The RetrieverTraining.Net Forums The Retriever Academy
Total Retriever Training with Mike Lardy
Hawkeye Media Gunners Up Tritronics Gun Dog Broker
Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst ... 23456 LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 54

Thread: Papa John's

  1. #31
    Senior Member M&K's Retrievers's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Royse City, TX
    Posts
    5,005

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mngundog View Post
    Sorry been there, my description of Campisis would be a good Italian restaurant that also makes a bad pizza. When in Dallas, I would much rather go to the Hard Eight.
    Where is the Hard Eight? Never heard of it.
    M&K's HR UH Tucker of Texoma JH
    M&K's SHR Prime Black Angus
    M&K's Miss Jessie Girl JH
    Sir Jacob of Lakeview-Jake
    Freeway JYD

    Mike Whitworth

  2. #32
    Senior Member duk4me's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    NE Texas
    Posts
    2,877

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by M&K's Retrievers View Post
    Where is the Hard Eight? Never heard of it.
    It's a myth Mike just a myth.
    I have learned I need these dogs much more than they need me. Tim Bockmon

  3. #33
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Detroit Lakes, MN
    Posts
    1,372

    Default

    Some hope Papa John's would raise their prices even more http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/1...ef=mostpopular

  4. #34
    Senior Member Larry Thompson1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Floyd Va
    Posts
    453

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Henry V View Post
    Some hope Papa John's would raise their prices even more http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/1...ef=mostpopular
    2 things jumped out at me. workers over 30. and lowering wages. I'm over 30 and have not had a raise in almost 5 years. Will companies get rid of some workers over 30 for the younger no penalty ones. Or will they be lowering wages to cover the $2000.00 penalty? HMMMMM. I know I am going to take an additional 3.8% tax on the sale of my house already. Capitol gains tax is likley to go up. Why did I work so hard to get ahead? If they do nothing soon capitol gains will go to 39.6% plus 3.8% on the sale of the house. Ouch that is gonna put some hurt in my plans to train and run dogs.
    Home To

    HRCH Bluesky's Rollin Thunder MH
    Bluesky's Hot Bunn's Ellie
    SHR Saddiehawkins of Summer Bird 1998-2011
    SHR Bluesky's Some like em Hot 2009-2010 Left too soon

  5. #35
    Senior Member Gerry Clinchy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    6,169

    Default

    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.
    G.Clinchy@gmail.com
    "Know in your heart that all things are possible. We couldn't conceive of a miracle if none ever happened." -Libby Fudim

    ​I don't use the PM feature, so just email me direct at the address shown above.

  6. #36
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Pac NW
    Posts
    4,057

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gerry Clinchy View Post
    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.
    Unfortunately, economic illiteracy is not confined to a small segment of the populace - it apparently begins with those who write these laws & trickles down .
    __________________________

    Marvin S

    Everyone's friend is No One's friend

    Someday your life will flash before your eyes. It's your responsibility to make sure it's worth watching!

  7. #37
    Senior Member PamK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    DFW
    Posts
    381

    Default

    Interesting take from Forbes about if the NFL should drop papa johns as a sponsor.

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickunga...ver-obamacare/
    All success belongs to the dog, all failure to the trainer.

  8. #38
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Detroit Lakes, MN
    Posts
    1,372

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gerry Clinchy View Post
    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.
    I almost entirely agree Gerry, but would add that providing coverage for everyone should lower the cost per individual since more presumably will get preventative care and there will be fewer visits to the emergency room for basic care which is a large cost in the system. I agree that the actions should be offsetting. The increased sales of the products because more people have insurance should offset the tax. If medical devices lower long term costs to individuals there could be some savings in total health care costs too.

    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?
    Last edited by Henry V; 11-19-2012 at 10:01 AM.

  9. #39
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Pac NW
    Posts
    4,057

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Henry V View Post
    I almost entirely agree Gerry, but would add that providing coverage for everyone should lower the cost per individual since more presumably will get preventative care and there will be fewer visits to the emergency room for basic care which is a large cost in the system. I agree that the actions should be offsetting. The increased sales of the products because more people have insurance should offset the tax. If medical devices lower long term costs to individuals there could be some savings in total health care costs too.

    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?
    Henry = when I grew up there was none of these programs - maybe if you wanted to consider Relief as food related - but your name went in the paper if you applied = no one went hungry & few were obese, which might be a little hard for someone like your self to fathom

    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.
    __________________________

    Marvin S

    Everyone's friend is No One's friend

    Someday your life will flash before your eyes. It's your responsibility to make sure it's worth watching!

  10. #40
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Detroit Lakes, MN
    Posts
    1,372

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marvin S View Post
    Henry = when I grew up there was none of these programs - maybe if you wanted to consider Relief as food related - but your name went in the paper if you applied = no one went hungry & few were obese, which might be a little hard for someone like your self to fathom

    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.
    Marvin, should we talk about all the differences between today and yesteryear? Shall we go back to the 90% tax rate too? How about the facts that more than half the folks over 60 years old back in the 1960's had no insurance at all? Let's agree to deal with the realities of today and use past experiences to learn how to best move forward.

    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.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •