• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Papa John's Pizza To Raise Prices Because Of Obamacare, CEO John Schnatter Says

Harshaw said:
An army of strawmen. I didn't say a thing about fuel prices, and I couldn't care less how it affects demand.

You're tripping all over yourself here.
Click to expand...

I think you're confusing "strawmen" for "something Harshaw doesn't want to acknowledge because it hurts his position".
 
RadicalModerate said:
As you focus solely on the tax and ignore the lowered cost of healthcare....?

I'd agree with you if there was no benefit on the other side for consumers, like a war tax.

But if people can ultimately save thousands of dollars on their healthcare costs, which everyone will eventually use, is the increase of few cents of products really going reduce demand? In the long run, people should theoretically have MORE money at the end of the year to spend on greasy pizza, which, ironically, will likely INCREASE their use of healthcare.
Click to expand...

What? What in PPACA lowers any medical care costs? In case you have not noticed these medical care insurance costs went up due to PPACA.
 
20 cents is the direct cost increase. It doesn’t include the other increases as his suppliers also raise rates to offset their higher burden.

It’s simple way of hiding of the progressive tax implemented as insurance providers laugh all the way to the bank.
 
RadicalModerate said:
I think you're confusing "strawmen" for "something Harshaw doesn't want to acknowledge because it hurts his position".
Click to expand...

I think you're just plain confused.

Neither fuel prices nor effect on demand have anything to do with what I said. At all. In any way.

You're simply trying to deflect to other issues.

Look, as a tax, it will be paid extremely disproportionately by the lowest incomes. If you think that's OK, then you're cheering on a regressive tax. That's really all there is to it. "Fuel prices" and "decrease in demand" are 100% irrelevant -- simply distractions.
 
Last edited:
ttwtt78640 said:
What? What in PPACA lowers any medical care costs?
Click to expand...

???
It's the entire goal of the bill. It's a long term solution to rising health care costs.

You can disagree with it's effectiveness, but you can't say it WON'T lower costs just because you have a ideological problem with it.
 
Harshaw said:
I think you're just plain confused.

Neither fuel prices nor effect on demand have anything to do with what I said. At all. In any way.

You're simply trying to deflect to other issues.

Look, as a tax, it will be paid extremely disproportionately by the lowest incomes. If you think that's OK, then you're cheering on a regressive tax. That's really all there is to it. "Fuel prices" and "decrease in demand" are 100% irrelevant -- simply distractions.
Click to expand...

So, all you got from my post was "------- -- ------ --- YAY TAX ON THE POOR!!!! ----- ----------- -- - --------- ---- --- -------- - -"?
 
RadicalModerate said:
???
It's the entire goal of the bill. It's a long term solution to rising health care costs.

You can disagree with it's effectiveness, but you can't say it WON'T lower costs just because you have a ideological problem with it.
Click to expand...

Let's inject a little reality at this point.

Average Cost of U.S. Health Coverage per Employee is Expected to Cross... -- LINCOLNSHIRE, Ill., Oct. 3, 2011 /PRNewswire/ --

Average Employer Healthcare Costs Exceed $6,800, New Survey Reports
 
johnny_rebson said:
Thanks to ObamaCare, your favorite pizzeria might be going out of business.
Click to expand...

Aren't they a million dollar business? I really don't think Obamacare will screw Papa Johns over. Call me crazy :roll:
 
RadicalModerate said:
So, all you got from my post was "------- -- ------ --- YAY TAX ON THE POOR!!!! ----- ----------- -- - --------- ---- --- -------- - -"?
Click to expand...

Your posts are cheering on a regressive tax, where the benefits don't change the fact that the tax is regressive. Any regressive tax has benefits. It's the "regressive" nature of the tax which is generally objected to.

So I guess the question is this: what, given everything you've said here -- especially the "benefits" -- would be your objection to switching from income taxes to consumption taxes, paid at the register?

