Papa John's and Obamacare

[Herstal]

I don't think she's lying here. She is not-telling something (her tax bracket, to her tenants, of whose business it is none) and she is not-telling them that a rent increase was coming, again, none of their business.

They seemed to state that they were going to tell their tenents that the rent would be raised because of the higher costs incurred by ACA, even though it wouldn't in fact cost them anything more. That's what I call a lie, you're free to dance around it if you wish.

Bottom line, she has a right to make a profit at her business, otherwise, what's the point of having the business?

As above, are you of the opinion that a business owner has no right to make a profit at her business? Or are her tenants in some way forced to live in her properties and thus, a captive population to her predatory whims?

I see you have constructed a straw man argument to rebut, unfortunately I won't take the bait. Of course a business owner has the opportunity to try and make a profit. I wouldn't say it's a "right", because as soon as that term starts getting bandied about things like bailouts happen. I have no problem with 88GT raising the rent as they see fit, I just think stating that it's done for reasons that are not true is a pretty dick thing to do.

If I were a renter and my landlord told me my rent was going up because they suspected I voted for Obama (or Romney, or Johnson), I'd be leaving that lease post-haste anyway. Sticking your political beliefs into your business is poor practice, and certainly won't help your business.

 

[88GT]

They seemed to state that they were going to tell their tenents that the rent would be raised because of the higher costs incurred by ACA, even though it wouldn't in fact cost them anything more. That's what I call a lie, you're free to dance around it if you wish.

Yes, it will. My cost of doing business is going up. I didn't say I was compensating for the extra tax that I would have to pay.

I see you have constructed a straw man argument to rebut, unfortunately I won't take the bait. Of course a business owner has the opportunity to try and make a profit. I wouldn't say it's a "right", because as soon as that term starts getting bandied about things like bailouts happen. I have no problem with 88GT raising the rent as they see fit, I just think stating that it's done for reasons that are not true is a pretty dick thing to do.

I wasn't aware that you were privy to my books.

If I were a renter and my landlord told me my rent was going up because they suspected I voted for Obama (or Romney, or Johnson), I'd be leaving that lease post-haste anyway.

That would be your prerogative. And I would be perfectly happy to see you go. I've never had a problem filling my units and your loss wouldn't cause me one bit of grief. Tenants leave at the end of lease terms all the time. Sometimes it's because they don't like living by the lease terms, sometimes it's because they need closer to work/bigger unit/lower rent/etc. Sometimes it's because I just tell them they'll not be renewing and they need to follow the following move-out procedures.

Sticking your political beliefs into your business is poor practice,

How so?

and certainly won't help your business.

How so?

I would love to hear your justifications for your opinions knowing you've based them on a ass load of assumptions that aren't true.

I'll wait right here.

 

[melensdad]

They seemed to state that they were going to tell their tenents that the rent would be raised because of the higher costs incurred by ACA, even though it wouldn't in fact cost them anything more. That's what I call a lie, you're free to dance around it if you wish.
. . .

Please explain how it is "a lie" that ObamaCare raises taxes on real estate income?

My accountants and my real estate advisors are all telling me that new taxes are in place for BOTH selling and for rental income from real estate. If the tax accountants say its happening then why do you say it is not?

 

[Herstal]

Yes, it will. My cost of doing business is going up. I didn't say I was compensating for the extra tax that I would have to pay.

Your taxes aren't going up due to ACA, based on your own statements. Your indirect costs always go up and you're welcome to increase rent to compensate. You just don't need to lie about the reasons in order to "connect the dots". Why don't you rightfully list the specific items that are increasing your costs, if you're looking to be more informative. Maybe explain what the inflation rate is, and that your rent will always go up by at least the inflation rate every year.

(Politics in business is bad practice)
How so?

For the same reason the topic should be avoided with family or coworkers -- you risk damaging a relationship for no gain. In the case of business, this is a relationship you may have paid to form (advertising) and one that impacts your bottom line. It may be less of a concern when you feel there's no difficulty in finding tenets for your properties, and it's a free country.. you're welcome to do what you want as long as you aren't materially harming someone else against their will. It's just something that large companies that need to attract and retain a large number of customers will steer away from.

 

[Herstal]

Please explain how it is "a lie" that ObamaCare raises taxes on real estate income?

My accountants and my real estate advisors are all telling me that new taxes are in place for BOTH selling and for rental income from real estate. If the tax accountants say its happening then why do you say it is not?

These two posts should explain why that's true in this case:

https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...1-papa_johns_and_obamacare-4.html#post3524936
https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...1-papa_johns_and_obamacare-4.html#post3525691

 

[88GT]

Your taxes aren't going up due to ACA, based on your own statements. Your indirect costs always go up and you're welcome to increase rent to compensate. You just don't need to lie about the reasons in order to "connect the dots". Why don't you rightfully list the specific items that are increasing your costs, if you're looking to be more informative. Maybe explain what the inflation rate is, and that your rent will always go up by at least the inflation rate every year.

I said I was increasing rents due to the increase in costs. My costs can increase without the application of the additional tax. When other companies are affected and their costs increase, so do mine. That I don't yet hit the threshold for the applicable tax is irrelevant.

For the same reason the topic should be avoided with family or coworkers -- you risk damaging a relationship for no gain. In the case of business, this is a relationship you may have paid to form (advertising) and one that impacts your bottom line. It may be less of a concern when you feel there's no difficulty in finding tenets for your properties, and it's a free country.. you're welcome to do what you want as long as you aren't materially harming someone else against their will. It's just something that large companies that need to attract and retain a large number of customers will steer away from.

LOL, it's not a relationship. It's a business transaction. I don't care if my business decision pisses people off. I don't take Sec. 8, allow dogs in one unit, or accept partial payments. Should I worry about how those business decisions will sit with people who think I should do differently? Why are those different than one with political connections?

And I'm not a large company, so how does it affect me? You're still applying what you think are universal truths to a situation about which you know absolutely nothing.

In any case maybe, perhaps, there's a chance I have considered the consequences of this decision. And maybe, perhaps, there's a chance that I have concluded the benefit off-sets any loss. Nah, a moderately successful business owner with TWO businesses would never have the foresight to weigh the options and evaluate the potential consequences of all of her decisions before making them. That's just crazy talk.

 

[melensdad]

These two posts should explain why that's true in this case:

https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...1-papa_johns_and_obamacare-4.html#post3524936
https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...1-papa_johns_and_obamacare-4.html#post3525691

Nope, sorry.

It is a simple fact that ObamaCare raises taxes on rental income and on real estate sales. You posting links to prior posts does not disprove facts that every tax accountant agrees are true.

Not sure where you get your ideas from, but they are not true.

 

[Libertarian01]

To All,

Small businesses will not have to lay off a single person, not one.

I was speaking to my accountant last year and while he hates Obamacare the talking heads are not looking at the easy get arounds just so they can continue to bash the program.

Let us suppose that a small lawncare business owner has 75 employees. The extreme conservatives want to illustrate this as a two (2) choices only option. EITHER lay off 26 employees OR suffer horribly by buying health insurance.

WRONG! All that happens is Mr. Lawncare Owner now forms two (2) corporations! One has 40 employees that serves commercial accounts and one has 35 employees that serves residential accounts. Of course there may be some overlap but big deal. So now you have no change to the health insurance issue and no lost jobs.

If you Mr. Lawncare grows he just forms another company that may lease and/or share equipment with the other preexisting companies. Does this cause a headache? Yes. Is it annoying? Yes. Is it inefficient? Yes but not significantly so. Do we have just two (2) choices? NO!

Regards,

Doug

 

[melensdad]

To All,

Small businesses will not have to lay off a single person, not one.

I was speaking to my accountant last year and while he hates Obamacare the talking heads are not looking at the easy get arounds just so they can continue to bash the program.

Let us suppose that a small lawncare business owner has 75 employees. The extreme conservatives want to illustrate this as a two (2) choices only option. EITHER lay off 26 employees OR suffer horribly by buying health insurance.

WRONG! All that happens is Mr. Lawncare Owner now forms two (2) corporations! One has 40 employees that serves commercial accounts and one has 35 employees that serves residential accounts. Of course there may be some overlap but big deal. So now you have no change to the health insurance issue and no lost jobs.

If you Mr. Lawncare grows he just forms another company that may lease and/or share equipment with the other preexisting companies. Does this cause a headache? Yes. Is it annoying? Yes. Is it inefficient? Yes but not significantly so. Do we have just two (2) choices? NO!

Regards,

Doug

For this specific scenario that tactic will work, and no doubt it will be used. But there are many types of businesses where this little accounting trick will not work.

There is no question in the minds of most accounting experts and tax lawyers that ObamaCare will lead to a double dip recession, and ultimately universal healthcare similar to the system that is so poorly operated in the United Kingdom that it kills many patients that are easily cured here (currently) in the US.

 

[Libertarian01]

To Melensdad (et alia),

I don't see how it couldn't work everywhere?

Say you have a single company that is a factory with 300 employees.

To avoid Obamacare you now have ten (10) different production companies under one (1) roof with an average of 30 employees each.
Or a company simply breaks up departments into separate smaller companies.

I am NOT in anyway saying that Obamacare or this get around won't cause problems. All I am saying is that there are WAY more than two (2) choices.

And I am only addressing this one (1) issue and not the entire program.

