CONCERNED - Corporate America is NOT Confirming President Trumps Tax-Cut Promises.

a reply to: rickymouse

Md's manipulated coffee temp in the Bunn makers. It increases breakfast sales. There were 700 complaints (if I remember correctly it's been a while) of coffee temps/burns.
www.youtube.com...

Some finer points from the actual case. It was about profit.

By corporate specifications, McDonald's sells its coffee at 180 to 190 degrees Fahrenheit;

Coffee at that temperature, if spilled, causes third-degree burns (the skin is burned away down to the muscle/fatty-tissue layer) in two to seven seconds;

Third-degree burns do not heal without skin grafting, debridement and whirlpool treatments that cost tens of thousands of dollars and result in permanent disfigurement, extreme pain and disability of the victim for many months, and in some cases, years

The chairman of the department of mechanical engineering and bio-mechanical engineering at the University of Texas testified that this risk of harm is unacceptable, as did a widely recognized expert on burns, the editor in chief of the leading scholarly publication in the specialty, the Journal of Burn Care and Rehabilitation;

McDonald's admitted that it has known about the risk of serious burns from its scalding hot coffee for more than 10 years -- the risk was brought to its attention through numerous other claims and suits, to no avail;

From 1982 to 1992, McDonald's coffee burned more than 700 people, many receiving severe burns to the genital area, perineum, inner thighs, and buttocks;

Not only men and women, but also children and infants, have been burned by McDonald's scalding hot coffee, in some instances due to inadvertent spillage by McDonald's employees;

At least one woman had coffee dropped in her lap through the service window, causing third-degree burns to her inner thighs and other sensitive areas, which resulted in disability for years;

Witnesses for McDonald's admitted in court that consumers are unaware of the extent of the risk of serious burns from spilled coffee served at McDonald's required temperature;

McDonald's admitted that it did not warn customers of the nature and extent of this risk and could offer no explanation as to why it did not;

McDonald's witnesses testified that it did not intend to turn down the heat -- As one witness put it: “No, there is no current plan to change the procedure that we're using in that regard right now;”

McDonald's admitted that its coffee is “not fit for consumption” when sold because it causes severe scalds if spilled or drunk;
Liebeck's treating physician testified that her injury was one of the worst scald burns he had ever seen.

www.ttla.com...

originally posted by: carewemust
November 27, 2017

RE: www.whitehouse.gov...

We're told by the Republican Congress, and President Trump, that the permanent Corporate Tax Cut from 35% to 20%, will cause American Companies to:

1. Keep Jobs in the USA.

2. Bring Jobs Back to the USA.

3. Cause corporations to hire more people.

4. Bring over $4 TRILLION dollars back to America that's parked overseas.

5. Entice foreign corporations to create Jobs in America.

When President Obama was "selling" the Affordable Care Act, a.k.a. "ObamaCare", he had events on the White House lawn, where top people in the medical field, took to the microphone to endorse the ACA.

The SILENCE from corporate leaders about their plans for the financial windfall they will experience with Tax Reform, is starting to sound alarm bells.

If business leaders are planning on doing all the things that President Trump/Republicans are promising the American people, shouldn't they be speaking up in droves?

Wouldn't President Trump have these CEO's at the White House at least once, for an event where they gleefully describe how this huge tax-cut will cause them to make Americans and America extremely prosperous, just like the President promises?

I hate to say this...but with the Tax-Reform bill already passed by the HOUSE, and scheduled to be voted on this week by the SENATE, I'm smelling a RAT. Maybe it's because I work with large corporations, and don't trust them to act in the best interest of the USA and employees.

Even though I'll personally pay MORE in Federal Income Taxes, due to the elimination of many business-related deductions, I'm willing to do so, if the Corporations plow their additional Trillions of Dollars back into the economy. But the closer we get to having this package passed and signed into law, the more worrisome this silence from corporate leaders is becoming.

Does anyone else have this feeling? Or am I merely being overly pessimistic and suspicious?

