Power to the People, b*****es.
Thousands of People Rally in All Fifty States to Support Wisconsin Protesters
This topic is locked from further discussion.
I am happy that people aren't getting laid off.
I guess we could cut it all down and just fire people until the budget is balanced. While we are at it, we can raise the taxes on non-public workers and increase taxes on the businesses. It's not like they haven't had to cut their spending, cut their employees benifits, and lay off people in the past few years.
Public worker unions losing their power is regrettable but from what I've seen of public workers unions, they are a burden on the taxpayers and bring loads of inefficency to the government and other public sectors.
There is probably a good way around this, but how can you fully support a system that allows poor employees to not be fired and good employees to not be rewarded.
I am happy that people aren't getting laid off.
I guess we could cut it all down and just fire people until the budget is balanced. While we are at it, we can raise the taxes on non-public workers and increase taxes on the businesses. It's not like they haven't had to cut their spending, cut their employees benifits, and lay off people in the past few years.
Public worker unions losing their power is regrettable but from what I've seen of public workers unions, they are a burden on the taxpayers and bring loads of inefficency to the government and other public sectors.
Wasdie
Agreed. I don't want people laid off, but the unions have ridiculous collective bargaining powers.Some school districts you can't move a Xerox machine without calling the union. The public workers are making more than their private counterparts.
A Democratic governor would have a conflict of interest supporting the unions when he's supposed to be on the side of the taxpayers (public).
[QUOTE="Wasdie"]
I am happy that people aren't getting laid off.
I guess we could cut it all down and just fire people until the budget is balanced. While we are at it, we can raise the taxes on non-public workers and increase taxes on the businesses. It's not like they haven't had to cut their spending, cut their employees benifits, and lay off people in the past few years.
Public worker unions losing their power is regrettable but from what I've seen of public workers unions, they are a burden on the taxpayers and bring loads of inefficency to the government and other public sectors.
topsemag55
Agreed. I don't want people laid off, but the unions have ridiculous collective bargaining powers.Some school districts you can't move a Xerox machine without calling the union. The public workers are making more than their private counterparts.
A Democratic governor would have a conflict of interest supporting the unions when he's supposed to be on the side of the taxpayers (public).
Union's bring bloat and inefficiency and make the wallets of the leaders off of dues all off of lies that they actually help people. I don't buy it anymore. Unions had their place back in the 1800s when workers rights were non-existant. Now the government on both state and federal levels have made workers rights law...
[QUOTE="Wasdie"]
I am happy that people aren't getting laid off.
I guess we could cut it all down and just fire people until the budget is balanced. While we are at it, we can raise the taxes on non-public workers and increase taxes on the businesses. It's not like they haven't had to cut their spending, cut their employees benifits, and lay off people in the past few years.
Public worker unions losing their power is regrettable but from what I've seen of public workers unions, they are a burden on the taxpayers and bring loads of inefficency to the government and other public sectors.
topsemag55
Agreed. I don't want people laid off, but the unions have ridiculous collective bargaining powers.Some school districts you can't move a Xerox machine without calling the union. The public workers are making more than their private counterparts.
False. Public employees in Wisconsin make LESS than their private sector counterparts PER HOUR.[QUOTE="topsemag55"]
[QUOTE="Wasdie"]
I am happy that people aren't getting laid off.
I guess we could cut it all down and just fire people until the budget is balanced. While we are at it, we can raise the taxes on non-public workers and increase taxes on the businesses. It's not like they haven't had to cut their spending, cut their employees benifits, and lay off people in the past few years.
Public worker unions losing their power is regrettable but from what I've seen of public workers unions, they are a burden on the taxpayers and bring loads of inefficency to the government and other public sectors.
Wasdie
Agreed. I don't want people laid off, but the unions have ridiculous collective bargaining powers.Some school districts you can't move a Xerox machine without calling the union. The public workers are making more than their private counterparts.
A Democratic governor would have a conflict of interest supporting the unions when he's supposed to be on the side of the taxpayers (public).
Union's bring bloat and inefficiency and make the wallets of the leaders off of dues all off of lies that they actually help people. I don't buy it anymore. Unions had their place back in the 1800s when workers rights were non-existant. Now the government on both state and federal levels have made workers rights law...