The reality is those who hate it will describe it as all evil and nothing good will come of it and that just ain't so. Those who love it will describe it as a magick bullet that will solve all of our health care woes and that just ain't so.

In the end who knows what will happen? It will take years of bureaucratic interpretations of the rules along with court interpretations with precedents set after multiple lawsuits are filed that it will slowly morph into its own little creation beyond what either its supporters or detractors envisioned.

Regards,

Doug

 

[melensdad]

OK how about a real life example. I had a company with roughly 100 employees. 85 of which worked inside my warehouse. The warehouse contained about $7,000,000 worth of inventory. The building worth is another $3+ million.

No possible cost effective way to have 2 warehouses with 2 piles of inventory with each operating at just under 50 employees to stay below the threshold.

Honestly if you think that your business model is applicable to all small businesses then you need to go take some business classes.

 

[Bunnykid68]

OK how about a real life example. I had a company with roughly 100 employees. 85 of which worked inside my warehouse. The warehouse contained about $7,000,000 worth of inventory. The building worth is another $3+ million.

No possible cost effective way to have 2 warehouses with 2 piles of inventory with each operating at just under 50 employees to stay below the threshold.

Honestly if you think that your business model is applicable to all small businesses then you need to go take some business classes.

What about a business like Thorntons gas stations, they have 160 stores. Incorporate all of them, that would be terribly costly.

 

[John Galt]

Government intervenes to "help" ...
Costs go up, economy gets worse because of government intervening to "help" ...
Government intervenes even more to "help" ...
Costs spiral out of control, economy tanks, government gets more forceful, enacting more "laws" to "help" ...

Who is John Galt?

 

[THard6]

I myself just read this while eating my LARGE BBQ CHICKEN pizza from PAPA JOHNS..
does someone want to tell me why i just don't care at all?

 

[IncendiaryGunner]

So, it's good that I take home less pay?

I don't think I'm understanding your point.

No, not good - it is just not as simple as people make it out to be.

I would not expect everyone to understand my point, because in the minds of most people it has to be either completely negative or positive - and complicated things are not always a result of the simple explanation people hold up when pointing the finger of blame.

Without the ACA the companies that are laying off employees would not be on solid ground. Companies that were on solid ground before the ACA - are not firing employees as a result of the legislation.

Some positions will pay less... some will pay roughly the same... some will increase (not attributed to the ACA) ....some people will gain benefits that they did not have previously....

The cries that the sky is falling, and blame being attributed to the ACA for every price increase and layoff is in many cases an exaggeration.

In many instances, the ACA is being used to justify layoffs and price increases that are not at all attributed to the legislation - because many business owners know that it is an unpopular piece of legislation, and that people will buy it. Couple that with the extreme fallout of butthurt after an unpopular incumbent president wins a second term, and the resulting frenzy of blame occurs.

 

[actaeon277]

No, not good - it is just not as simple as people make it out to be.

I would not expect everyone to understand my point, because in the minds of most people it has to be either completely negative or positive - and complicated things are not always a result of the simple explanation people hold up when pointing the finger of blame.

Without the ACA the companies that are laying off employees would not be on solid ground. Companies that were on solid ground before the ACA - are not firing employees as a result of the legislation.

The cries that the sky is falling, and blame being attributed to the ACA for every price increase and layoff is in many cases an exaggeration.

In many instances, the ACA is being used to justify layoffs and price increases that are not at all attributed to the legislation - because many business owners know that it is an unpopular piece of legislation, and that people will buy it. Couple that with the extreme fallout of butthurt after an unpopular incumbent president wins a second term, and the resulting frenzy of blame occurs.

So you have 50 full time employess.
Your company is losing was losing 10k a year, cutting into savings.
But you've got it down to 2k a year. Things are starting to look better.
Maybe in a year or two you'll be back to making a profit.
.
Now add the healthcare penalty.
What is the penalty? Seems everytime I see something about it, it's a different number.
Let's go with 1k a year.
1k * 50 employees = 50k/year loss.
How much savings does the company have?
How long can you go?
.
Added costs doesn't mysteriously disappear.
It has to come from somewhere.

 

[IncendiaryGunner]

So you have 50 full time employess.
Your company is losing was losing 10k a year, cutting into savings.
But you've got it down to 2k a year. Things are starting to look better.
Maybe in a year or two you'll be back to making a profit.
.
Now add the healthcare penalty.
What is the penalty? Seems everytime I see something about it, it's a different number.
Let's go with 1k a year.
1k * 50 employees = 50k/year loss.
How much savings does the company have?
How long can you go?
.
Added costs doesn't mysteriously disappear.
It has to come from somewhere.

So said company does not provide health care, pays wages so low that you cannot cut them and stay in business, and is still in the red....

But the ACA is to blame for said business failing....

