Restaurant die-off is first course of California’s $15 minimum wage

[OnePercenter]

Why would you ignore bills that help the middle class and the rich?

Non-answer for there aren't any.

Reagan's tax cuts helped the rich and the middle class.

Reagan's tax cuts helped the rich, the middle class paid for. Trickle down sound failure?

The tax cuts did, initially, help the Middle Class too, but overall, the rich got richer and the Middle Class fell behind. GHW Bush was right; "trickle down economics" is Voodoo economics.

The tax cuts did, initially, help the Middle Class too, but overall, the rich got richer and the Middle Class fell behind.

Falling behind while still doing better.

GHW Bush was right;

He was a yutz.
And was justly rewarded for raising taxes.

Against stem cell research. I wonder when he realized that was a stupid idea?

 

[hadit]

One = two? Interesting. Tell me, how long have you been convinced of that?

The issue is reducing employees. You haven't proven your point.

When there's only one employee behind the counter where there used to be multiple employees, head count has been reduced. In math, one =/= two or more.

They haven't cut any employees. Isn't that the basis of this entire thread?

They have behind the counter and will reduce total headcount. That's the point. Where do you think the excess employees will go? Extra mopping shifts?

You posted two front house employees. How is that a reduction?

Now you're back to 1=2 again. I said there was ONE employee behind the counter. You keep saying two. Why is that?

 

[Divine Wind]

Once again you claim your a millionare business owner I. Always claimed I. Was just a middle class guy who enjoyed freedom more then money , but out taxing me I will always move..

I never moved back North and now you understand why..

Democrats never had my back since the 1970s ..they did when JFK was in power..they got confused when the world caught up to the USA

Another non-answer.

I'll bet the 'ridiculous taxes' started in the early 70's when payroll fell behind cost of living.

I get started to get bored of this, we all saw it coming that imports we're going to over take exports in the 1980s and it did , you always want to deny the world didn't catch up after WWIi and they finnaly did.

It happened in the early 1980s

Nixon opened the door and Reagan put us in the world economy.

Nixon opened the door to China. We already were in the world economy since WWII. As Bear stated, what happened was the world caught up to us. Europe was a great economy but they were shattered by WWII. It took decades for Germany to catch back up. Remember when "made in Japan" meant it was cheap junk? Then they caught up with Sony and others. Remember when "made in Korea" was cheap junk? "GoldStar" VCRs? Now they are world-class electronic and auto manufacturers.

Fareed Zakaria's "the Post-American World" is a great book on this very subject. We haven't fallen behind as much as the world as caught up to us. Our problem is a government system which spends too much and taxes too little; hence our huge debt and deficit. That isn't the "world's" problem, it's ours.

We had an international exchange of goods and services from WWII to Nixon? How so and what products/services?

Wow. So you claim to be a "One Percenter" but you don't know the history of the United States economy? Interesting.

Maybe pictures will help you:

Do you understand that, given the same tax rate, as the economy improves, the Federal tax rate goes up?

Now compare the chart above to this one:

Please account for the differences in the graphs.

 

[Divine Wind]

Non-answer for there aren't any.

Reagan's tax cuts helped the rich and the middle class.

Reagan's tax cuts helped the rich, the middle class paid for. Trickle down sound failure?

The tax cuts did, initially, help the Middle Class too, but overall, the rich got richer and the Middle Class fell behind. GHW Bush was right; "trickle down economics" is Voodoo economics.

The tax cuts did, initially, help the Middle Class too, but overall, the rich got richer and the Middle Class fell behind.

Falling behind while still doing better.

GHW Bush was right;

He was a yutz.
And was justly rewarded for raising taxes.

Against stem cell research. I wonder when he realized that was a stupid idea?

That was based on the anti-abortion meme.

 

[Divine Wind]

Why would you ignore bills that help the middle class and the rich?

Non-answer for there aren't any.

Reagan's tax cuts helped the rich and the middle class.

Reagan's tax cuts helped the rich, the middle class paid for. Trickle down sound failure?

The tax cuts did, initially, help the Middle Class too, but overall, the rich got richer and the Middle Class fell behind. GHW Bush was right; "trickle down economics" is Voodoo economics.

How is raising FICA a tax cut?

It's not. Again, how are you a "one percenter", because it's certainly not in logic, debate nor math. Are you a Hollywood producer? An actor? Professional political fund-raiser?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

If they cut taxes by $100, are they raising fees by $100? More? Less?

It's not a zero-sum game. They're raising it more. That's what happened in KS. We have a real-life example of this shit in practice.

Tax cuts produce debt,
So you say. Even though they reduce my debt. Now where did I encourage individual debt? Post the link.

So you say they reduce your debt (taking your word for it seems to be your only approach in this debate, huh?), but why should I fucking believe you? It's easy to just make up shit about yourself on a message board to lend your argument credibility it doesn't otherwise have. That's why you invoke personal anecdotes that aren't verifiable. You know that there's no actual facts or data to support your argument, so your argument rests on something you cannot even prove! This always happens with you guys. We reach a point in the debate where your academic arguments are exhausted, yet the debate continues. So to fill that void in your argument, you populate it with invented personal circumstances that just so happen to validate your argument. You can't do that on facts we can all see, so you invent things to bridge that gap. Tsk tsk. That's lazy and sloppy.

1) tax cuts produce freedom so they are by definition good
2) tax cuts produce economic growth since they leave money in private hands, the source of economic growth
3) tax cuts shrink govt which is by definition good since we are a free country
4) most tax cuts pay for themselves with increased economic growth
for example: France collects 2 times the per capita tax the USA does yet France has the personal income of Arkansas about our poorest state

 

[charwin95]

Only if it was all that simple, however it doesn't work that way. Depending on the size of a business 70K can be a lot or a little. An increase from $25K a month to 30K is a $60K a year increase, which is less than your claimed peanuts of $70K. So I think your numbers in others items of business are way off.

Hello papag. I have not seen you for a while.
My numbers was just an example how a restaurant can easily recover $192 MW a day increase = 70k/year. From my example---- if a couple spend minimum ( that is minimum ) of $11 ($5.50/person) higher from previous menus.
Let say say ONLY 35 customers ate in that restaurant for the whole day during lunch and diner= $192.50.
If that same restaurant had 80 to 120+ customers in one day. Piece of cake.

1. Been around, I hope things are going well for you. How do you drive an extra 40 to 70 customers a day?

2. The average profit margin of a restaurant is 3.6% to make up $192.50 in costs a restaurant needs to generate over $5300 a day in revenue to maintain the slim 3.6% in profit.
3. If you increase customers you will increase food costs, you increase labor, water, sewer, lights and so on. So a business owner would need to look at the impact of a wage increase and find ways to off set the expense. The ways to do that are limited. Increase menu prices, look at the restaurant hours and cut back on slow business hours, layoff workers and short staff, get lower quality food, cut back on portions, there are other ways but those are most of them. Most small businesses don't have a lot of areas to cut back.