-CareWeMust

When President Obama had events on the White House lawn, where top people in the medical field, took to the microphone to endorse the ACA.... it was nothing but political theater ... we now can see that with hindsight.

If Trump where to hold events on the White House lawn, with top people in the business field taking to the microphone to endorse the tax cuts ... You would probably start a post about it was nothing more than political theater ... And you'd be right.

But the real reason business leaders are not taking to microphones to endorse or disagree with the tax cuts is because, unlike doctors, business leaders have to save their brand from risk. There simply no upside for going out on that lim for them.

a reply to: seasonal

The coffee pots must be adjustable to do that, there should be limitations on how hot they go. I think that is a problem on the part of the manufacturers of the machines and the government for not having a maximum temperature that the coffee in a restaurant can be.

Hopefully our government is now regulating this, they regulate the temperature of water coming out of faucets in public buildings, they regulate the shower temperatures.

The thing with this is that when you buy food that is hot, you need to be careful. I don't even like really hot coffee, I burn my mouth then can't taste anything afterwards. This is a problem with society wanting real hot coffee, that is not a McDs problem. But they are liable and the woman should have gotten compensated, but not that much. Remember, off that multi-million dollar lawsuit, the lawyers got half. They probably spread info that got public opinion on their side so they could win the case.

a reply to: rickymouse

In Michigan the Lawyers would have gotten 30%.

This was a jury trial, and I think the award was high enough to make Mcd's clean up their act. Do you think this lead to an increase in a Big Mac's costs?

McDonalds even said their coffee was not fit for consuming, it was close to boiling when served.

originally posted by: nwtrucker

originally posted by: carewemust
November 27, 2017

RE: www.whitehouse.gov...

We're told by the Republican Congress, and President Trump, that the permanent Corporate Tax Cut from 35% to 20%, will cause American Companies to:

1. Keep Jobs in the USA.

2. Bring Jobs Back to the USA.

3. Cause corporations to hire more people.

4. Bring over $4 TRILLION dollars back to America that's parked overseas.

5. Entice foreign corporations to create Jobs in America.

When President Obama was "selling" the Affordable Care Act, a.k.a. "ObamaCare", he had events on the White House lawn, where top people in the medical field, took to the microphone to endorse the ACA.

The SILENCE from corporate leaders about their plans for the financial windfall they will experience with Tax Reform, is starting to sound alarm bells.

If business leaders are planning on doing all the things that President Trump/Republicans are promising the American people, shouldn't they be speaking up in droves?

Wouldn't President Trump have these CEO's at the White House at least once, for an event where they gleefully describe how this huge tax-cut will cause them to make Americans and America extremely prosperous, just like the President promises?

I hate to say this...but with the Tax-Reform bill already passed by the HOUSE, and scheduled to be voted on this week by the SENATE, I'm smelling a RAT. Maybe it's because I work with large corporations, and don't trust them to act in the best interest of the USA and employees.

Even though I'll personally pay MORE in Federal Income Taxes, due to the elimination of many business-related deductions, I'm willing to do so, if the Corporations plow their additional Trillions of Dollars back into the economy. But the closer we get to having this package passed and signed into law, the more worrisome this silence from corporate leaders is becoming.

Does anyone else have this feeling? Or am I merely being overly pessimistic and suspicious?

-CareWeMust

Of course not! They have competition to contend with. Both within the U.S. and international competition.

If you need evidence of the approval-I sure don't- look to the market values. Look to the commitments resulting from President Trump's Asian trip.

Of course not all corporations even want Trump to succeed. Yes, even with a significant tax cut, many would likely prefer the TPP and it's far larger potential profit than a 'mere' 15%.

Then with a 15% tax cut the competition will use that to cut prices to win business from the 'big boys'. ( I can't wait for that to happen.) The big boys will be forced to match those cuts in prices to maintain their business volume.

There goes their 'profit' gains by the tax cuts.

The winner is us.

Thank-you! Your insight is always reassuring, NWTrucker.

originally posted by: rickymouse
a reply to: seasonal

The coffee pots must be adjustable to do that, there should be limitations on how hot they go. I think that is a problem on the part of the manufacturers of the machines and the government for not having a maximum temperature that the coffee in a restaurant can be.

