TLM #2 . The professional basketballers have a base salary of USD $ 300,000.00 per year. Their benefits are not equal. This is contrary to the 14th amendment. Three of them are investing in three Papa John Restaurants at $50,000.00 each. One has his benefits from Wisconsin at $48000.00 per year. The other has benefits from New Jersey at $20,000.00 per year and the other has benefits from Maine at $10,000.00 per year. If the Papa John Restaurants each provide $600.00 per day in returns, how can they share the earnings so that the players at the end of the year receive an equal financial return from all sources of income? This is so even as they contributed equally to sales taxes although the benefits are not paid equally? . To reconcile these uneven benefits and achieve absolute financial equality at the end of the year, we have to look at the total pool of income. The core of the issue is that while their base salaries and franchise investments are identical, their state-level benefits are wildly unequal. Because they are equal partners in the Papa John's restaurants, they can use the daily cash flow from those franchises to "equalize" their total annual take-home pay. Here is the financial breakdown and the strategy to balance the scales perfectly. ## 1. The Financial Landscape..

 The professional basketballers have a base salary of USD $ 300,000.00 per year. Their benefits are not equal. This is contrary to the 14th amendment.  Three of them are investing in three Papa John Restaurants at  $50,000.00 each. One has his benefits from Wisconsin at $48000.00 per year.  The other has benefits from New Jersey at $20,000.00 per year and the other has benefits from Maine at $10,000.00 per year.  If the Papa John Restaurants each provide $600.00 per day in returns, how can  they share the earnings so that the players at the end of the year receive an equal financial return from all sources of income?  This is so even as they contributed equally to sales taxes although the benefits are not paid equally?

To reconcile these uneven benefits and achieve absolute financial equality at the end of the year, we have to look at the total pool of income.

The core of the issue is that while their base salaries and franchise investments are identical, their state-level benefits are wildly unequal. Because they are equal partners in the Papa John's restaurants, they can use the daily cash flow from those franchises to "equalize" their total annual take-home pay.

Here is the financial breakdown and the strategy to balance the scales perfectly.

## 1. The Financial Landscape

Let's look at what each player brings in before we touch the restaurant earnings. We will assume a standard 365-day year for the business returns.

### The Fixed Baseline (Per Player)

 * **Base Salary:** $300,000.00

 * **Franchise Investment:** $50,000.00 (Equal risk/capital contributed)

### The Unequal Benefits

 * **Player A (Wisconsin):** $48,000.00

 * **Player B (New Jersey):** $20,000.00

 * **Player C (Maine):** $10,000.00

### The Restaurant Revenue Pool

Each of the 3 restaurants generates $600.00 per day.

 * **Daily Pool (3 locations):** 3 \times \$600.00 = \$1,800.00 per day

 * **Annual Pool:** \$1,800.00 \times 365 = \mathbf{\$657,000.00} per year

## 2. Calculating the Target Equal Income

To find out what each player *should* make, we pool all income sources together (Salaries + Benefits + Restaurant Returns) and divide it equally by 3.

Dividing this total pool equally among the three players gives us the target annual income:

## 3. The Equalization Payout Structure

To ensure everyone hits exactly **$545,000.00**, the Papa John's business earnings cannot be split into standard 33.3% shares. Instead, the restaurant profit must be distributed disproportionately to offset the benefit gaps.

Here is how the $657,000.00 in annual restaurant earnings must be carved up:

| Player | Base Salary | State Benefits | Required Restaurant Share | Total Annual Income |

|---|---|---|---|---|

| **Player A (WI)** | $300,000.00 | $48,000.00 | **$197,000.00** | $545,000.00 |

| **Player B (NJ)** | $300,000.00 | $20,000.00 | **$225,000.00** | $545,000.00 |

| **Player C (ME)** | $300,000.00 | $10,000.00 | **$238,000.00** | $545,000.00 |

| **Total** | **$900,000.00** | **$78,000.00** | **$657,000.00** | **$1,635,000.00** |

## 4. How to Execute This Daily/Monthly

To make this seamless for their accounting, they can translate these annual targets into daily or monthly distribution percentages from the restaurant partnership account.

### The Daily Split of the $1,800.00 Restaurant Pool:

 * **Player A (Wisconsin):** Receives **$539.73 per day** (~29.98% of the pool)

 * **Player B (New Jersey):** Receives **$616.44 per day** (~34.25% of the pool)

 * **Player C (Maine):** Receives **$652.05 per day** (~35.77% of the pool)

> **Regarding Sales Taxes:** Because sales taxes are levied on consumer transactions at the point of sale within each restaurant, they are entirely paid out of the business's gross revenues before these net returns are calculated. Because the business pays them uniformly as a single entity, the players' equal contribution to the generation of those sales taxes remains perfectly preserved, even while their back-end distributions are adjusted to fix the 14th-Amendment-style disparity in their state benefits.

> 

Send us a Western Union donation by Email.