Restaurant Owner to Imposes Surcharge For Obamacare

page: 7
39
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 15 2012 @ 03:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Indigo5
 


What I am saying just because "somebody runs 2 business yet spend so much time on here" have any idea of what that business owner is dealing with.

That is what.
edit on 15-11-2012 by neo96 because: (no reason given)




posted on Nov, 15 2012 @ 03:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by windword
John Metz owns numerous restaurant outlets and plans to impose a 5% surcharge to each customer's bill to pay for his employees' health care insurance.

www.huffingtonpost.com...

Metz is the franchisor of Hurricane Grill & Wings, which has 48 locations, five of which are corporate owned, and president and owner of RREMC Restaurants, which runs approximately 40 Denny's and several Dairy Queen locations. He planned to use the 5 percent surcharge tactic in all his restaurants starting in January 2014, when Obamacare is fully implemented.


Metz admits that this tactic will effect the tips, which servers rely on as a substantial part of their earnings. So, while servers are already required to share their tips with bussers, bartenders, kitchen staff and the front desk, plus the fact that they are taxed on 8% of their sales in income tax, Metz refuses to bear any financial responsibility himself, or for his bottom line to suffer one iota.


"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,"


This statement really gets my goat! Servers are not greedy, selfish, lazy, enemies of capitalism. Neither are they the primary beneficiaries of Obamacare. There are also the bussers, dishwashers, cooks and preps, hostesses, commissary and warehouse workers, office staff, etc. who's salaries are derived from the customer's check, and who will also benefit from Obamacare.

This "D bag" wants to place the onus of Obamacare squarely on one employee, the server. The earnings of other, non tipped hourly employees will not be effected.

In my opinion, this is class warfare and dirty politics.

What say you ATS? Do you think it's right to make restaurant servers collect this surcharge personally from each customer and deal with their complaints, most likely loosing a good portion of what would have been tipped to them for their good service. Or do you think that the restaurants in question should raise their prices to reflect their rising costs?



edit on 15-11-2012 by windword because: OCD Spelling and Grammar


So class warfare is cool when you want to increase my taxes but not cool when he tries to pass his cost along?

To answer your question, neither. The government should not have mandated anything on the employer. I'm surprised so many people think that if only the government mandates things, things happen without any cost or effort.



posted on Nov, 15 2012 @ 03:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheAngryFarm

Originally posted by Thepump


That's why we need universal healthcare.

It's only a matter of time.


Uh huh, and your plan for universal healthcare includes what measures to make sure the deadbeats and parasites of society actually pay into the fund?


You are already paying for deadbeats and parasites

I tend to think most people are decent, my bad...



posted on Nov, 15 2012 @ 03:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Indigo5

Originally posted by macman

There is the real issue. A society that believes that the Owner and/or Boss is no different then the Worker.
They are different.


Shouted the plantation owner!! ...Sorry, couldn't resist.

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?


Is the waiter or cook less responsible for their own lives than the business owner? Everyone wants something but no-one wants to take responsability for themselves.



posted on Nov, 15 2012 @ 03:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by macman
reply to post by Indigo5
 


So, do tell. How will you recover the rise in overhead and operational costs as taxes increase, material prices go up, Govt fees creep and customers fade?


Not sure where to start with this kind of false premise? Maybe a question?

His beef prices have gone up 100% in the past couple years...how has he dealt with that? vs. his estimation that Obamacare will cost him 5%? and shifting it to the wait staff or consumer?

Well one of the natural answers would be...other restuarants also had to deal with the rising cost of beef...so his competition faces the same challenge...as free markets work...supply, demand, competition. Do other restuarants also face whatever savings or costs will result of Obamacare? How does this effect the competitive landscape? Where actual prices are determined?

Restuarants adjust prices to eek out as much profit while staying competitive with thier competition.

What he has done here is estimate a 5% cost increase (vs. a 100% real world present increase in cost of beef) and decide to go public for that estimated, potential future cost for a political purpose...and apparently look to pass that 5% off as an itemization on a bill aimed at shaming his employees or something else wholey idealogical, but financially retarded.

Again...Social Security? Medicaire? Unemployment insurance? Fluxuating utility costs? Food Prices? all represent a massive...massive amount more in unpredictability and cost...and yet he builds this into his margin, like every other competitor does.

By him singling himself out amongst his competition with this itemization...and by choosing to insert his idealogical tantrum into his business life...Just insanely stupid...and the free-markets...his competitors are already thinking of ways to steal his market share and mistreated employees.
edit on 15-11-2012 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 15 2012 @ 03:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by NavyDoc

Originally posted by Indigo5

Originally posted by macman

There is the real issue. A society that believes that the Owner and/or Boss is no different then the Worker.
They are different.