Or would you NOT object to that?
 
lpast said:
because if they dont have insurance we will pay far more for their trip to the emergency room...
Click to expand...

No matter of they go to the ER, or if they get insurance through work due to the ACA... WE are paying for it... To not realize that money is going out one way or another to pay for other peoples healthcare is to be ignorant.
 
If Obamacare can put that disgusting ****hole wannabe pizza place out of business, I might actually begin supporting obamacare.
 
Tucker Case said:
If Obamacare can put that disgusting ****hole wannabe pizza place out of business, I might actually begin supporting obamacare.
Click to expand...

Horrible crap of pizza ...I had it just once...if anyone eats a real NYC wood fired stove pizza they will never eat a chain pizza again
 
Harshaw said:
Your posts are cheering on a regressive tax, where the benefits don't change the fact that the tax is regressive. Any regressive tax has benefits. It's the "regressive" nature of the tax which is generally objected to.
Click to expand...

So you're hung up on one detail while ignoring the larger picture; healthcare costs are the biggest expenditure in terms of percentage of GDP and it's been rising for decades.

If that cost is reduced, which is the goal of the healthcare act, then the savings are spread throughout the economy. If everyone ends up paying less for healthcare, that leaves more money to spend on pizza.

In a nutshell.

So I guess the question is this: what, given everything you've said here -- especially the "benefits" -- would be your objection to switching from income taxes to consumption taxes, paid at the register?

Or would you NOT object to that?
Click to expand...

Any type of tax increases costs "artificially". Essentially, a tax on income reduces income, a tax on consumer spending reduces consumer spending (this is a vast oversimplification, becasue economics is never really an 1 + 1= 2 equation, it's always more complicated when you get into the details). The question is which one will create the balance between federal spending and income? As far as I can tell, a consumption tax brings in less than an income tax, so we would need a smaller government based on the lower revenue levels.
 
Last edited:
American said:
What do you actually know about their business? You act as though 20 cents is nothing, but you have no idea if that is true. They are in a very competitive market, you don't know that 20 cents isn't a price increase that will cause issues.
Click to expand...

What do I know about the pizza business..ROFLAMO...Ive owned 7 pizzerias over a span of many years and owned 3 at one time...I was in the pizza business while my wife was a many time over salon owner over 3 or more decades...she still owns a couple of salons...
20 cts on a pizza means SQUAT...your increase on a pizza is more than that every spring when they shoot your delivery costs through the roof raping us on the price of gasoline....I paid my employees more than any other competitor and I had THE LEAST PROBLEMS OF THEM ALL and I made far more money than all of them...I offered a group plan admittedly not the best but something to all my full time employees me and my partner...I would gladly eat 20 cts on a 18.00 pizza to have employees with health care and less worries and be more healthy....and anyone that doesnt think like that in my opinion is a greedy self centered jackass....give a little GAIN ALOT...
 
RadicalModerate said:
So you're hung up on one detail while ignoring the larger picture; healthcare costs are the biggest expenditure in terms of percentage of GDP and it's been rising for decades.
Click to expand...

It's not one detail; it's the point. Everything else you're bringing up is deflection.


If that cost is reduced, which is the goal of the healthcare act, then the savings are spread throughout the economy. If everyone ends up paying less for healthcare, that leaves more money to spend on pizza.

In a nutshell.
Click to expand...

A) That's only if it works; it being "the goal" doesn't make it so, even if you're treating it in this thread as though it does. "The goal is to decrease costs!!!!!!" So what if it's the goal? Doesn't mean it WILL.

B) It's still irrelevant, because it all happens disproportionately on the backs of the poor, which is IN AND OF ITSELF considered to be *evil*. That's the point YOU want to deflect from.

So, the poor get pinched more to help out the poor. Nice. You're all in favor of it. You keep proving it.

Not only to help out the poor, but even the non-poor, who will ALSO have more money to spend on pizza, whether they "need" it or not. Trickle-up. Nice.


