Some hope Papa John's would raise their prices even more http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/1...ef=mostpopular
Mystifies me that anyone ever believes that a tax on a business doesn't become a tax on everyone else through an increase in the cost of the products that company provides. Owners of a business, whether corporate or individual, set a profit margin, and when costs increase they raise the price of their product or go out of business.
To put that in terms of the middle class, if your boss cuts your pay by 10% and that amount does not allow you to meet your costs of living, you take action. Either you cut your expenses or you look for a better-paying job. If the small business owner cannot lower his costs, then he has to raise his prices for his product.
Putting an additional tax on medical devices will not reduce the cost of health care, will it? Lowering reimbursement for such devices (Medicare reductions, for example) will not help either ... unless Medicare is currently reimbursing for those devices at an inflated rate (maybe it is?) At best, the two actions are offsetting, and the result is zero change.
Right now, many who get health care they can't pay for do so by those who can afford to pay (higher health insurance rates for those who can pay for it, or whose employer pays for it). This will not change, except now there will be more people receiving subsidies for their health insurance than before ... while those actually working & paying (due to unemployment levels) keep getting smaller.
Interesting take from Forbes about if the NFL should drop papa johns as a sponsor.
Regarding your first two sentences, the thing you are leaving out of the profit margin equation is the fact that government benefits like Medicare and food stamps are directly subsidizing the profit margins of many large and small businesses. A lot of the people on food stamp and medicaid work full and part time jobs at low wages. For example, do a search on "walmart medicaid" or "walmart food stamps". You find facts like:
- 20% of the employees at the nation's largest employer do not have health insurance
- Wal-Mart's employees rely on $2.66 billion in government help every year, or about $420,000 per store.
- In state after state, Wal-Mart employees are the top recipients of Medicaid.
- As many as 80 percent of workers in Wal-Mart stores use food stamps.
- Ironically, WalMart is the largest recipient of food stamp dollars. For example in OK over half of all food stamp dollars are spent at walmart.
- The costs to taxpayers is $202 million annually for medicaid coverage alone.
-Wal-Mart does increase Medicaid expenditures for the rest of us by roughly $898 per worker
- Walmart makes 15 billion in profit each year.
I guess that they have decided that 15 billion is their margin so that is a good justification to pass many of their employees health care and food costs on to the rest of us or else they will "go out of business". Great system. Especially when the right wing entertainment complex has most of the people around this board convinced that it is all the employees fault for being on food stamps.
I would bet that many employees at Papa John's follow this same pattern. The question to ask, is whether it is worth paying $0.07 more per pizza or losing that much in revenue so that the employees have some health coverage? The owner of Papa John's apparently does not think it is worth it. Actually, from what I have read, he has no intentions of providing coverage, he is outraged that he will have to pay the penalty.
So, are you concerned about these subsidize? and how do you propose that we stop subsidizing the profit margins of these companies by the government providing their employees with medical insurance and food stamps?
Please explain to the forum how medicare entered into this conversation - the folks on it paid for it & additionally pay a monthly fee - or don't you know what you are addressing?
The owner of Papa John's has a right to run his business as he sees fit - most of his employees are in an age bracket where, if they were to enroll, they would be subsidizing some one else. Makes a lot of sense for a minimum wage person to be doing that :).
The OP was about Papa John's, how did Wally World get into this, but it is a topic worthy of it's own post - why don't you put it up.
IMO - the hardest constituency to wean from these programs will be those, such as yourself, who enjoy a very nice life style based on regulating & taxing other's hard work.
Medicare never did enter the conversation.
I interjected Wally World to illustrate the concept that businesses regularly externalize some of their costs on the public. Gerry brought up the need to achieve some sort of profit margin. I responded. If you do not think that we are subsidizing the profits of these companies by publicly financing their employees benefits, please show some evidence.
Yes, young people subsidize the old in an insurance program. As you know that's what the whole concept of pooling risk is about. If they did not, then no one could afford insurance when they were old. You also know that people without insurance still get medical care but those of us with insurance are covering the costs of their care and their bankruptcies.
I am not on any of these programs and never have been. Good to know they are there in when they are needed. I have no authority to regulate or tax anyone.