Shouted the plantation owner!! ...Sorry, couldn't resist.

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?


Is the waiter or cook less responsible for their own lives than the business owner? Everyone wants something but no-one wants to take responsability for themselves.


Yes...of course they are responsible for getting cancer or having a child with autism....



posted on Nov, 15 2012 @ 03:27 PM
link   
reply to post by NavyDoc
 






To answer your question, neither. The government should not have mandated anything on the employer. I'm surprised so many people think that if only the government mandates things, things happen without any cost or effort.


Great! So the restaurant owner should neither add the cost as an itemization, nor should he raise menu prices, because the government shouldn't have mandated the ACA in the first place.

M'kay, thanks for playing.



posted on Nov, 15 2012 @ 03:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by macman
reply to post by FreebirdGirl
 


And yet those people are free to leave the "server" job and work in any other career field.

But, because they are deemed as this poor little person, they must be treated differently.

The person chooses where to work and what work to do. If they don't like it, go do something else.

That is progressing in life, is it not? Thought Liberals were all about being "progressive"?
Oh yeah, it only works if it is for the things they deem important.
edit on 15-11-2012 by macman because: (no reason given)



You can't have it both ways.No help if you can't afford healthcare or food and jobs where the income will not allow you to purchase these needs . Many people work jobs out of neccesity not choice. My choice for a job would be a professional poker player in Aruba.My compromise to make a living is a totally different idea. Choice are you kidding? Maybe you do not personally know anyone who lost their jobs and work wherever they can to feed their families but it is a reality. What if you are a college student? How do you pay for rent and other basic needs? If you work in a job of your choice consider yourself blessed. Most people do not have that luxury and must feed their families.No one wants to be treated differently they only want to be treated as human. Anyone that works a full time job should earn or have access to a place to live, food on the table and healthcare when needed. To deny anyone these needs in inhumane not capitalism. If an employer expects the employee to incur costs due to his declining profits why should the employer not assume costs as well?
as far as name calling I can not speak for conservatives or liberals. My opinions vary by situation so please reserve the labels for someone else.



posted on Nov, 15 2012 @ 03:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Indigo5
 



Originally posted by Indigo5

And while we are at it...No one has answered my question...if he is looking to protect his price by itemizing the paultry, and thus far fictional, estimate of 5% cost....then why hasn't he itemized the MUCH GREATER cost risk to his chain...the increase in beef prices by 100% in the past few years..."Where's the Beef!..Tax"???


First off, he is looking to protect his profit.

Second, what knowledge do you posses of his earnings to back up your claim that his 5% increase is "far fictional" as a means to re-coop the costs of healthcare for his employees?

Not everything has to be itemized. His prices were fixed until "Costs" of doing business went up. You realize that payroll and benefits for your employees falls under the costs of doing business. It is an expense just like over-head...

I am in agreement that itemizing the 5% on the bill (or even announcing it for that matter) is purely a political statement, and in my opinion will ultimately hurt his business.

That said, he can charge whatever he wants.
edit on 15-11-2012 by defuntion because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 15 2012 @ 03:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Indigo5
 


What false premise?

I guess you have a printing press, because what you pitch sounds like either you just absorb the cost with nothing else, or you are not presenting the entire picture.

As SS and Medicare came into the fray, costs went up.
Where they in the form of surcharges? No. but, different times.



You have still failed to answer my direct question.

Who owns the business?



posted on Nov, 15 2012 @ 03:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Indigo5


Yes...of course they are responsible for getting cancer or having a child with autism....


Great, you are now a grown up.
They are not the responsibility of society or the business owner.

Big boy pants are now on. Good job.



posted on Nov, 15 2012 @ 03:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by FreebirdGirl
This guy is a selfish pig. Not because he is a business owner but because he seperates himself from his employees. I am sure he can pay his health premiums but he does not care if his employees can do the same.
If one of these business owner would pull out their profit and loss statement and actually show how the healthcare law impants their ability to maintain their lifestyle I would have sympathy for them. But to make your employees assume all the costs( healthcare,wage stagnation) and risks(right to work states, quality of life) at your gain is evil. It seems business are so use to entitlements they are unwilling to give. One question how does this 5% of sales work when it exceeds what healthcare premiums would have costs? Does the owner pocket the excess as profit?