1. Health and business been good can't complain. Just returned from a summer Hawaiian vacation with my entire clan for 8 days.

2. The 35 number of customers I gave for lunch and dinners is the minimum. There are no such restaurants that only have 35 customers for lunch and dinners. Otherwise they are not in business to begin with. I gave a minimum $5.50 per person increase from old menu x 35 customers to cover $192. They do these all the time. That kind of increase will not result in lay off, cut back hours, short staff or lower quality food. Otherwise all famous and big restaurants are closed a long time ago.
There are tons of small businesses here that are operational and successful. They do give raises to their current employees, a lot of them are making over $16/hour. I do not expect a lot or any business that will close because of MW hike. If business is good business will survive----- If business is sucks like food you don't expect to survive.

My favorite taco stand here in San Diego normally cost me $3.15 for one taco asada. I know the owner for many years. She increased the price of taco asada to $3.65 and so the rest of the menu across the board including soda effective last June 5. Not sure what and how much she increases across the board
I ate 4 taco asada today no soda ( too much sugar) just water. That is when I asked her ------ Why is the increase? She said MW increase amigo and the place was packed as always.
With low unemployment rate businesses are force to hire the rejects and higher rates than $12.

Glad you had a great vacation, we just did a drive from Mt. Rushmore, Devils Tower and Yellowstone, this fall we are taking a cruise.

I'm just saying that additional costs are not simply offset by raising prices. If a business has an increase of costs by $192, the offset has to be a lot more than $192. The actual cost is not $192, however it is closer to $5000, otherwise the profit margin goes down. Most restaurants work off a 3.6% profit margin. To produce more food, you would have to buy more food, use more electric, clean more dishes etc, etc. so it always isn't easy to do. You do have to raise food prices but it isn't the only way you can recoup a labor increase.

Papag. It's nice to have a decent conversation. I tried to get back but I'm here at casino pechanga in Southern California playing black jack having a good luck. I will catch up with you some other time.

View attachment 136906

Sorry for getting back so far off ------ I have visitors from other countries and the type of entertainment they want is outside my company protocols. I cannot let my employees take them to places like nude places for the husbands and chip&dale for the housewives. So I have to be with them and ask some of my closest friends to take them to adult only places like Mustang Ranch in Las Vegas but they are paying their own for this kind of entertainment.
Wife and I been to several cruises and we enjoyed all of them. Have fun in your cruise. ------------


The $192 I gave as an example was for 12 full time restaurants employees with $2 each MW hike. Don't forget the profit was already established way before this MW hikes.

You only need a *minimum* of 35 customers spending a *minimum* of extra $5.50 each to recoup. In a restaurant that size open for lunch and dinner you have customers between 120 to 150 average/day. Do you honestly believe all of them will only spend minimum of extra $5.50? Let say only average of 80 customers/day = $440/day. It's really that simple.

That said ------ same rent, same manager salary, same number of employees, cost and amount of supplies ------ All of that are the same.
You do not need to buy more food supplies, electric or dishes than you normally do. Unless if the business is getting bigger.

 

[charwin95]

Only if it was all that simple, however it doesn't work that way. Depending on the size of a business 70K can be a lot or a little. An increase from $25K a month to 30K is a $60K a year increase, which is less than your claimed peanuts of $70K. So I think your numbers in others items of business are way off.

Hello papag. I have not seen you for a while.
My numbers was just an example how a restaurant can easily recover $192 MW a day increase = 70k/year. From my example---- if a couple spend minimum ( that is minimum ) of $11 ($5.50/person) higher from previous menus.
Let say say ONLY 35 customers ate in that restaurant for the whole day during lunch and diner= $192.50.
If that same restaurant had 80 to 120+ customers in one day. Piece of cake.

1. Been around, I hope things are going well for you. How do you drive an extra 40 to 70 customers a day?

2. The average profit margin of a restaurant is 3.6% to make up $192.50 in costs a restaurant needs to generate over $5300 a day in revenue to maintain the slim 3.6% in profit.
3. If you increase customers you will increase food costs, you increase labor, water, sewer, lights and so on. So a business owner would need to look at the impact of a wage increase and find ways to off set the expense. The ways to do that are limited. Increase menu prices, look at the restaurant hours and cut back on slow business hours, layoff workers and short staff, get lower quality food, cut back on portions, there are other ways but those are most of them. Most small businesses don't have a lot of areas to cut back.

1. Health and business been good can't complain. Just returned from a summer Hawaiian vacation with my entire clan for 8 days.

2. The 35 number of customers I gave for lunch and dinners is the minimum. There are no such restaurants that only have 35 customers for lunch and dinners. Otherwise they are not in business to begin with. I gave a minimum $5.50 per person increase from old menu x 35 customers to cover $192. They do these all the time. That kind of increase will not result in lay off, cut back hours, short staff or lower quality food. Otherwise all famous and big restaurants are closed a long time ago.
There are tons of small businesses here that are operational and successful. They do give raises to their current employees, a lot of them are making over $16/hour. I do not expect a lot or any business that will close because of MW hike. If business is good business will survive----- If business is sucks like food you don't expect to survive.

My favorite taco stand here in San Diego normally cost me $3.15 for one taco asada. I know the owner for many years. She increased the price of taco asada to $3.65 and so the rest of the menu across the board including soda effective last June 5. Not sure what and how much she increases across the board
I ate 4 taco asada today no soda ( too much sugar) just water. That is when I asked her ------ Why is the increase? She said MW increase amigo and the place was packed as always.
With low unemployment rate businesses are force to hire the rejects and higher rates than $12.

Glad you had a great vacation, we just did a drive from Mt. Rushmore, Devils Tower and Yellowstone, this fall we are taking a cruise.

I'm just saying that additional costs are not simply offset by raising prices. If a business has an increase of costs by $192, the offset has to be a lot more than $192. The actual cost is not $192, however it is closer to $5000, otherwise the profit margin goes down. Most restaurants work off a 3.6% profit margin. To produce more food, you would have to buy more food, use more electric, clean more dishes etc, etc. so it always isn't easy to do. You do have to raise food prices but it isn't the only way you can recoup a labor increase.

'Most restaurants work off a 3.6% profit margin.'

Not including;

-The owners payroll.
-The owners families payroll.
-The company car (s).
-The owners girlfriend/Sugar Baby.
-The owners vacation property.

Much, much, more than 3.6%

We are talking about MW hike not starting a business.
If a restaurants been operating and obviously making money after years of operations ------- those items you mentioned was well established inside profits long time ago before the MW hikes.
The sample I gave 12 employees, $2 MW hike each, minimum of 35 customers, spend minimum of $5.50 each higher from the old menu------ It is not that difficult to recoup $192/day.

Let say a taco stand with 5 full time employees giving them $2. each MW hike = $80 It is not difficult for a taco stand to recoup $80.

 

[Divine Wind]

...So I have to be with them and ask some of my closest friends to take them to adult only places like Mustang Ranch in Las Vegas...

Mustang Ranch is in Reno, NV.

 

[Papageorgio]

The article in the 2nd link actually lists lots of reasons for the 60 restaurants closings and NOT the new minimum wages...?


Why are Bay Area restaurants closing?

While new restaurants have further solidified the Bay Area as a foodie destination in recent years, many others have succumbed to a perfect storm of economic challenges that shows no sign of abating.

Upward of 60 restaurants around the Bay Area have closed since the start of September alone, with many citing difficulties like the cost of finding and keeping good employees, rising rents, new requirements for providing health care and sick leave, and doing it all while competing with the slew of new dining options.

The restaurant industry has always been among the most competitive and challenging to navigate, and failures are nothing new, but the current struggles have left some wondering if the traditional dining model might be headed for an overhaul.

“We’re at this precipice where the model of the full-service restaurant is being pushed to the brink,” said Gwyneth Borden, executive director of the Golden Gate Restaurant Association.

Seattle is a different animal not like Des Moines Iowa.

More people talk in complete sentences in Seattle.

Most people in Des Moines and Seattle are smarter than you and don't feel the need to lie and insult like you.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Don't take my word for it, plug in your income in 2000.
Put that same number in for 2003. Let us know how much you saved.

LOL! Dude, you realize of course that by using this argument you are arguing in support of deficits, right? You are arguing that tax cuts create deficits because I can do your exercise, but what I can also do is look at the federal deficit over the same period:

Deficit/Surplus
2000: $236B surplus
2001: $128B surplus (Bush Tax Cuts passed)
2002: $158B deficit
2003: $377B deficit (Record high)
2004: $412B deficit (Record high, start of mortgage bubble)
2005: $318B deficit
2006: $248B deficit
2007: $160B deficit (Mortgage bubble pops)
2008: $458B deficit (Record high)
2009: $1.4T deficit (All-time record high)

And did those tax cuts do anything to help the economy? NOPE!

And what about household debt? What happened then? Well, it shot up from around 90% of GDP up to about 130% of GDP. That's not indicative of economic growth, it's indicative of debt growth. Which seems to be the only growth tax cuts produce. So you're right in a sense that tax cuts produce growth, you're just wrong about what it is that grows.

Notice those spikes in the early 00's? What's that all about? Tax cuts creating growth? What about jobs, did the tax cuts create jobs? NOPE! Bush lost net 841,000 private sector jobs in his first four years. If tax cuts create growth, then there shouldn't have been any job loss! But OK, let's say for the sake of your weak argument that the tax cuts didn't really start until they were accelerated in 2003. So what's the net job gain/loss from then? Negative 460,000. So at no point did Bush ever net out positive job growth that wasn't due to MEW's or the housing bubble. So the claim that tax cuts create growth is supported by what? Nothing. No jobs = no growth.

The Bush tax cuts caused medical bills? Are you drunk?

Come on now, you're being deliberately obtuse for no good reason. It wasn't just Bush the Dumber who cut taxes, many states did as well. Those states that cut taxes ended up raising health care costs because of a lack of funding. So your co-pays, co-insurances, deductibles, drug costs (something Bush the Dumber and the Conservatives actually did cause to rise with their Medicare Part-D they all supported at the time, but strangely don't today). It's no coincidence that after the ACA, medical bankruptcies drop like a rock as the uninsured rate plummets to an all-time low. Bush and the COnservatives in DC may not have cut spending when they cut taxes, but all they did was transfer that burden on the states and onto the federal deficit, which Conservatives were strangely silent about for 8 years as Bush ran up four record deficits and erased a surplus in that time while doubling the debt.

So it wasn't some dramatic increase in the tax rate, was it?
Well, I guess you could claim taking 67% more out of my paycheck wasn't dramatic.
I'd have to disagree.

So right here is what I'm talking about when I say you're being dishonest! The marginal rate is not 67%. The marginal rate increased by 67% from (what?) to (what?) I've asked you for what those rates are three times now, and three times you avoided answering. I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt that you didn't mean the marginal rate was raised to 67%, but you meant the rate was raised by 67% to (insert actual rate here). One word makes alllllll the difference to your post. Like I said, I know mistakes happen so I'm going to go against my better instincts and give you the benefit of the doubt and an opportunity to correct what you meant. I don't do that for just anyone.

Obama raised taxes and cut them.
When he cut taxes, he said that would help the economy and jobs. Was he a dirty liar?

Well, if you listen to Conservatives he was because they all claim no jobs were created by the payroll tax cut Obama passed. And let's be clear, it was a payroll tax cut, not an income tax cut. So you're conflating tax cuts together. But the result of the payroll tax cut was "the worst recovery in 80 years" according to you guys. So doesn't that just then prove what I'm saying? BTW - I thought then and still believe today that Obama never should have cut the payroll tax, even temporarily, because it takes from earned benefits.

I'll end your suspense. The Dems hiked taxes by 67% to fix those problems, the problems got worse.

First of all, I never claimed raising taxes fixes anything. I am only claiming cutting them doesn't. Secondly, the tax hike expired in 2015, and yet, you all are bleating about IL's current fiscal troubles. So letting the tax hike expire didn't seem to solve any of the state's fiscal troubles, did it? That's why you all continue to invoke IL today, so your argument kind of eats itself. Well not kind of, it definitely does. You argue that lower taxes somehow results in less debt, yet Conservatives are screeching about IL's fiscal troubles, even after the tax hike expired as you say. So what does that mean? That letting the tax hike expire did nothing to change the fiscal outlook for the state. So why would lowering the taxes further have any different effect?

The fiscal picture of IL has little bearing on IL's economic performance.
That's funny. And wrong.

No, it's 100% correct. We just went through this 7 years ago with Rogoff/Reinhart's "Growth in the Time of Debt" paper. That paper concluded that once debt reaches 90% of GDP the economy "falls off a cliff". Paul Ryan even cited that paper in his Roadmap to Nowhere budgets that all Conservatives voted to support and approve. Only thing is, that study is a load of shit. Why is it a load of shit? Multiple reasons, but the most predominant three were that 1) It deliberately omitted data that disproved the preconceived conclusion, 2) It had "spreadsheet errors" by Harvard economists who should know how to use Excel since they're, you know, Harvard economists, and 3) It wasn't peer-reviewed (which would have caught #'s 1 and 2). That paper was the only thing Conservatives were using to argue that high debt has a negative effect on growth. Without it, what do you have? Nothing. Hence, why we are where we are in this debate.

They don't need to cut their debt.
Tax cuts that give people more money causes their debt to increase but tax hikes don't cause their fees, tuition or debt to decrease?

So I don't know if you're playing at being obtuse or what, but I was referring to the State cutting its debt, not individuals. And IL's Household debt did decrease during the period of its tax hike! I posted a chart that showed that very thing happening in Post #818. Maybe you missed it? No, cause you responded to it. So did you forget about it?