Among those rights being the right to form unions. It's covered by freedom to assembly.[QUOTE="topsemag55"]
[QUOTE="Wasdie"]
I am happy that people aren't getting laid off.
I guess we could cut it all down and just fire people until the budget is balanced. While we are at it, we can raise the taxes on non-public workers and increase taxes on the businesses. It's not like they haven't had to cut their spending, cut their employees benifits, and lay off people in the past few years.
Public worker unions losing their power is regrettable but from what I've seen of public workers unions, they are a burden on the taxpayers and bring loads of inefficency to the government and other public sectors.
Theokhoth
Agreed. I don't want people laid off, but the unions have ridiculous collective bargaining powers.Some school districts you can't move a Xerox machine without calling the union. The public workers are making more than their private counterparts.
False. Public employees in Wisconsin make LESS than their private sector counterparts PER HOUR.They also pay far less into their retirement and healthcare benifits as well.
[QUOTE="Wasdie"][QUOTE="topsemag55"]
Agreed. I don't want people laid off, but the unions have ridiculous collective bargaining powers.Some school districts you can't move a Xerox machine without calling the union. The public workers are making more than their private counterparts.
A Democratic governor would have a conflict of interest supporting the unions when he's supposed to be on the side of the taxpayers (public).
Theokhoth
Union's bring bloat and inefficiency and make the wallets of the leaders off of dues all off of lies that they actually help people. I don't buy it anymore. Unions had their place back in the 1800s when workers rights were non-existant. Now the government on both state and federal levels have made workers rights law...
Among those rights being the right to form unions. It's covered by freedom to assembly.But what gives the public employee the right to job security, retirement, and healthcare that the private sector employee doesn't get?
Among those rights being the right to form unions. It's covered by freedom to assembly.[QUOTE="Theokhoth"][QUOTE="Wasdie"]
Union's bring bloat and inefficiency and make the wallets of the leaders off of dues all off of lies that they actually help people. I don't buy it anymore. Unions had their place back in the 1800s when workers rights were non-existant. Now the government on both state and federal levels have made workers rights law...
Wasdie
But what gives the public employee the right to job security, retirement, and healthcare that the private sector employee doesn't get?
My thoughts exactly; these rights should be extended to the private sector as well.Unions negotiate their benefits. Their employers grant these benefits after negotiation. It's not a matter of unions saying "Gimme gimme gimme" and they're getting all they want without question; it's a two-way street.
[QUOTE="topsemag55"]
[QUOTE="Wasdie"]
I am happy that people aren't getting laid off.
I guess we could cut it all down and just fire people until the budget is balanced. While we are at it, we can raise the taxes on non-public workers and increase taxes on the businesses. It's not like they haven't had to cut their spending, cut their employees benifits, and lay off people in the past few years.
Public worker unions losing their power is regrettable but from what I've seen of public workers unions, they are a burden on the taxpayers and bring loads of inefficency to the government and other public sectors.
Theokhoth
Agreed. I don't want people laid off, but the unions have ridiculous collective bargaining powers.Some school districts you can't move a Xerox machine without calling the union. The public workers are making more than their private counterparts.
False. Public employees in Wisconsin make LESS than their private sector counterparts PER HOUR.They will be making more once they find out how much dues were being pulled out by the state for the union. A lot of teachers, newly empowered to choose whether or not to pay union dues, will more than likely choose to keep that money.:P[QUOTE="Wasdie"][QUOTE="Theokhoth"] Among those rights being the right to form unions. It's covered by freedom to assembly.Theokhoth
But what gives the public employee the right to job security, retirement, and healthcare that the private sector employee doesn't get?
My thoughts exactly; these rights should be extended to the private sector as well.They aren't rights covered by our constitution and changing them would fundamentally change the society and economy that has made America become the economic leader it is.
False. Public employees in Wisconsin make LESS than their private sector counterparts PER HOUR.They will be making more once they find out how much dues were being pulled out by the state for the union. A lot of teachers, newly empowered to choose whether or not to pay union dues, will more than likely choose to keep that money.:P[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]
[QUOTE="topsemag55"]
Agreed. I don't want people laid off, but the unions have ridiculous collective bargaining powers.Some school districts you can't move a Xerox machine without calling the union. The public workers are making more than their private counterparts.
topsemag55
What Theokhoth doesn't know is that unions are mandatory in most public positions in Wisconsin. Unions were never meant to be mandatory, but an option for workers who think they could benefit from being a part of a collective organization that fights for their rights.
However unions in Wisconsin have made themselves mandatory and now don't compete at all against non-unionized employees to actually bring benefits to their members. They sit there forcing dues, state retirement, and state healthcare systems on all of their employees. Their private options have been completely erased. The union employee cannot benefit from a private retirement fund nor from separate health insurance. They are forced to rely upon the states which is funded by the taxpayers.
I'm all for unions when they have a point and help their members. A union that has made itself mandatory to employees of a certain job is not a union, it's a layer of red tape. Public employees don't pay the taxes that private ones do AND they pay union dues to non-state employed union leaders. It's a double whammy when it comes to their share of the tax burden.
Coincidentally, a lot of the public employees want mroe taxes on private sector jobs and employees to solve the budget crisis. How is it fair for the private guys?
My thoughts exactly; these rights should be extended to the private sector as well.[QUOTE="Theokhoth"][QUOTE="Wasdie"]
But what gives the public employee the right to job security, retirement, and healthcare that the private sector employee doesn't get?
Wasdie
They aren't rights covered by our constitution and changing them would fundamentally change the society and economy that has made America become the economic leader it is.
Indeed; it would improve our standing (socially and economically) and catch us up with the developed world.What Theokhoth doesn't know is that unions are mandatory in most public positions in Wisconsin. Unions were never meant to be mandatory, but an option for workers who think they could benefit from being a part of a collective organization that fights for their rights.
However unions in Wisconsin have made themselves mandatory and now don't compete at all against non-unionized employees to actually bring benefits to their members. They sit there forcing dues, state retirement, and state healthcare systems on all of their employees. Their private options have been completely erased. The union employee cannot benefit from a private retirement fund nor from separate health insurance. They are forced to rely upon the states which is funded by the taxpayers.
I'm all for unions when they have a point and help their members. A union that has made itself mandatory to employees of a certain job is not a union, it's a layer of red tape. Public employees don't pay the taxes that private ones do AND they pay union dues to non-state employed union leaders. It's a double whammy when it comes to their share of the tax burden.
Coincidentally, a lot of the public employees want mroe taxes on private sector jobs and employees to solve the budget crisis. How is it fair for the private guys?
Wasdie
Good point. I've been watching the news as well, and seen exactly what you've posted.
They will be making more once they find out how much dues were being pulled out by the state for the union. A lot of teachers, newly empowered to choose whether or not to pay union dues, will more than likely choose to keep that money.:P[QUOTE="topsemag55"]
[QUOTE="Theokhoth"] False. Public employees in Wisconsin make LESS than their private sector counterparts PER HOUR.
Wasdie
What Theokhoth doesn't know is that unions are mandatory in most public positions in Wisconsin. Unions were never meant to be mandatory, but an option for workers who think they could benefit from being a part of a collective organization that fights for their rights.
However unions in Wisconsin have made themselves mandatory and now don't compete at all against non-unionized employees to actually bring benefits to their members. They sit there forcing dues, state retirement, and state healthcare systems on all of their employees. Their private options have been completely erased. The union employee cannot benifit from a private retirement fund nor from seperate health insurance. They are forced to rely upon the states which is funded by the taxpayers.
You are 100% correct. People really need to think about this. Whyare unions so against a worker from having the choice to join them, pay dues, ect... If I where to get a state job I should have the choice on wether to join/pay or not. Why dont they want them to have a choice?
[QUOTE="Wasdie"][QUOTE="Theokhoth"] My thoughts exactly; these rights should be extended to the private sector as well.Theokhoth
They aren't rights covered by our constitution and changing them would fundamentally change the society and economy that has made America become the economic leader it is.
Indeed; it would improve our standing (socially and economically) and catch us up with the developed world.Like Greece right? Oh wait, how about Iceland?
[QUOTE="Wasdie"][QUOTE="Theokhoth"] My thoughts exactly; these rights should be extended to the private sector as well.Theokhoth
They aren't rights covered by our constitution and changing them would fundamentally change the society and economy that has made America become the economic leader it is.
Indeed; it would improve our standing (socially and economically) and catch us up with the developed world. Flat out giving people job security makes them lazy and incompetent. The math teachers in my school didn't do anything because there weren't enough qualified math teachers in Tennessee, and they knew very well they weren't getting fired for slacking.Indeed; it would improve our standing (socially and economically) and catch us up with the developed world. Theokhoth
Why? What is so terribly wrong with us? We have the number one economy/GDP in the whole world. This Utopian philosophy of "fairness" is ridiculous and the idea is really getting out of control lately.
Indeed; it would improve our standing (socially and economically) and catch us up with the developed world.[QUOTE="Theokhoth"][QUOTE="Wasdie"]
They aren't rights covered by our constitution and changing them would fundamentally change the society and economy that has made America become the economic leader it is.
Wasdie
Like Greece right? Oh wait, how about Iceland?
Because giving employees basic rights caused their economic crises, not, say, out of control, unregulated banks or housing bubbles.[QUOTE="Theokhoth"][QUOTE="Wasdie"]Indeed; it would improve our standing (socially and economically) and catch us up with the developed world. Flat out giving people job security makes them lazy and incompetent. The math teachers in my school didn't do anything because there weren't enough qualified math teachers in Tennessee, and they knew very well they weren't getting fired for slacking. I didn't say give them security to the point where they can't be fired; let's start with not having to worry about being fired at the drop of a hat.They aren't rights covered by our constitution and changing them would fundamentally change the society and economy that has made America become the economic leader it is.
cd_rom
Indeed; it would improve our standing (socially and economically) and catch us up with the developed world.[QUOTE="Theokhoth"][QUOTE="Wasdie"]
They aren't rights covered by our constitution and changing them would fundamentally change the society and economy that has made America become the economic leader it is.
Wasdie
Like Greece right? Oh wait, how about Iceland?
Iceland? Ireland.
If you're going to bring up conservative talking points, at least get the country right. :P
[QUOTE="Wasdie"][QUOTE="Theokhoth"] Indeed; it would improve our standing (socially and economically) and catch us up with the developed world. Theokhoth
Like Greece right? Oh wait, how about Iceland?
Because giving employees basic rights caused their economic crises, not, say, out of control, unregulated banks or housing bubbles.American employees don't have basic rights? Job security is a right? Healthcare is a right?
Flat out giving people job security makes them lazy and incompetent. The math teachers in my school didn't do anything because there weren't enough qualified math teachers in Tennessee, and they knew very well they weren't getting fired for slacking.cd_rom
Very true. In the private sector you have to work, have to perform or your gone. Ever wonder why it takes years for a new off-ramp to be built? or six months to get some street lights fixed? How about how much fun it is to go to the DMV?
[QUOTE="Wasdie"]
[QUOTE="Theokhoth"] Indeed; it would improve our standing (socially and economically) and catch us up with the developed world. GabuEx
Like Greece right? Oh wait, how about Iceland?
Iceland? Ireland.
If you're going to bring up conservative talking points, at least get the country right. :P
No Iceland...
Flat out giving people job security makes them lazy and incompetent. The math teachers in my school didn't do anything because there weren't enough qualified math teachers in Tennessee, and they knew very well they weren't getting fired for slacking. I didn't say give them security to the point where they can't be fired; let's start with not having to worry about being fired at the drop of a hat.[QUOTE="cd_rom"][QUOTE="Theokhoth"] Indeed; it would improve our standing (socially and economically) and catch us up with the developed world. Theokhoth
But it's exactly what these public unions in Wisconsin have given it's members. Job security to the point where you don't even have to work.
If you do your job well you probably won't lose it. Most people aren't worried about getting fired 24/7.
I really question your work experiance if you think people are that afraid of getting fired constantly.
Flat out giving people job security makes them lazy and incompetent. The math teachers in my school didn't do anything because there weren't enough qualified math teachers in Tennessee, and they knew very well they weren't getting fired for slacking. I didn't say give them security to the point where they can't be fired; let's start with not having to worry about being fired at the drop of a hat. A lot of that involves having to afford the basic cost of keeping people. Unions (and people in general) have a tendency to act like the government just has this unlimited supply of cash and resources to just flash around, but they don't (although they very often act like it). The money has to come from somewhere.[QUOTE="cd_rom"][QUOTE="Theokhoth"] Indeed; it would improve our standing (socially and economically) and catch us up with the developed world. Theokhoth
So to prevent the school budget from being cut, they decide to cut the transportation and road budget.