Companies that do not turn a profit do not stay in business forever. While it sounds brutal - this is the great incentive of capitalism.

Sure, additional costs can have an impact - but lets not pretend the single causal factor is the ACA. The biggest factor in that hypothetical business failing is simple - the product or service they provide was not turning a profit.

 

[actaeon277]

So said company does not provide health care, pays wages so low that you cannot cut them and stay in business, and is still in the red....

But the ACA is to blame for said business failing....

Maybe I pay decent wages.
Employees can get their own insurance.
I buy it, or pay penalty, where would I get it.
THEIR PAYCHECKS.
And the ACA takes money out of the PAYCHECK also, if the employee chooses not to pay.
Who cares if my business is borderline.
IT IS EMPLOYING 50 PEOPLE.
They get paychecks and can have a life.
They pay taxes.
.
Instead, I get tired of all the paperwork and bull****, and shut my company down.
50 people don't have paychecks or pay taxes.
.
I don't have a business.
But I'm the finance officer at an American Legion Post.
We have only a few employees, so we don't have to worry about this FOR NOW.
We already have to deal with dumb ass gov't regulations that are strangling us. To deal with the taxes, we pay an accountant several hundred per month.
Not to run the business, to deal with the taxes.,
Then we get a letter saying we didn't file xxx document.
We did. They received it and acknowledged it.
We resend it again. They send more nasty grams.
I lose a days wages to straighten it out.

One year later, same problem, different document.
IRS acknowledges the mistake. We don't have a problem now.
But now, they say we owe $400 penalty, for the document that WE DIDI N'T LOSE.
.
I could give dozens of more examples of the regulations shutting down the small fry.
fire regs looks like a phone manual.
gaming regs, used to be < a dozen sheets, now a phone manual.
on
and
on
and
on.
.
This is just one more NAIL IN THE COFFIN.

 

[IncendiaryGunner]

Maybe I pay decent wages.
Employees can get their own insurance.
I buy it, or pay penalty, where would I get it.
THEIR PAYCHECKS.
And the ACA takes money out of the PAYCHECK also, if the employee chooses not to pay.
Who cares if my business is borderline.
IT IS EMPLOYING 50 PEOPLE.
They get paychecks and can have a life.
They pay taxes.
.
Instead, I get tired of all the paperwork and bull****, and shut my company down.
50 people don't have paychecks or pay taxes.
.
I don't have a business.
But I'm the finance officer at an American Legion Post.
We have only a few employees, so we don't have to worry about this FOR NOW.
We already have to deal with dumb ass gov't regulations that are strangling us. To deal with the taxes, we pay an accountant several hundred per month.
Not to run the business, to deal with the taxes.,
Then we get a letter saying we didn't file xxx document.
We did. They received it and acknowledged it.
We resend it again. They send more nasty grams.
I lose a days wages to straighten it out.

One year later, same problem, different document.
IRS acknowledges the mistake. We don't have a problem now.
But now, they say we owe $400 penalty, for the document that WE DIDI N'T LOSE.
.
I could give dozens of more examples of the regulations shutting down the small fry.
fire regs looks like a phone manual.
gaming regs, used to be < a dozen sheets, now a phone manual.
on
and
on
and
on.
.
This is just one more NAIL IN THE COFFIN.

If you pay a decent wage, wage cuts could keep you in business if operating expenses increase.

If you shut down a company "because you are tired of it" - that is a choice you make. Your being "tired of it" is a huge factor in that business being closed... not everyone has the will to run a business. Many of us will continue to buckle down and keep our companies in the black. Those of us that continue to function in the business world make higher profits when the competition cannot cut it.

Yes, the IRS sucks, but we all deal with it. Nobody likes paying the IRS money - and we all hate it when we get incorrect statements. In my experience, providing them with evidence of their mistake is usually met with a letter roughly stating "our bad, that clears it up". Knowing what you owe - what you do not owe - and being able to prove it to them pays off if the question arises.

The ACA will not be the nail in the coffin of well run and profitable American businesses. It may be the nail in the coffin of businesses that were in the red - or near it. People never tend to have a problem taking responsibility for a business' success, but if it fails - they claim that it had nothing to do with them and they point the finger at any external source they can.

 

[downzero]

OK how about a real life example. I had a company with roughly 100 employees. 85 of which worked inside my warehouse. The warehouse contained about $7,000,000 worth of inventory. The building worth is another $3+ million.

No possible cost effective way to have 2 warehouses with 2 piles of inventory with each operating at just under 50 employees to stay below the threshold.

Honestly if you think that your business model is applicable to all small businesses then you need to go take some business classes.

I'm not familiar with every intricate details of the law, but is it against the law to have several, separate corporations, and have 30 employees work for each one?