No, debt figures declined because citizens didn't have to go into debt to afford expenses like health care or education.
The problem with your claim is that while taxes rose, so did health care and education expenses.

Ah, but the State could better fund it with higher taxes, which meant folks didn't have to fork out as much, or borrow as much.

Funny how you completely ignore the fact that the dotcom bubble
Dotcom bubble? We were talking about your claim that the tax cut didn't "pay for itself".
Usually that means that revenues fall after a cut. Clearly they rose. Clearly, your claim was wrong.

Since the end result of the tax cut is a bubble burst and recession, then it doesn't pay for itself at all. How you can ignore the consequences of that is just wilfull ignorance at this point. What do you think caused the dotcom bubble? Because Business Insider, and NYU researchers Zhonglan Dai, Douglas A. Shackelford and Harold H. Zhang say it was the Capital Gains Tax Cut of 1997. The chickens came home to roost, it just took a few years for them to get there. But they got there. Do you think the dotcom bubble burst happened in a vacuum outside the Capital Gains Tax Cut? That the two had nothing to do with one another? Is that really the position you want to stake?

which was caused by that tax cut, popped in 2000.
So much for Bubba's surpluses that were gonna eliminate the debt, eh?

Well, hold on a second. You posted that the Capital Gains Tax Cut produced the following revenue:

1997-$79.3 billion
1998-$86.1 billion
1999-$111.8 billion
2000-$127.3 billion

And here are the surpluses with and without those revenues:

1997 - $21B deficit ($100B deficit w/o CGTR)
1998 - $69.3B surplus ($23B deficit w/o CGTR)
1999 - $125.6B surplus ($14B surplus w/o CGTR)
2000 - $236.2B surplus ($109B surplus w/o CGTR)

So they didn't really do a whole lot. Clinton still ran surpluses in his final two years without the Capital Gains Tax Cut Revenue.

So everything you're posting here amounts to shit because it was all wiped out when the bubble burst.
When the bubble burst, the government returned all those cap gains revenues? I don't believe you.

No, it means the revenues from the tax cut were from the bubble created by the Capital Gains Tax Cut. And bubbles pop.

You are arguing that tax cuts create deficits

Because they leave more money in my pocket. That's awful!

because I can do your exercise

Do it. How much did you save?

but what I can also do is look at the federal deficit over the same period:

The bubble burst.

And did those tax cuts do anything to help the economy?

Yes.

And what about household debt? What happened then?

Looks like it did the same thing it did after the Bush and Clinton tax hikes.

What about jobs, did the tax cuts create jobs?

Yes.

Bush signed his 2003 tax cuts into law on May 28, 2003.

Come on now, you're being deliberately obtuse for no good reason. It wasn't just Bush the Dumber who cut taxes, many states did as well.

You have a list? And a list of states where equity withdrawals occurred because of medical bills?

Those states that cut taxes ended up raising health care costs because of a lack of funding.

And a list of states that cut healthcare funding.

Bush ran up four record deficits and erased a surplus in that time while doubling the debt.

I know, it was awful that Bush added $4.9 trillion.
Obama's $9.3 trillion..........that's okay though?

So right here is what I'm talking about when I say you're being dishonest! The marginal rate is not 67%.

Where did I say the marginal rate was 67%? Link?
This is what I'm talking about when I say you're stupid. And a liar.

The marginal rate increased by 67% from (what?) to (what?)

From 3% to 5%. As I've said before.
Where before they took $100 out of my pocket, they then took $167........a 67% increase. As I've said before.

Well, if you listen to Conservatives he was because they all claim no jobs were created by the payroll tax cut Obama passed.

I'm talking about the "stimulus" tax cuts. Why did he lie when he said they would help the economy and jobs?

And let's be clear, it was a payroll tax cut, not an income tax cut.

Why did he cut payroll taxes?

"Last year, we worked together, Republicans and Democrats, to pass a payroll tax cut," Obama told the crowd in Detroit on Sept. 5, 2011. "And because of that, this year the average family has an extra $1,000 in their pocket…."

Barack Obama says payroll tax cut has boosted average family income by $1,000

That's weird. He says it put extra money in my pocket. Is he a dirty liar?

First of all, I never claimed raising taxes fixes anything.

Excellent! We should never raise taxes.

Secondly, the tax hike expired in 2015, and yet, you all are bleating about IL's current fiscal troubles.

They raised taxes, spent more, didn't reform the broken pension system.
The tax cut expired, they spent even more and still refused to reform the broken pension system.

You argue that lower taxes somehow results in less debt,

Yup. When my state tax went from 5% to 3.75%, I paid down my mortgage balance.

Conservatives are screeching about IL's fiscal troubles,

It's true, we need to slash government headcount and put the remaining employees in a 401K type plan and eliminate defined benefit plans for state and local employees. And term limits.

No, it's 100% correct.

Illinois's crappy government and huge debt overhang is definitely putting a crimp in states economy.
Residents are fleeing the state. Doesn't happen when your state is doing well economically.

So I don't know if you're playing at being obtuse or what, but I was referring to the State cutting its debt, not individuals.

Great. How much did the state's debt and pension shortfall decrease in the years after the huge tax hike?

Ah, but the State could better fund it with higher taxes, which meant folks didn't have to fork out as much, or borrow as much.

Oh, so if I give the state an extra $100, I save more than $100 on fees and tuition. Because government is so damn efficient, eh? Fucking hilarious!!!

Since the end result of the tax cut is a bubble burst and recession,

Obama cut taxes, so he could cause a recession?

then it doesn't pay for itself at all.

If a tax cut reduces government revenue, you say it didn't pay for itself.
If a tax cut increases government revenue, you say it didn't pay for itself.

Do you write climate change models?

Well, hold on a second. You posted that the Capital Gains Tax Cut produced the following revenue:

1997-$79.3 billion
1998-$86.1 billion
1999-$111.8 billion
2000-$127.3 billion

The maximum long-term rate was cut from 28% to 21%, revenues increased. A lot.

So they didn't really do a whole lot.

They increased government revenues. A lot.
You don't want higher government revenues?

 

[Papageorgio]

No it isn't. Some restaurants have great food and still fail. I know several that failed and great places to eat. Much more to running a restaurant than that.

But that's what it comes down to, though...if you make food no one likes, no one will go to your restaurant. Restaurants fail all the time, and not because of the wages of the kitchen staff.

What a simplistic, ignorant view of the restaurant business. I can tell you know little about business, surprised you would show your ignorance like you do.

 

[Papageorgio]

Don't take my word for it, plug in your income in 2000.
Put that same number in for 2003. Let us know how much you saved.

LOL! Dude, you realize of course that by using this argument you are arguing in support of deficits, right? You are arguing that tax cuts create deficits because I can do your exercise, but what I can also do is look at the federal deficit over the same period:

Deficit/Surplus
2000: $236B surplus
2001: $128B surplus (Bush Tax Cuts passed)
2002: $158B deficit
2003: $377B deficit (Record high)
2004: $412B deficit (Record high, start of mortgage bubble)
2005: $318B deficit
2006: $248B deficit
2007: $160B deficit (Mortgage bubble pops)
2008: $458B deficit (Record high)
2009: $1.4T deficit (All-time record high)

And did those tax cuts do anything to help the economy? NOPE!