Alright fair enough, please explain then where this extra 5-10% operating cost is going to come from if not passed along to the consumer.
edit on 15-11-2012 by NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)


What 5-10% increase in operating costs.Surely you do not believe that insurance premiums will equal 5-10% of operating costs do you?



posted on Nov, 15 2012 @ 03:47 PM
link   
reply to post by FreebirdGirl
 


Who made the choice to be a server?
Wasn't me.
I am not there to carry your load in life.
Time to be an adult and make decisions accordingly.

It is sad for those that have lost their jobs. But, it is not my burden to bare.



posted on Nov, 15 2012 @ 03:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Indigo5
 





Well one of the natural answers would be...other restuarants also had to deal with the rising cost of beef...so his competition faces the same challenge...as free markets work...supply, demand, competition. Do other restuarants also face whatever savings or costs will result of Obamacare? How does this effect the competitive landscape? Where actual prices are determined?


Hell of a nerve talking about free markets considering the government force of making the people buy a corporate product healthcare

The antithesis of free market principles.
edit on 15-11-2012 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 15 2012 @ 03:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Indigo5
by choosing to insert his idealogical tantrum into his business life...


The biggest forced insertion here is the one administered by the government. Everyone is supposed to lay back and take it? You may disagree with his method, but I applaud his activism.

Nothing has happened, yet. For all we know, he may be using this to call attention to the situation. We're all being dry humped by the government every day, and y'all are more offended by his proposed 'potential' action than by the bastards who are forcing businesses into these situations.

Price of meat goes up, you either find a more competitive supplier, or alter the menu. You've got NO recourse when the government MANDATES something. Get it yet?

Ideological tantrum. Please. It's a real issue / business life tantrum, and long overdue.



posted on Nov, 15 2012 @ 03:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Indigo5

Originally posted by NavyDoc

Originally posted by Indigo5

Originally posted by macman

There is the real issue. A society that believes that the Owner and/or Boss is no different then the Worker.
They are different.


Shouted the plantation owner!! ...Sorry, couldn't resist.

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?


Is the waiter or cook less responsible for their own lives than the business owner? Everyone wants something but no-one wants to take responsability for themselves.


Yes...of course they are responsible for getting cancer or having a child with autism....


Not any more than the people around them so why demand that someone else cover their costs? Why is the person with the problem considered less responsible than everyone else around him?



posted on Nov, 15 2012 @ 03:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by lonewolf19792000
I'd say share the surcharge with the bartenders, i've known some bartenders who make more money than strippers on their busiest nights.

Yeah it's class warfare, and this guy is a greedy turd and he is setting an example others will follow,


He is greedy for wanting to keep the fruits of his labor and not be forced to give it away because some jackass in DC said so?

The only true greedy people here are those in DC who keep wanting more and more of OUR money.

I am a bartender/bar manager. I usually do very well, in Vegas there were 3 years where I hit 6 figures. After moving to the midwest, naturally my income has come down, but with the lower cost of living, it has scaled relatively well.

Instead of suggesting who should pay more, why arent you questioning the jackasses of a President and those in Congress who passed this steaming pile of crap law in the first place?

I do whatever I can to avoid paying a dime more in taxes, and if it came down to it, I would simply not declare anything at all, and pay nothing to the criminals.



posted on Nov, 15 2012 @ 03:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by windword
reply to post by NavyDoc
 






To answer your question, neither. The government should not have mandated anything on the employer. I'm surprised so many people think that if only the government mandates things, things happen without any cost or effort.


Great! So the restaurant owner should neither add the cost as an itemization, nor should he raise menu prices, because the government shouldn't have mandated the ACA in the first place.

M'kay, thanks for playing.


Nope, just pointnig out the TRUE underlying cause of the problem. Bitch about the restaurant owner all you want, but we all know who caused the problem in the first place. WIthout the government mandate, this would not even be an issue.

M'kay, thanks for playing.



posted on Nov, 15 2012 @ 03:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by macman

Originally posted by Indigo5


Yes...of course they are responsible for getting cancer or having a child with autism....


Great, you are now a grown up.
They are not the responsibility of society or the business owner.

Big boy pants are now on. Good job.


Society pays for it anyways...

Now its time for society to grow up and realize healthcare is a fundamental right.

Then we can all pay for it, like roads, gas lines, telephone poles, Stealth Bombers and the MILITARY.

Unless you should grow up and fund your own military service and healthcare.



posted on Nov, 15 2012 @ 03:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by CALGARIAN


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.



One might think that humans would have evolved beyond the primal animal behavior of: "Survival of the Fittest" - - - in other words ME ME ME - - Screw You.

Obviously Not.






top topics



 
39
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join