Hopefully our government is now regulating this, they regulate the temperature of water coming out of faucets in public buildings, they regulate the shower temperatures.

The thing with this is that when you buy food that is hot, you need to be careful. I don't even like really hot coffee, I burn my mouth then can't taste anything afterwards. This is a problem with society wanting real hot coffee, that is not a McDs problem. But they are liable and the woman should have gotten compensated, but not that much. Remember, off that multi-million dollar lawsuit, the lawyers got half. They probably spread info that got public opinion on their side so they could win the case.

What are you even talking about? Pots hold the contents, they don't heat up the coffee..

No government regulation needed. Serve coffee at a normal temperature or deal with the legal consequence's.

originally posted by: seasonal
a reply to: rickymouse

In Michigan the Lawyers would have gotten 30%.

This was a jury trial, and I think the award was high enough to make Mcd's clean up their act. Do you think this lead to an increase in a Big Mac's costs?

McDonalds even said their coffee was not fit for consuming, it was close to boiling when served.

Not according to this artical.

www.todayifoundout.com...

McDonald's admited that the coffee was a hazard, not that it was not fit for consumption. Of course it was a hazard; it was hot coffee.

Also according to this artical the damages paid out (much less than what was awarded) was not enough to make make McDonald's change the temperature of the coffee. They and the industry at large still serve coffee at 180f ... because that's how the consumer likes it.

The artical suggests that McDonald's only lost the lawsuit because they came off as callous to the injured party rather than because of a technical mistake in coffee preparation.

originally posted by: seasonal
a reply to: carewemust

Got to go where the $$$ is. And I would be more interested in % of earnings.

Top 20% of Earners Pay 84% of Income Tax
www.wsj.com...

A flat tax is the only way to solve this, and there is no way a very wealthy earner (billionaire) is going to allow (lobby) for that.

Oh..that's the ratio: 20% pay 84% of income tax. Thanks!

Also, I see here: www.forbes.com... that 45% of Individuals/Corporations pay NO taxes.

This thread is dumb. Silence is acceptance. Corporate tax decreases are going to benefit middle class Americans more than additional government programs.

originally posted by: seasonal
a reply to: rickymouse

In Michigan the Lawyers would have gotten 30%.

This was a jury trial, and I think the award was high enough to make Mcd's clean up their act. Do you think this lead to an increase in a Big Mac's costs?

McDonalds even said their coffee was not fit for consuming, it was close to boiling when served.

Thirty percent only applies to some lawsuits, like car insurance and the such. Even if it is thirty percent though, the lawyers can add costs to the mix. They can call in more lawyers and bill their rate too, the thirty percent limit does not cover expenses, they are separate.

Remember, the rules governing lawyers were written by...................

a reply to: rickymouse


I would like to delve further into your post and ask a couple of questions, but they would totally be off-topic for this thread. Maybe another time. Appreciate your input though!

originally posted by: carewemust

originally posted by: seasonal
a reply to: carewemust

Got to go where the $$$ is. And I would be more interested in % of earnings.

Top 20% of Earners Pay 84% of Income Tax
www.wsj.com...

A flat tax is the only way to solve this, and there is no way a very wealthy earner (billionaire) is going to allow (lobby) for that.

Oh..that's the ratio: 20% pay 84% of income tax. Thanks!

Also, I see here: www.forbes.com... that 45% of Individuals/Corporations pay NO taxes.

Yep, the poor walk around with $800 cell phones and fake nails while not paying an ounce into the tax system. Boohoo.

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: rickymouse


I would like to delve further into your post and ask a couple of questions, but they would totally be off-topic for this thread. Maybe another time. Appreciate your input though!

Yeah, this is actually really off topic, I should refrain myself.

originally posted by: Throes
This thread is dumb. Silence is acceptance. Corporate tax decreases are going to benefit middle class Americans more than additional government programs.

Ignorance is bliss eh, had you taken the red pill you might have a different view.