And what about household debt? What happened then? Well, it shot up from around 90% of GDP up to about 130% of GDP. That's not indicative of economic growth, it's indicative of debt growth. Which seems to be the only growth tax cuts produce. So you're right in a sense that tax cuts produce growth, you're just wrong about what it is that grows.

Notice those spikes in the early 00's? What's that all about? Tax cuts creating growth? What about jobs, did the tax cuts create jobs? NOPE! Bush lost net 841,000 private sector jobs in his first four years. If tax cuts create growth, then there shouldn't have been any job loss! But OK, let's say for the sake of your weak argument that the tax cuts didn't really start until they were accelerated in 2003. So what's the net job gain/loss from then? Negative 460,000. So at no point did Bush ever net out positive job growth that wasn't due to MEW's or the housing bubble. So the claim that tax cuts create growth is supported by what? Nothing. No jobs = no growth.

The Bush tax cuts caused medical bills? Are you drunk?

Come on now, you're being deliberately obtuse for no good reason. It wasn't just Bush the Dumber who cut taxes, many states did as well. Those states that cut taxes ended up raising health care costs because of a lack of funding. So your co-pays, co-insurances, deductibles, drug costs (something Bush the Dumber and the Conservatives actually did cause to rise with their Medicare Part-D they all supported at the time, but strangely don't today). It's no coincidence that after the ACA, medical bankruptcies drop like a rock as the uninsured rate plummets to an all-time low. Bush and the COnservatives in DC may not have cut spending when they cut taxes, but all they did was transfer that burden on the states and onto the federal deficit, which Conservatives were strangely silent about for 8 years as Bush ran up four record deficits and erased a surplus in that time while doubling the debt.

So it wasn't some dramatic increase in the tax rate, was it?
Well, I guess you could claim taking 67% more out of my paycheck wasn't dramatic.
I'd have to disagree.

So right here is what I'm talking about when I say you're being dishonest! The marginal rate is not 67%. The marginal rate increased by 67% from (what?) to (what?) I've asked you for what those rates are three times now, and three times you avoided answering. I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt that you didn't mean the marginal rate was raised to 67%, but you meant the rate was raised by 67% to (insert actual rate here). One word makes alllllll the difference to your post. Like I said, I know mistakes happen so I'm going to go against my better instincts and give you the benefit of the doubt and an opportunity to correct what you meant. I don't do that for just anyone.

Obama raised taxes and cut them.
When he cut taxes, he said that would help the economy and jobs. Was he a dirty liar?

Well, if you listen to Conservatives he was because they all claim no jobs were created by the payroll tax cut Obama passed. And let's be clear, it was a payroll tax cut, not an income tax cut. So you're conflating tax cuts together. But the result of the payroll tax cut was "the worst recovery in 80 years" according to you guys. So doesn't that just then prove what I'm saying? BTW - I thought then and still believe today that Obama never should have cut the payroll tax, even temporarily, because it takes from earned benefits.

I'll end your suspense. The Dems hiked taxes by 67% to fix those problems, the problems got worse.

First of all, I never claimed raising taxes fixes anything. I am only claiming cutting them doesn't. Secondly, the tax hike expired in 2015, and yet, you all are bleating about IL's current fiscal troubles. So letting the tax hike expire didn't seem to solve any of the state's fiscal troubles, did it? That's why you all continue to invoke IL today, so your argument kind of eats itself. Well not kind of, it definitely does. You argue that lower taxes somehow results in less debt, yet Conservatives are screeching about IL's fiscal troubles, even after the tax hike expired as you say. So what does that mean? That letting the tax hike expire did nothing to change the fiscal outlook for the state. So why would lowering the taxes further have any different effect?

The fiscal picture of IL has little bearing on IL's economic performance.
That's funny. And wrong.

No, it's 100% correct. We just went through this 7 years ago with Rogoff/Reinhart's "Growth in the Time of Debt" paper. That paper concluded that once debt reaches 90% of GDP the economy "falls off a cliff". Paul Ryan even cited that paper in his Roadmap to Nowhere budgets that all Conservatives voted to support and approve. Only thing is, that study is a load of shit. Why is it a load of shit? Multiple reasons, but the most predominant three were that 1) It deliberately omitted data that disproved the preconceived conclusion, 2) It had "spreadsheet errors" by Harvard economists who should know how to use Excel since they're, you know, Harvard economists, and 3) It wasn't peer-reviewed (which would have caught #'s 1 and 2). That paper was the only thing Conservatives were using to argue that high debt has a negative effect on growth. Without it, what do you have? Nothing. Hence, why we are where we are in this debate.

They don't need to cut their debt.
Tax cuts that give people more money causes their debt to increase but tax hikes don't cause their fees, tuition or debt to decrease?

So I don't know if you're playing at being obtuse or what, but I was referring to the State cutting its debt, not individuals. And IL's Household debt did decrease during the period of its tax hike! I posted a chart that showed that very thing happening in Post #818. Maybe you missed it? No, cause you responded to it. So did you forget about it?

No, debt figures declined because citizens didn't have to go into debt to afford expenses like health care or education.
The problem with your claim is that while taxes rose, so did health care and education expenses.

Ah, but the State could better fund it with higher taxes, which meant folks didn't have to fork out as much, or borrow as much.

Funny how you completely ignore the fact that the dotcom bubble
Dotcom bubble? We were talking about your claim that the tax cut didn't "pay for itself".
Usually that means that revenues fall after a cut. Clearly they rose. Clearly, your claim was wrong.

Since the end result of the tax cut is a bubble burst and recession, then it doesn't pay for itself at all. How you can ignore the consequences of that is just wilfull ignorance at this point. What do you think caused the dotcom bubble? Because Business Insider, and NYU researchers Zhonglan Dai, Douglas A. Shackelford and Harold H. Zhang say it was the Capital Gains Tax Cut of 1997. The chickens came home to roost, it just took a few years for them to get there. But they got there. Do you think the dotcom bubble burst happened in a vacuum outside the Capital Gains Tax Cut? That the two had nothing to do with one another? Is that really the position you want to stake?

which was caused by that tax cut, popped in 2000.
So much for Bubba's surpluses that were gonna eliminate the debt, eh?

Well, hold on a second. You posted that the Capital Gains Tax Cut produced the following revenue:

1997-$79.3 billion
1998-$86.1 billion
1999-$111.8 billion
2000-$127.3 billion

And here are the surpluses with and without those revenues:

1997 - $21B deficit ($100B deficit w/o CGTR)
1998 - $69.3B surplus ($23B deficit w/o CGTR)
1999 - $125.6B surplus ($14B surplus w/o CGTR)
2000 - $236.2B surplus ($109B surplus w/o CGTR)

So they didn't really do a whole lot. Clinton still ran surpluses in his final two years without the Capital Gains Tax Cut Revenue.

So everything you're posting here amounts to shit because it was all wiped out when the bubble burst.
When the bubble burst, the government returned all those cap gains revenues? I don't believe you.

No, it means the revenues from the tax cut were from the bubble created by the Capital Gains Tax Cut. And bubbles pop.

You are arguing that tax cuts create deficits

Because they leave more money in my pocket. That's awful!

because I can do your exercise

Do it. How much did you save?

but what I can also do is look at the federal deficit over the same period:

The bubble burst.

And did those tax cuts do anything to help the economy?

Yes.

And what about household debt? What happened then?

Looks like it did the same thing it did after the Bush and Clinton tax hikes.

What about jobs, did the tax cuts create jobs?

Yes.

View attachment 137356

Bush signed his 2003 tax cuts into law on May 28, 2003.

Come on now, you're being deliberately obtuse for no good reason. It wasn't just Bush the Dumber who cut taxes, many states did as well.

You have a list? And a list of states where equity withdrawals occurred because of medical bills?

Those states that cut taxes ended up raising health care costs because of a lack of funding.

And a list of states that cut healthcare funding.

Bush ran up four record deficits and erased a surplus in that time while doubling the debt.

I know, it was awful that Bush added $4.9 trillion.
Obama's $9.3 trillion..........that's okay though?

So right here is what I'm talking about when I say you're being dishonest! The marginal rate is not 67%.

Where did I say the marginal rate was 67%? Link?
This is what I'm talking about when I say you're stupid. And a liar.

The marginal rate increased by 67% from (what?) to (what?)

From 3% to 5%. As I've said before.
Where before they took $100 out of my pocket, they then took $167........a 67% increase. As I've said before.

Well, if you listen to Conservatives he was because they all claim no jobs were created by the payroll tax cut Obama passed.

I'm talking about the "stimulus" tax cuts. Why did he lie when he said they would help the economy and jobs?

And let's be clear, it was a payroll tax cut, not an income tax cut.

Why did he cut payroll taxes?

"Last year, we worked together, Republicans and Democrats, to pass a payroll tax cut," Obama told the crowd in Detroit on Sept. 5, 2011. "And because of that, this year the average family has an extra $1,000 in their pocket…."

Barack Obama says payroll tax cut has boosted average family income by $1,000

That's weird. He says it put extra money in my pocket. Is he a dirty liar?

First of all, I never claimed raising taxes fixes anything.

Excellent! We should never raise taxes.

Secondly, the tax hike expired in 2015, and yet, you all are bleating about IL's current fiscal troubles.

They raised taxes, spent more, didn't reform the broken pension system.
The tax cut expired, they spent even more and still refused to reform the broken pension system.

You argue that lower taxes somehow results in less debt,

Yup. When my state tax went from 5% to 3.75%, I paid down my mortgage balance.

Conservatives are screeching about IL's fiscal troubles,

It's true, we need to slash government headcount and put the remaining employees in a 401K type plan and eliminate defined benefit plans for state and local employees. And term limits.

No, it's 100% correct.

Illinois's crappy government and huge debt overhang is definitely putting a crimp in states economy.
Residents are fleeing the state. Doesn't happen when your state is doing well economically.

So I don't know if you're playing at being obtuse or what, but I was referring to the State cutting its debt, not individuals.

Great. How much did the state's debt and pension shortfall decrease in the years after the huge tax hike?

Ah, but the State could better fund it with higher taxes, which meant folks didn't have to fork out as much, or borrow as much.

Oh, so if I give the state an extra $100, I save more than $100 on fees and tuition. Because government is so damn efficient, eh? Fucking hilarious!!!

Since the end result of the tax cut is a bubble burst and recession,

Obama cut taxes, so he could cause a recession?

then it doesn't pay for itself at all.

If a tax cut reduces government revenue, you say it didn't pay for itself.
If a tax cut increases government revenue, you say it didn't pay for itself.

Do you write climate change models?

Well, hold on a second. You posted that the Capital Gains Tax Cut produced the following revenue:

1997-$79.3 billion
1998-$86.1 billion
1999-$111.8 billion
2000-$127.3 billion

The maximum long-term rate was cut from 28% to 21%, revenues increased. A lot.

So they didn't really do a whole lot.

They increased government revenues. A lot.
You don't want higher government revenues?

Todd, you do realize that this lefty has no understanding of basic economics. You might as well hit your head against a wall.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

All you've shown is correlation, not the force you claim.

No, you're the one making the correlation argument. You did so quite explicitly when you stated "every time taxes are cut, the economy grows". That is purely a correlation-is-causation argument. You can't find a better example of it. Also, you didn't even prove it with facts. I have facts that support my position. Facts I've posted countless times that for some reason never seem to make it to your posts. It's not difficult to figure out that by cutting taxes, you are also forcing cuts to spending which then causes fees to rise, which forces people to go into debt. Which is exactly what they did. How come household debt levels spiked so dramatically after the Bush Tax Cuts? How come Bush's economic growth was due almost entirely to debt and credit? Tax cuts shouldn't produce those things according to you, right? Yet that's what happened. So....

So this is where we are at; You say that cutting taxes reduces debt,
I said cutting my taxes reduced my debt.

A claim which you cannot prove. Particularly if you leave out the fact that you have a child who is attending college, whose tuition rates were jacked up because the State cut taxes. Or if you leave out the fact that you have a medical condition, pre-existing, that requires high medical expenses to treat, because the State cut taxes which cut health care funding. So I mean, the thing about what you're doing on these boards is that you're trying to craft a set of controlled circumstances, in a vacuum, that you can then use as the basis of your argument. Unfortunately, since nothing you claim about yourself can be verified, we are left with the question of why should I believe anything you are saying about yourself? My statements are not anecdotal, and are a reflection of what the facts show. I cite pretty much everything I post here. You may or may not have gone into debt during Bush the Dumber, but plenty of people did for the reasons I stated before. There's no reason to believe you weren't one of them, but are just pretending otherwise on a message board because you're more about your ideology than you are about the truth. So your imaginary friends or fanciful stories are met with a shrug and dismissal by me because unless I can see it with my own eyes, I can't believe it...particularly from a Conservative whose base ideology compels dishonesty, even if that's not your malicious intent.

yet the facts show that debt increases when taxes are cut.
I don't notice debt decreasing on your chart when taxes were increased. Maybe tax rates aren't the only factor?

I never made the claim that they did. So nice try with your attempt at diversion and straw men. Let's stick to what you're claiming...that tax cuts create growth and not debt. The figures don't back up that claim. So why are you making it?

You are the one who made the correlation-is-causation argument when you said every time taxes are cut the economy grows.
So you won't be showing proof that the economy shrank when LBJ, Reagan and GWB cut taxes?

They increased spending, didn't they? LBJ by 50%, Reagan by 69%. Wouldn't spending have more of a direct effect on economic growth than tax cuts that may or may not, maybe, kinda, somewhat could if all the controls in the environment were perfect and aligned as intended, not taking human condition of greed into account, etc.? You gloss over the huge spending increases by those Presidents as if they didn't happen, and had no effect on the economy. When we know that direct government spending does have a positive economic multiplier, whereas tax cuts don't.

I backed myself up on the household debt growth as a result of tax cuts by invoking the example of the KS Board of Regents, who raised tuition in the state because of the drop in funding from Topeka.
How much was the total tax cut, how much was the total tuition hike?

Everything you need to know about this specific case is right here.

You did so quite explicitly when you stated "every time taxes are cut, the economy grows".

Only because it does.

Also, you didn't even prove it with facts.

Except for the charts of GDP before and after Reagan's tax cuts.
Except for the charts of GDP before and after Bush's tax cuts.

It's not difficult to figure out that by cutting taxes, you are also forcing cuts to spending which then causes fees to rise,

I wish the government would cut spending when they cut taxes.
You have any examples where they did? I mean besides in your imagination?

How come household debt levels spiked so dramatically after the Bush Tax Cuts?

Why did debt levels rise after GHW Bush's tax hikes?
Why did debt levels rise after Clinton's tax hikes?

I don't notice debt decreasing on your chart when taxes were increased. Maybe tax rates aren't the only factor?

I never made the claim that they did.

Excellent! So now you can stop pretending that tax cuts caused the increase in debt. Sweet!

Let's stick to what you're claiming...that tax cuts create growth and not debt.

Let's stick to what you're claiming...that tax cuts cause government spending cuts.
Because if they actually did, why would government debt increase?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Reagan's tax cuts helped the rich and the middle class.

Reagan's tax cuts helped the rich, the middle class paid for. Trickle down sound failure?

Reagan's tax cuts helped the rich, the middle class paid for.

How did the middle class pay for it? Their taxes were cut as well.

Which taxes?

Reagan cut income taxes for everyone.

It was in all the papers.

Reagan cut MY taxes from 70% to 26%.

Reagan raised YOUR taxes (FICA).

It was in all the papers.

Reagan cut MY taxes from 70% to 26%.

No he didn't.

Reagan raised YOUR taxes (FICA).

From what rate to what rate?

 

[hadit]

Hello papag. I have not seen you for a while.
My numbers was just an example how a restaurant can easily recover $192 MW a day increase = 70k/year. From my example---- if a couple spend minimum ( that is minimum ) of $11 ($5.50/person) higher from previous menus.
Let say say ONLY 35 customers ate in that restaurant for the whole day during lunch and diner= $192.50.
If that same restaurant had 80 to 120+ customers in one day. Piece of cake.

1. Been around, I hope things are going well for you. How do you drive an extra 40 to 70 customers a day?

2. The average profit margin of a restaurant is 3.6% to make up $192.50 in costs a restaurant needs to generate over $5300 a day in revenue to maintain the slim 3.6% in profit.
3. If you increase customers you will increase food costs, you increase labor, water, sewer, lights and so on. So a business owner would need to look at the impact of a wage increase and find ways to off set the expense. The ways to do that are limited. Increase menu prices, look at the restaurant hours and cut back on slow business hours, layoff workers and short staff, get lower quality food, cut back on portions, there are other ways but those are most of them. Most small businesses don't have a lot of areas to cut back.

1. Health and business been good can't complain. Just returned from a summer Hawaiian vacation with my entire clan for 8 days.

2. The 35 number of customers I gave for lunch and dinners is the minimum. There are no such restaurants that only have 35 customers for lunch and dinners. Otherwise they are not in business to begin with. I gave a minimum $5.50 per person increase from old menu x 35 customers to cover $192. They do these all the time. That kind of increase will not result in lay off, cut back hours, short staff or lower quality food. Otherwise all famous and big restaurants are closed a long time ago.
There are tons of small businesses here that are operational and successful. They do give raises to their current employees, a lot of them are making over $16/hour. I do not expect a lot or any business that will close because of MW hike. If business is good business will survive----- If business is sucks like food you don't expect to survive.

My favorite taco stand here in San Diego normally cost me $3.15 for one taco asada. I know the owner for many years. She increased the price of taco asada to $3.65 and so the rest of the menu across the board including soda effective last June 5. Not sure what and how much she increases across the board
I ate 4 taco asada today no soda ( too much sugar) just water. That is when I asked her ------ Why is the increase? She said MW increase amigo and the place was packed as always.
With low unemployment rate businesses are force to hire the rejects and higher rates than $12.

Glad you had a great vacation, we just did a drive from Mt. Rushmore, Devils Tower and Yellowstone, this fall we are taking a cruise.

I'm just saying that additional costs are not simply offset by raising prices. If a business has an increase of costs by $192, the offset has to be a lot more than $192. The actual cost is not $192, however it is closer to $5000, otherwise the profit margin goes down. Most restaurants work off a 3.6% profit margin. To produce more food, you would have to buy more food, use more electric, clean more dishes etc, etc. so it always isn't easy to do. You do have to raise food prices but it isn't the only way you can recoup a labor increase.

'Most restaurants work off a 3.6% profit margin.'

Not including;

-The owners payroll.
-The owners families payroll.
-The company car (s).
-The owners girlfriend/Sugar Baby.
-The owners vacation property.

Much, much, more than 3.6%

We are talking about MW hike not starting a business.
If a restaurants been operating and obviously making money after years of operations ------- those items you mentioned was well established inside profits long time ago before the MW hikes.
The sample I gave 12 employees, $2 MW hike each, minimum of 35 customers, spend minimum of $5.50 each higher from the old menu------ It is not that difficult to recoup $192/day.

Let say a taco stand with 5 full time employees giving them $2. each MW hike = $80 It is not difficult for a taco stand to recoup $80.

Sure, $2. We're talking about doubling it, a move that would directly impact over half the workforce.

 

[charwin95]

...So I have to be with them and ask some of my closest friends to take them to adult only places like Mustang Ranch in Las Vegas...

Mustang Ranch is in Reno, NV.

I never been there only heard of the name from when Lamar Odom went to coma. All i know is north of Las Vegas.

 

[charwin95]

1. Been around, I hope things are going well for you. How do you drive an extra 40 to 70 customers a day?

2. The average profit margin of a restaurant is 3.6% to make up $192.50 in costs a restaurant needs to generate over $5300 a day in revenue to maintain the slim 3.6% in profit.
3. If you increase customers you will increase food costs, you increase labor, water, sewer, lights and so on. So a business owner would need to look at the impact of a wage increase and find ways to off set the expense. The ways to do that are limited. Increase menu prices, look at the restaurant hours and cut back on slow business hours, layoff workers and short staff, get lower quality food, cut back on portions, there are other ways but those are most of them. Most small businesses don't have a lot of areas to cut back.

