possible. I won’t be surprised if somewhere down the road, Obama puts a law into place making it impossible for business owners to make such a move.

reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan

Believe me I understand that, and it was factored in. In my case, all my benefits equal roughly $20k/year. I believe that certain salary sites will show you not only your average salary, but also average salary + average benefits cost per position.

Its still just a drop in the bucket of their profit, all employees expenses there make up roughly 10% of the overall profit. One of the owners takes roughly 50% of the profit in his salary, and the other takes the remainder in rent (the CEO of the property rental company) so they don't have to pay the extra taxes on that money.

BTW... When I started there, they tried to list me as a contractor, so they didn't have to pay any of that stuff. That was until someone turned them in to the IRS, and for Workmans Comp Fraud. They took the fines, and stopped doing it. I never got back any of the money that it cost me in paying out double taxes though.

Yes, this “act” has been pulled on me at more then one company over the years, which is why I know that its illegal, and who to contact when an employer pulls it.