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

originally posted by: Throes
This thread is dumb. Silence is acceptance. Corporate tax decreases are going to benefit middle class Americans more than additional government programs.

Ignorance is bliss eh, had you taken the red pill you might have a different view.

I've been poor so don't go there.

a reply to: rickymouse

The coffee pots must be adjustable to do that, there should be limitations on how hot they go.

195-200 degrees is the standard temp for brewing coffee in a commercial setting. Typically you are supposed to let it sit 10-30 minutes to cool depending on the type of holding container used.

a reply to: Throes

Then your not paying attention, cuts to corporations do not benefit the people, they benefit the shareholders.

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed
a reply to: Throes

Then your not paying attention, cuts to corporations do not benefit the people, they benefit the shareholders.

No, they benefit the workers. Lowering operating costs gives incentives to business to hire more people to also create more profit.

originally posted by: DanDanDat

originally posted by: carewemust
November 27, 2017

RE: www.whitehouse.gov...

We're told by the Republican Congress, and President Trump, that the permanent Corporate Tax Cut from 35% to 20%, will cause American Companies to:

1. Keep Jobs in the USA.

2. Bring Jobs Back to the USA.

3. Cause corporations to hire more people.

4. Bring over $4 TRILLION dollars back to America that's parked overseas.

5. Entice foreign corporations to create Jobs in America.

When President Obama was "selling" the Affordable Care Act, a.k.a. "ObamaCare", he had events on the White House lawn, where top people in the medical field, took to the microphone to endorse the ACA.

The SILENCE from corporate leaders about their plans for the financial windfall they will experience with Tax Reform, is starting to sound alarm bells.

If business leaders are planning on doing all the things that President Trump/Republicans are promising the American people, shouldn't they be speaking up in droves?

Wouldn't President Trump have these CEO's at the White House at least once, for an event where they gleefully describe how this huge tax-cut will cause them to make Americans and America extremely prosperous, just like the President promises?

I hate to say this...but with the Tax-Reform bill already passed by the HOUSE, and scheduled to be voted on this week by the SENATE, I'm smelling a RAT. Maybe it's because I work with large corporations, and don't trust them to act in the best interest of the USA and employees.

Even though I'll personally pay MORE in Federal Income Taxes, due to the elimination of many business-related deductions, I'm willing to do so, if the Corporations plow their additional Trillions of Dollars back into the economy. But the closer we get to having this package passed and signed into law, the more worrisome this silence from corporate leaders is becoming.

Does anyone else have this feeling? Or am I merely being overly pessimistic and suspicious?

-CareWeMust

When President Obama had events on the White House lawn, where top people in the medical field, took to the microphone to endorse the ACA.... it was nothing but political theater ... we now can see that with hindsight.

If Trump where to hold events on the White House lawn, with top people in the business field taking to the microphone to endorse the tax cuts ... You would probably start a post about it was nothing more than political theater ... And you'd be right.

But the real reason business leaders are not taking to microphones to endorse or disagree with the tax cuts is because, unlike doctors, business leaders have to save their brand from risk. There simply no upside for going out on that lim for them.

The medical field (drugs, devices, hospitals, best doctors, insurance companies, etc.) are doing FANTASTIC due to ObamaCare wealth-transfer mechanisms. And they'll do even better when the Health Insurance Tax goes into effect on most Americans, 35 days from now. That's why they dispatch multiple weapons (media, protestors, lobbyists) when any type of ObamaCare repeal, or roll-back is close to passage.

If Trump hosted an event where the CEOs of multi-national corporations described what the Tax Plan will enable them to do, I wouldn't mock them. They'd be on public record. Staying QUIET is worse than speaking out either FOR or AGAINST something that relies on our tax dollars.

Thanks for your opinion however. That's what I ask for.

originally posted by: Throes

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed
a reply to: Throes

Then your not paying attention, cuts to corporations do not benefit the people, they benefit the shareholders.

No, they benefit the workers. Lowering operating costs gives incentives to business to hire more people to also create more profit.

Haha good one, you should do stand up.