1. Health and business been good can't complain. Just returned from a summer Hawaiian vacation with my entire clan for 8 days.

2. The 35 number of customers I gave for lunch and dinners is the minimum. There are no such restaurants that only have 35 customers for lunch and dinners. Otherwise they are not in business to begin with. I gave a minimum $5.50 per person increase from old menu x 35 customers to cover $192. They do these all the time. That kind of increase will not result in lay off, cut back hours, short staff or lower quality food. Otherwise all famous and big restaurants are closed a long time ago.
There are tons of small businesses here that are operational and successful. They do give raises to their current employees, a lot of them are making over $16/hour. I do not expect a lot or any business that will close because of MW hike. If business is good business will survive----- If business is sucks like food you don't expect to survive.

My favorite taco stand here in San Diego normally cost me $3.15 for one taco asada. I know the owner for many years. She increased the price of taco asada to $3.65 and so the rest of the menu across the board including soda effective last June 5. Not sure what and how much she increases across the board
I ate 4 taco asada today no soda ( too much sugar) just water. That is when I asked her ------ Why is the increase? She said MW increase amigo and the place was packed as always.
With low unemployment rate businesses are force to hire the rejects and higher rates than $12.

Glad you had a great vacation, we just did a drive from Mt. Rushmore, Devils Tower and Yellowstone, this fall we are taking a cruise.

I'm just saying that additional costs are not simply offset by raising prices. If a business has an increase of costs by $192, the offset has to be a lot more than $192. The actual cost is not $192, however it is closer to $5000, otherwise the profit margin goes down. Most restaurants work off a 3.6% profit margin. To produce more food, you would have to buy more food, use more electric, clean more dishes etc, etc. so it always isn't easy to do. You do have to raise food prices but it isn't the only way you can recoup a labor increase.

'Most restaurants work off a 3.6% profit margin.'

Not including;

-The owners payroll.
-The owners families payroll.
-The company car (s).
-The owners girlfriend/Sugar Baby.
-The owners vacation property.

Much, much, more than 3.6%

We are talking about MW hike not starting a business.
If a restaurants been operating and obviously making money after years of operations ------- those items you mentioned was well established inside profits long time ago before the MW hikes.
The sample I gave 12 employees, $2 MW hike each, minimum of 35 customers, spend minimum of $5.50 each higher from the old menu------ It is not that difficult to recoup $192/day.

Let say a taco stand with 5 full time employees giving them $2. each MW hike = $80 It is not difficult for a taco stand to recoup $80.

Sure, $2. We're talking about doubling it, a move that would directly impact over half the workforce.

From anti MW hike this is their agenda but in reality a $2. increased is not difficult to recover from places like McDonald's, Red lobster, Olive Garden etc.
All I've been asking is show a proof where a city or restaurant that closes because of this MW hike. So far I have not heard a single story.
Anti MW and business owners like you to believe that we will collapse.

ALL business owners like me don't like this MW mandate but in my case there are no such thing in medical instrumentation business pay MW. Most or all start at lowest entry level at $16+ hour.

 

[hadit]

1. Health and business been good can't complain. Just returned from a summer Hawaiian vacation with my entire clan for 8 days.

2. The 35 number of customers I gave for lunch and dinners is the minimum. There are no such restaurants that only have 35 customers for lunch and dinners. Otherwise they are not in business to begin with. I gave a minimum $5.50 per person increase from old menu x 35 customers to cover $192. They do these all the time. That kind of increase will not result in lay off, cut back hours, short staff or lower quality food. Otherwise all famous and big restaurants are closed a long time ago.
There are tons of small businesses here that are operational and successful. They do give raises to their current employees, a lot of them are making over $16/hour. I do not expect a lot or any business that will close because of MW hike. If business is good business will survive----- If business is sucks like food you don't expect to survive.

My favorite taco stand here in San Diego normally cost me $3.15 for one taco asada. I know the owner for many years. She increased the price of taco asada to $3.65 and so the rest of the menu across the board including soda effective last June 5. Not sure what and how much she increases across the board
I ate 4 taco asada today no soda ( too much sugar) just water. That is when I asked her ------ Why is the increase? She said MW increase amigo and the place was packed as always.
With low unemployment rate businesses are force to hire the rejects and higher rates than $12.

Glad you had a great vacation, we just did a drive from Mt. Rushmore, Devils Tower and Yellowstone, this fall we are taking a cruise.

I'm just saying that additional costs are not simply offset by raising prices. If a business has an increase of costs by $192, the offset has to be a lot more than $192. The actual cost is not $192, however it is closer to $5000, otherwise the profit margin goes down. Most restaurants work off a 3.6% profit margin. To produce more food, you would have to buy more food, use more electric, clean more dishes etc, etc. so it always isn't easy to do. You do have to raise food prices but it isn't the only way you can recoup a labor increase.

'Most restaurants work off a 3.6% profit margin.'

Not including;

-The owners payroll.
-The owners families payroll.
-The company car (s).
-The owners girlfriend/Sugar Baby.
-The owners vacation property.

Much, much, more than 3.6%

We are talking about MW hike not starting a business.
If a restaurants been operating and obviously making money after years of operations ------- those items you mentioned was well established inside profits long time ago before the MW hikes.
The sample I gave 12 employees, $2 MW hike each, minimum of 35 customers, spend minimum of $5.50 each higher from the old menu------ It is not that difficult to recoup $192/day.

Let say a taco stand with 5 full time employees giving them $2. each MW hike = $80 It is not difficult for a taco stand to recoup $80.

Sure, $2. We're talking about doubling it, a move that would directly impact over half the workforce.

From anti MW hike this is their agenda but in reality a $2. increased is not difficult to recover from places like McDonald's, Red lobster, Olive Garden etc.
All I've been asking is show a proof where a city or restaurant that closes because of this MW hike. So far I have not heard a single story.
Anti MW and business owners like you to believe that we will collapse.

ALL business owners like me don't like this MW mandate but in my case there are no such thing in medical instrumentation business pay MW. Most or all start at lowest entry level at $16+ hour.

Think about that for a moment. Right now your entry level people earn twice the MW. What do you think will happen when they only earn $1/hour more than MW? Are they going to go through the education hurdles and requirements to take your jobs when they can get almost the same pay with little or no requirements? Or are you going to again double the MW and pay entry level people $30/hour?

These are things that need to be considered. 60+% of the American work force earns $20/hour or less. Bump the MW to $15/hour and you cause huge ripple effects. The only way a MW works is if you keep it low enough that it doesn't really do much.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Divine Wind]

...So I have to be with them and ask some of my closest friends to take them to adult only places like Mustang Ranch in Las Vegas...

Mustang Ranch is in Reno, NV.

I never been there only heard of the name from when Lamar Odom went to coma. All i know is north of Las Vegas.

Maybe your friends aren't the connoisseurs of cheap booze and sleazy women that you thought they were.

Waaaaay north!