Any type of tax increases costs "artificially". Essentially, a tax on income reduces income, a tax on consumer spending reduces consumer spending (this is a vast oversimplification, becasue economics is never really an 1 + 1= 2 equation, it's always more complicated when you get into the details). The question which one will create the balance between federal spending and income? As far as I can tell, a consumption tax brings in less than an income tax, so we would need a smaller government based on the lower revenue levels.
Click to expand...

So your only objection to a regressive tax is that it might not bring in as much? If it's not, what other objections might you have?

(You've contradicted yourself on your "decrease in demand" distraction, BTW.)
 
Last edited:
Harshaw said:
It's not one detail; it's the point. Everything else you're bringing up is deflection.




A) That's only if it works; it being "the goal" doesn't make it so, even if you're treating it in this thread as though it does. "The goal is to decrease costs!!!!!!" So what if it's the goal? Doesn't mean it WILL.

B) It's still irrelevant, because it all happens disproportionately on the backs of the poor, which is IN AND OF ITSELF considered to be *evil*. That's the point YOU want to deflect from.

So, the poor get pinched more to help out the poor. Nice. You're all in favor of it. You keep proving it.




So your only objection to a regressive tax is that it might not bring in as much? If it's not, what other objections might you have?

(You've contradicted yourself on your "decrease in demand" distraction, BTW.)
Click to expand...

Oh I get it. I'm supposed to actively limit my understanding of things in order to see your point.

Mmmm, no thanks.
 
If one company hike prices, then rest of the companies will hike. People in the United States are on the edge of drought. Companies should think about people before going to hike prices.
 
RadicalModerate said:
So you're hung up on one detail while ignoring the larger picture; healthcare costs are the biggest expenditure in terms of percentage of GDP and it's been rising for decades.

If that cost is reduced, which is the goal of the healthcare act, then the savings are spread throughout the economy. If everyone ends up paying less for healthcare, that leaves more money to spend on pizza.

In a nutshell.



Any type of tax increases costs "artificially". Essentially, a tax on income reduces income, a tax on consumer spending reduces consumer spending (this is a vast oversimplification, becasue economics is never really an 1 + 1= 2 equation, it's always more complicated when you get into the details). The question is which one will create the balance between federal spending and income? As far as I can tell, a consumption tax brings in less than an income tax, so we would need a smaller government based on the lower revenue levels.
Click to expand...

Endlessly repeating NONSENSE does not make it true. Show me ANY evidence that the PPACA reduced medical care or medical care insurance costs. I have provided several links to the contrary, yet you ignore them. Why can't you "enlighten" us with an example (or two) that show ANY actual decrease in medical care costs since PPACA became the law?
 
RadicalModerate said:
Oh I get it. I'm supposed to actively limit my understanding of things in order to see your point.

Mmmm, no thanks.
Click to expand...

Towel: thrown in. These are perfectly legit points you're refusing to answer.

I'm not required to accept your strawmen.

And as I pointed out, your "benefits" analysis works against you, because indeed, the "more money to spend on pizza" comes from the backs of the poor, even in your OWN formulation.

Look, if you're OK with that, just say so.
 
RadicalModerate said:
Oh I get it. I'm supposed to actively limit my understanding of things in order to see your point.

Mmmm, no thanks.
Click to expand...

Not at all, but you refuse to acknoledge REALITY, that PPACA has increased medical care INSURANCE costs, while it has NOT decreased medical care costs. Show us the LINKS to back up your "wish" that the PPACA will somehow lower medical care insurance costs.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Not at all, but you refuse to acknoledge REALITY, that PPACA has increased medical care INSURANCE costs, while it has NOT decreased medical care costs. Show us the LINKS to back up your "wish" that the PPACA will somehow lower medical care insurance costs.
Click to expand...

Obamacare will help drive down health care costs

By the way, this is a long term plan, not some ****ty little stop-gap measure. If you expected immediate reduced costs, you're going to be disappointed.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom