I’m calling bullshit, guys.
I’m NOT saying tip if you get poor service…never did and never will.
And for the price he paid for those cards to make his “statement” to that waiter, he could have left 50 damn cent.
Moving on.
Mufasa
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
Someone left this in a San Francisco restaurant today, kinda funny…
[/quote]
Yeah, so hilarious. I’m sure the waiter or bartender will remember this douchebag the next time they come in and cut down on the service they will receive. Cheap ass will wonder why.[/quote]
Agree.
They needed to go someplace with a Drive-Thru or pick-up…not a full-service Restaurant.
Mufasa[/quote]
LOL, yeah and when everyone thinks like this, the restaurant goes under and the waiter loses his job.
Great solution.[/quote]
Either way this is an incredibly stupid and poorly thought out thing to do. Under federal law, tipped employees (meaning they regularly get at least $30 per month in tips) can be paid as little as $2.13 an hour as long as their total wages equal at least the federal minimum wage of $7.25. So, if patrons want to be assholes and make some childish statement by not tipping around the standard acceptable amount of 15% or at all, then the restaurant must make up the difference.
Now, depending on what restaurant we are talking about, the restaurant will also be faced with the problem of most waiters, when tips are taken into account, make more than $7.25 an hour and so will need to either pay their waiters more then that to make up for the difference in pay or risk losing a good portion of their workforce.
Luckily, this problem has been solved already in the form of automatic gratuities, which I believe the IRS considers wages and not tips. If this not tipping bullshit becomes more popular, the easiest solution for restaurants is to include an automatic 15% or more gratuity. Most of the restaurants I go to do this, and it is quite popular in Europe. The other option is to just raise the prices of the food. Either way, the waiters will ultimately make roughly the same as before and the customer will still pay the same, or more, depending on how pissed off the restaurant owners are about customers trying to rip them and their employees off, so the statement this guy was trying to make will be completely useless.
[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:
If this not tipping bullshit becomes more popular, the easiest solution for restaurants is to include an automatic 15% or more gratuity. … The other option is to just raise the prices of the food. [/quote]
Those two actions are one in the same. They are both an increase in the cost of eating out. 6 of one, half dozen of another…
As to the larger point. You are missing it as well. This is about disposable income, and while the dude leaving the card may be “cheap” or a “dirtbag” he is teaching this waiter and others a lesson more valuable than any 15% tip would be ing the first place.
That lesson?
Just because you don’t make enough to have to directly pay more in taxes, a tax increase affects everyone. So vote for “other people’s” taxes to go up with caution.
Having to explain this, after for months being lectured on the context of the “you didn’t build that” speech is cracking me up.
[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
Someone left this in a San Francisco restaurant today, kinda funny…
[/quote]
Yeah, so hilarious. I’m sure the waiter or bartender will remember this douchebag the next time they come in and cut down on the service they will receive. Cheap ass will wonder why.[/quote]
Agree.
They needed to go someplace with a Drive-Thru or pick-up…not a full-service Restaurant.
Mufasa[/quote]
LOL, yeah and when everyone thinks like this, the restaurant goes under and the waiter loses his job.
Great solution.[/quote]
Either way this is an incredibly stupid and poorly thought out thing to do. Under federal law, tipped employees (meaning they regularly get at least $30 per month in tips) can be paid as little as $2.13 an hour as long as their total wages equal at least the federal minimum wage of $7.25. So, if patrons want to be assholes and make some childish statement by not tipping around the standard acceptable amount of 15% or at all, then the restaurant must make up the difference.
Now, depending on what restaurant we are talking about, the restaurant will also be faced with the problem of most waiters, when tips are taken into account, make more than $7.25 an hour and so will need to either pay their waiters more then that to make up for the difference in pay or risk losing a good portion of their workforce.
Luckily, this problem has been solved already in the form of automatic gratuities, which I believe the IRS considers wages and not tips. If this not tipping bullshit becomes more popular, the easiest solution for restaurants is to include an automatic 15% or more gratuity. Most of the restaurants I go to do this, and it is quite popular in Europe. The other option is to just raise the prices of the food. Either way, the waiters will ultimately make roughly the same as before and the customer will still pay the same, or more, depending on how pissed off the restaurant owners are about customers trying to rip them and their employees off, so the statement this guy was trying to make will be completely useless.[/quote]
I’m also cracked up over here, because you explain the situation perfectly. But instead of looking at it from a rational economic perspective of “hey, people who spend money in these places have less to spend now” you look at it as “evil rich guy is stupid.”
You get it, you just look at the situation with empathy for one and apathy for the other. Had you have empathy for both (ro apathy for both) my posts would make more sense.
What kind of silly logic is this?
a) You built a profitable business? You didn’t get there on your own, you owe the people of this country, they helped you out, raods, electric, government is great
b) You paid more in tax and can’t give as much of a tip? You shouldn’t go out, you can’t live like that, that extra cost is all on you to bear the burden of. Don’t let it affect me, you eat that loss.
Love it.
Business is profitable? Thank the little guy. Business goes under? That’s on you dawg…
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
What kind of silly logic is this?
a) You built a profitable business? You didn’t get there on your own, you owe the people of this country, they helped you out, raods, electric, government is great
b) You paid more in tax and can’t give as much of a tip? You shouldn’t go out, you can’t live like that, that extra cost is all on you to bear the burden of. Don’t let it affect me, you eat that loss.
Love it.
Business is profitable? Thank the little guy. Business goes under? That’s on you dawg…
[/quote]
You are now learning what we here in California call “starting a small business.”
The joke goes…
Beans: “Hey Max, how do you guys start a small business out there in California?”
Max: “That’s easy, start a big business.”
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
Those two actions are one in the same. They are both an increase in the cost of eating out. 6 of one, half dozen of another… [/quote]
No, what I outlined would roughly result in the cost of eating out remaining the same, as well as the wages of the waiters and waitresses, which is why the message this guy was trying to send is as ineffective as its delivery is childish.
The thing is, he didn’t actually make that point. That was the point of my post. If he had simply not eaten out that would have made that point, and he wouldn’t have even needed to spend the money on the childish card. By eating out, he showed that he did indeed have the discretionary income to spend, but stopped just short of providing what American society considers fair compensation for services rendered because he specifically wanted to make life harder for the waiter. Unfortunately, this will not work for the reasons I outlined above.
When did I, or anyone else for that matter, make an argument otherwise? All I did was point out fundamental flaws in the methods of this particular argument. Of course losing income in any way will result in less spending by those people. I do not think I have seen anybody say otherwise. What it boils down to is who can better afford it. And before anybody attacks me for that statement, I will state that my tax rate did increase, and here soon I will be paying taxes in two countries.
The bottom line here is that the money that I will have to pay in extra taxes will be a bit less than the median household income of an American family, but assuming that I take it all out of my discretionary income I still have way more then that to spend. If you take someone who makes $50,000 a year and raise their taxes by 5% or more, and the percentage of their discretionary spending that they lose is a lot more.
[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:
No, what I outlined would roughly result in the cost of eating out remaining the same, as well as the wages of the waiters and waitresses, which is why the message this guy was trying to send is as ineffective as its delivery is childish.[/quote]
I’m not a physics major here so I’m lost:
a) Pre-Obama Tax Increases: I go out to eat, bill is $50, I tip $10. My cost $60, waiter makes $10. 100 other people do the same, waiter makes $1000.
b) Post-Obama Tax Increase: I go out to eat, bill is $50, I tip $8. My cost $58, waiter makes $8. 100 other people do the same, waiter makes $800. This isn’t enough, so the joint forces me to pay the additional $2 as a tip. My cost is again $60.
c) Post-Obama Tax Increase: I go out to eat, bill is $50, I tip $8. My cost $58, waiter makes $8. 100 other people do the same, waiter makes $800. This isn’t enough, so the joint adds $2 to my food costs to cover the additional pay they have to give the waiter. My cost is again $60.
No, it isn’t always going to be a 1 for 1, but in simple terms, forced tip or increased food costs, in the end, both do the same thing, raise my cost of eating out above what I planned.
Well, we could all just stop eating out, and then see much that waiter makes. Oh that’s right, he’ll lose his job…
[quote]
When did I, or anyone else for that matter, make an argument otherwise? [/quote]
Never said you made that arguement, although I’m pretty sure it was stated in this thread “if you make less than XXX why do you care?”
And then, you, mufasa and Zeplin-I ignore all points my propoganda doesn’t cover- made it out like this result isn’t valid economicly, which, it is.
No, they didn’t say otherwise, because they never thought it out that far. They just see “tax the rich, I’m not rich, so all is good in the world. The big evil rich guy is getting shafted for once.” Never once taking the time to think, “hey, that big evil rich guy leaves good tips. Wonder what happens when he doesn’t have as much spending cash?”
And… We get to my point. The solution offered by Mufasa results in the dinner getting less business, which means less money for the waiter than if he got a shorter tip than normal. You seem to think that this won’t happen, and I’m not sure why. Because if what you said was true, I wouldn’t be recording the remodel on route 9 for 1.7mil because the first joint went under when people stopped eating there…
Right, but when you, and a 1,000 other people like you stop eating out, because you took that out of your discretionary spending, guess what, the people serving food loss their jobs. Do you see where I’m going with this?
This sin’t as simple as “that guy is a douche.”
He may be a douche, but boiling it down to that is lazy dangerous thinking that gets us the current administration we have.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
I’m not a physics major here so I’m lost:
a) Pre-Obama Tax Increases: I go out to eat, bill is $50, I tip $10. My cost $60, waiter makes $10. 100 other people do the same, waiter makes $1000.
b) Post-Obama Tax Increase: I go out to eat, bill is $50, I tip $8. My cost $58, waiter makes $8. 100 other people do the same, waiter makes $800. This isn’t enough, so the joint forces me to pay the additional $2 as a tip. My cost is again $60.
c) Post-Obama Tax Increase: I go out to eat, bill is $50, I tip $8. My cost $58, waiter makes $8. 100 other people do the same, waiter makes $800. This isn’t enough, so the joint adds $2 to my food costs to cover the additional pay they have to give the waiter. My cost is again $60.
No, it isn’t always going to be a 1 for 1, but in simple terms, forced tip or increased food costs, in the end, both do the same thing, raise my cost of eating out above what I planned.
[/quote]
You do not have to be a physicist to get this:
a) pre tax increase: you pay $60
b and c) post tax increase: you pay $60, and the waiter makes the same amount
Since $60 = $60, it follows that a = b = c, this means that the cost of dining there is the same pre- and post tax increase is the same. What you wanted to pay is not relevant to this scenario at all. If you can not afford it, do not eat there. It is called living within your means. If you cannot afford a custom tailored suit, you do not buy it. You do not go to the tailor, get it made and take possession of it and say “Due to the tax increase I can not afford to pay you full price, but I will give you 90% of your price.” That will land you in jail for theft or more, and if you try to say beforehand that you will not pay full price you will be shown the door. If enough people cannot afford to frequent that establishment, it will either have to make fundamental changes to its prices or how the business is run or go out of business. This guys actions will not ultimately affect the profits of the restaurant or the wages of the staff. I have already explained why.
I will get to the rest of your post later, I have a dinner reservation and I will be leaving a very generous tip, assuming the service is good (and it always is at this place).
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
Someone left this in a San Francisco restaurant today, kinda funny…
[/quote]
Yeah, so hilarious. I’m sure the waiter or bartender will remember this douchebag the next time they come in and cut down on the service they will receive. Cheap ass will wonder why.[/quote]
Agree.
They needed to go someplace with a Drive-Thru or pick-up…not a full-service Restaurant.
Mufasa[/quote]
LOL, yeah and when everyone thinks like this, the restaurant goes under and the waiter loses his job.
Great solution.[/quote]
Either way this is an incredibly stupid and poorly thought out thing to do. Under federal law, tipped employees (meaning they regularly get at least $30 per month in tips) can be paid as little as $2.13 an hour as long as their total wages equal at least the federal minimum wage of $7.25. So, if patrons want to be assholes and make some childish statement by not tipping around the standard acceptable amount of 15% or at all, then the restaurant must make up the difference.
Now, depending on what restaurant we are talking about, the restaurant will also be faced with the problem of most waiters, when tips are taken into account, make more than $7.25 an hour and so will need to either pay their waiters more then that to make up for the difference in pay or risk losing a good portion of their workforce.
Luckily, this problem has been solved already in the form of automatic gratuities, which I believe the IRS considers wages and not tips. If this not tipping bullshit becomes more popular, the easiest solution for restaurants is to include an automatic 15% or more gratuity. Most of the restaurants I go to do this, and it is quite popular in Europe. The other option is to just raise the prices of the food. Either way, the waiters will ultimately make roughly the same as before and the customer will still pay the same, or more, depending on how pissed off the restaurant owners are about customers trying to rip them and their employees off, so the statement this guy was trying to make will be completely useless.[/quote]
I’m also cracked up over here, because you explain the situation perfectly. But instead of looking at it from a rational economic perspective of “hey, people who spend money in these places have less to spend now” you look at it as “evil rich guy is stupid.”
You get it, you just look at the situation with empathy for one and apathy for the other. Had you have empathy for both (ro apathy for both) my posts would make more sense.[/quote]
I do the same though. Go tip for service or don’t eat out. I’m very well aware what will happen to the waiter if nobody comes in–as I am quite aware that the card left speaks a general economic truth, and one which Dr. Matt and you both have harped on–but there’s no excuse to not tip for adequate service. I lived off tips for a long time, and I have friends that still do. Those people are assholes, lesson given or not.
And lets be honest, this isn’t anger at “evil rich guy”. I don’t give a flying fuck if he’s rich or poor. I don’t care what he makes, I don’t want to take more money from him, and I don’t think he’s evil. I’m not jealous of him. But he is IS an asshole, because if he is well off enough to go out to eat, he is well-off enough to tip 15%. It’s part of your budget. When I go out, I always have budgeted a tip. When my friends decide whether or not they can go out, they count tip into whatever money they bring. They’re poor, and I’m not super well off, but we’re also not fucking assholes. For that matter I still have younger friends in college who happen to work to make ends meet instead of live off mom and dad…and THEY also budget tip money. So the dude with the card can go fuck himself if he’s too arrogant to do the same with significantly more money that my friends have to budget with.
One other very relevant point that you do not realize is that a LOT of places, particularly bars and non-chain restaurants 100% skimp on what is SUPPOSED to happen with wage compensation to bring the total paycheck of service people up to $7.25. This is not uncommon in the slightest, and I would wager to say in a lot of places–as somebody who spent years in the service industry–it is the absolute norm to conveniently “forget” to add the extra money into a waiters check to make that 2.15 an hour the full 7.25 per hour. I cannot count the instances of that happening. In that case the waiter gets fucked because he is working at a place that doesn’t make up for McAsshole’s douchebaggery. And places like that are a lot more common than you think.
[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:
What you wanted to pay is not relevant to this scenario at all.
[/quote]
What you want to pay in tip is very relevant. In fact it is the entire point.
It is, without question, the central issue to this entire back and forth on this page…
Choice is the point.
[quote]Aragorn wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
Someone left this in a San Francisco restaurant today, kinda funny…
[/quote]
Yeah, so hilarious. I’m sure the waiter or bartender will remember this douchebag the next time they come in and cut down on the service they will receive. Cheap ass will wonder why.[/quote]
Agree.
They needed to go someplace with a Drive-Thru or pick-up…not a full-service Restaurant.
Mufasa[/quote]
LOL, yeah and when everyone thinks like this, the restaurant goes under and the waiter loses his job.
Great solution.[/quote]
Either way this is an incredibly stupid and poorly thought out thing to do. Under federal law, tipped employees (meaning they regularly get at least $30 per month in tips) can be paid as little as $2.13 an hour as long as their total wages equal at least the federal minimum wage of $7.25. So, if patrons want to be assholes and make some childish statement by not tipping around the standard acceptable amount of 15% or at all, then the restaurant must make up the difference.
Now, depending on what restaurant we are talking about, the restaurant will also be faced with the problem of most waiters, when tips are taken into account, make more than $7.25 an hour and so will need to either pay their waiters more then that to make up for the difference in pay or risk losing a good portion of their workforce.
Luckily, this problem has been solved already in the form of automatic gratuities, which I believe the IRS considers wages and not tips. If this not tipping bullshit becomes more popular, the easiest solution for restaurants is to include an automatic 15% or more gratuity. Most of the restaurants I go to do this, and it is quite popular in Europe. The other option is to just raise the prices of the food. Either way, the waiters will ultimately make roughly the same as before and the customer will still pay the same, or more, depending on how pissed off the restaurant owners are about customers trying to rip them and their employees off, so the statement this guy was trying to make will be completely useless.[/quote]
I’m also cracked up over here, because you explain the situation perfectly. But instead of looking at it from a rational economic perspective of “hey, people who spend money in these places have less to spend now” you look at it as “evil rich guy is stupid.”
You get it, you just look at the situation with empathy for one and apathy for the other. Had you have empathy for both (ro apathy for both) my posts would make more sense.[/quote]
I do the same though. Go tip for service or don’t eat out. I’m very well aware what will happen to the waiter if nobody comes in–as I am quite aware that the card left speaks a general economic truth, and one which Dr. Matt and you both have harped on–but there’s no excuse to not tip for adequate service. I lived off tips for a long time, and I have friends that still do. Those people are assholes, lesson given or not.
And lets be honest, this isn’t anger at “evil rich guy”. I don’t give a flying fuck if he’s rich or poor. I don’t care what he makes, I don’t want to take more money from him, and I don’t think he’s evil. I’m not jealous of him. But he is IS an asshole, because if he is well off enough to go out to eat, he is well-off enough to tip 15%. It’s part of your budget. When I go out, I always have budgeted a tip. When my friends decide whether or not they can go out, they count tip into whatever money they bring. They’re poor, and I’m not super well off, but we’re also not fucking assholes. For that matter I still have younger friends in college who happen to work to make ends meet instead of live off mom and dad…and THEY also budget tip money. So the dude with the card can go fuck himself if he’s too arrogant to do the same with significantly more money that my friends have to budget with.
One other very relevant point that you do not realize is that a LOT of places, particularly bars and non-chain restaurants 100% skimp on what is SUPPOSED to happen with wage compensation to bring the total paycheck of service people up to $7.25. This is not uncommon in the slightest, and I would wager to say in a lot of places–as somebody who spent years in the service industry–it is the absolute norm to conveniently “forget” to add the extra money into a waiters check to make that 2.15 an hour the full 7.25 per hour. I cannot count the instances of that happening. In that case the waiter gets fucked because he is working at a place that doesn’t make up for McAsshole’s douchebaggery. And places like that are a lot more common than you think.
[/quote]
Foods Stamps and Tips are the reason I had food in my mouth at a young age, so don’t take what I’m saying here as defending this dude.
First off, we have no idea if he left 20%, 15%, 10% or 0%. So let’s not jump to conclusions. Before our baby, there were wait staff at a couple places that knew us, knew how we tipped, and took care of us accordingly. 20% is the lowest I go normally, hovering around 25-30% for most everything, haircuts, etc.
That being said, I don’t have as much to spend today as I did yesterday. I’ll be god damned if the government of all people is going to stop me from enjoying myself, enjoying what I earned, to the point where I’m not going to go out and eat because I have to leave 12-15% rather than 18-20% or whatever. And if the waiter takes a pay cut because of it, so be it, elections have consequenses.
This all ignores the fact the waiter is worse off if I don’t come in at all, irrelevant of the tip, even if it is 0%. (This last little bit is the reason I posted on this topic at all.)
Why should this dude (or me or anyone) be the only one having to alter their life?
Why does “you didn’t build that” only go one way?
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
Why should this dude (or me or anyone) be the only one having to alter their life?
Why does “you didn’t build that” only go one way?
[/quote]
Because you’re a successful fuck who earned it, while others want it handed to them.
Problem is, the world meets no one halfway.
The card indicated the guy was in the higher of the new tax brackets (450k or whatever they agreed on?) I make less than that and have no problem affording eating out and tipping. Guy was just a jackass. The proper way to make a point is to not eat out in the first place as it is cheaper even with no tip.
As much fun as it is to get derailed by something like a note at a restaurant about a tip (or lack thereof), Can we stick a little more to the main topic, something along the lines of financial responsibility?
I just don’t think this tip thing is a good way for anyone to clearly communicate grander ideas.
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
The proper way to make a point is to not eat out in the first place as it is cheaper even with no tip.[/quote]
Again, this is worse for everyone, than a going out and giving a short tip.
This, suf’s post, is why raising taxes on only “the rich” affects everyone, and everyone should care.
This conversation proves the entire point many of us are trying to make.
Every single person who voted for prop 30 would have been better off reading the last couple pages of this thread. People just cut off their own nose to spite their face. Why? Well because cutting spending is scary. Oh and Bam promised it would only be the “rich”. LOL. Hows that working out for you?
Liz Warren flat our refused to put a dollar amount on “middle class” and “rich”, and idiots still voted for her.
Let it burn bitches, enjoy the ride.
Elections are won on 30 second sound bits that fall on the ears of morons.
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
Someone left this in a San Francisco restaurant today, kinda funny…
[/quote]
Funny? Thank you for making my point about greed.
My household income is slightly more than $100,000, I’m an atheist, and I’d never dream of doing that to someone.
Jewbacca: Thank you for your story. It’s a good one.
Beans: Valid point about why chasing money is no different than chasing lifting numbers. I mulled that over for a few days and couldn’t provide a good counterpoint.
[quote]kpsnap wrote:
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
Someone left this in a San Francisco restaurant today, kinda funny…
[/quote]
Funny? Thank you for making my point about greed.
My household income is slightly more than $100,000, I’m an atheist, and I’d never dream of doing that to someone.
Jewbacca: Thank you for your story. It’s a good one.
Beans: Valid point about why chasing money is no different than chasing lifting numbers. I mulled that over for a few days and couldn’t provide a good counterpoint. [/quote]
Why did you feel the need to point out your income and religious affiliation to make your point ?
Seems like Dems were against raising the debt ceiling not long ago, double standard ?