Then the construction unions start complaining.
Ok, so let's raise taxes on small businesses.
That brings their costs over the edge and a lot may have to lay off people from the private sector.
Ok. Let's raise taxes on large businesses.
It becomes to expensive to keep operations in the state, so they lay off people and move to a cheaper state.
Somebody has to suffer a bit.
Because giving employees basic rights caused their economic crises, not, say, out of control, unregulated banks or housing bubbles.[QUOTE="Theokhoth"][QUOTE="Wasdie"]
Like Greece right? Oh wait, how about Iceland?
Wasdie
American employees don't have basic rights? Job security is a right? Healthcare is a right?
I'm sorry but do you even know what it's like to actually have to earn a paycheck? Do you understand the value of a dollar and the value of work? All signs point to no.
American employees do have basic rights; like the right to form unions and collectively bargain within those unions. The problem is, so-called "fiscal conservatives" are constantly trying to trample upon those rights, using them as scapegoats for economic crises that either don't exist (such as in Wisconsin) or have nothing to do with the rights they receive. As for job security and healthcare, those are rights in ideal only--for now. To me, a dollar is valueless until society gives it value; if we didn't give it value, it'd be a worthless piece of paper. We can't eat, wear it, have sex with it, grind it into a medicine or take it with us when we die. At best it would serve as an extremely crappy substitute for toilet paper. But since we as a culture place such ridiculous values on a dollar, yes, I do understand the value of a dollar; hence why I support these ideals, to give that value a little more meaning than "If you don't have money, you must be lazy."If unions were a debt-causing problem then this discussion wouldn't be happening, as the unions in Wisconsin have agreed to every single one of the bill's provisions except collective bargaining, which has nothing to do with the debt. If this were a debt problem, Walker wouldn't have been signing in harmful tax cuts left and right in Wisconsin since he was sworn in. The unions aren't causing the debt. Walker's trying to pin them as scapegoats.This wouldn't be on the table if union's weren't a big part of debt causeing problem. Source
Wasdie
[QUOTE="GabuEx"]
[QUOTE="Wasdie"]
Like Greece right? Oh wait, how about Iceland?
Wasdie
Iceland? Ireland.
If you're going to bring up conservative talking points, at least get the country right. :P
No Iceland...
Oh, the juxtaposition with Greece gave me flashbacks to last year and I thought you were talking about that.
Nonetheless, how exactly are those countries' problems attributable to, um, public unions?
[QUOTE="Wasdie"][QUOTE="Theokhoth"] Because giving employees basic rights caused their economic crises, not, say, out of control, unregulated banks or housing bubbles.Theokhoth
American employees don't have basic rights? Job security is a right? Healthcare is a right?
I'm sorry but do you even know what it's like to actually have to earn a paycheck? Do you understand the value of a dollar and the value of work? All signs point to no.
American employees do have basic rights; like the right to form unions and collectively bargain within those unions. The problem is, so-called "fiscal conservatives" are constantly trying to trample upon those rights, using them as scapegoats for economic crises that either don't exist (such as in Wisconsin) or have nothing to do with the rights they receive. As for job security and healthcare, those are rights in ideal only--for now. To me, a dollar is valueless until society gives it value; if we didn't give it value, it'd be a worthless piece of paper. We can't eat, wear it, have sex with it, grind it into a medicine or take it with us when we die. At best it would serve as an extremely crappy substitute for toilet paper. But since we as a culture place such ridiculous values on a dollar, yes, I do understand the value of a dollar; hence why I support these ideals, to give that value a little more meaning than "If you don't have money, you must be lazy."Your idea of job security eliminates the idea of competition, your idea that healthcare is a basic human right is already met by our current system but you want more.
Private unions aren't the target here. Private unions still have a purpose. Public unions in Wisconsin have only added inefficiency to our entire government.
Also please understand what the conservatives are saying. They are saying that public unions have contributed a lot to the 3.2 billion dollar deficit that the state currently has. They aren't blaming the economic downturn because of unions.
Currency also gives your public employees purpose. If you don't value currency, these public employees are completely screwed. They make no product to trade with. In fact all service employees would be in trouble.
Currency has been around since the Greek and Roman times and has developed in seperate cultures and nations across the world while human society was being developed. It works.
[QUOTE="Wasdie"]If unions were a debt-causing problem then this discussion wouldn't be happening, as the unions in Wisconsin have agreed to every single one of the bill's provisions except collective bargaining, which has nothing to do with the debt. If this were a debt problem, Walker wouldn't have been signing in harmful tax cuts left and right in Wisconsin since he was sworn in. The unions aren't causing the debt. Walker's trying to pin them as scapegoats.This wouldn't be on the table if union's weren't a big part of debt causeing problem. Source
Theokhoth
It's being done now to get ahead of the problem later. I feel sorry for the state. If you were a new business would you really want to start-up in Wis. after seeing all this or would you go to a right to work state instead? Business's create jobs, not unions.
[QUOTE="Wasdie"]
[QUOTE="GabuEx"]
Iceland? Ireland.
If you're going to bring up conservative talking points, at least get the country right. :P
GabuEx
No Iceland...
Oh, the juxtaposition with Greece gave me flashbacks to last year and I thought you were talking about that.
Nonetheless, how exactly are those countries' problems attributable to, um, public unions?
First off you're right about the source, I need to find where I actually learned about that.
Second this wasn't about the public unions rather about the countries who kept spending and spending until they went under.
[QUOTE="Wasdie"]If unions were a debt-causing problem then this discussion wouldn't be happening, as the unions in Wisconsin have agreed to every single one of the bill's provisions except collective bargaining, which has nothing to do with the debt. If this were a debt problem, Walker wouldn't have been signing in harmful tax cuts left and right in Wisconsin since he was sworn in. The unions aren't causing the debt. Walker's trying to pin them as scapegoats.This wouldn't be on the table if union's weren't a big part of debt causeing problem. Source
Theokhoth
I love the phrase "harmful tax cuts". I love it.
The hell with it, lets increase taxes on business. God knows that they don't help our state at all.
Second this wasn't about the public unions rather about the countries who kept spending and spending until they went under.
Wasdie
Your own link says that Iceland's banks basically collapsed under foreign debt. Considering that the topic of discussion was the bargaining rights of public employees, I'm really not sure how this is a relevant case study...
[QUOTE="Wasdie"]
I love the phrase "harmful tax cuts". I love it.
The hell with it, lets increase taxes on business. God knows that they don't help our state at all.
GabuEx
If there's no such thing as a harmful tax cut, why don't we cut taxes to zero?
Because then the government can't even function. A healthy tax increase on businesses... that doesn't make sense to me. How does it promote them coming to Wisconsin, who does that promote them hiring employees, how does that promote them to keep workers pay and benifits...
If unions were a debt-causing problem then this discussion wouldn't be happening, as the unions in Wisconsin have agreed to every single one of the bill's provisions except collective bargaining, which has nothing to do with the debt. If this were a debt problem, Walker wouldn't have been signing in harmful tax cuts left and right in Wisconsin since he was sworn in. The unions aren't causing the debt. Walker's trying to pin them as scapegoats.[QUOTE="Theokhoth"][QUOTE="Wasdie"]
This wouldn't be on the table if union's weren't a big part of debt causeing problem. Source
Wasdie
I love the phrase "harmful tax cuts". I love it.
The hell with it, lets increase taxes on business. God knows that they don't help our state at all.
Why exactly is the phrase, "Harmful tax cut," funny or ironic? Just as with any balance sheet, if you want to run a balanced budget you must take in at least as much money in revenues as you have in expenses. Tax cuts are harmful if they put the institution exercising them in the red. Even if the tax cuts are offset with spending cuts, the tax cuts are still harmful if the requisite spending cuts do more social harm than the tax cuts do social good.If unions were a debt-causing problem then this discussion wouldn't be happening, as the unions in Wisconsin have agreed to every single one of the bill's provisions except collective bargaining, which has nothing to do with the debt. If this were a debt problem, Walker wouldn't have been signing in harmful tax cuts left and right in Wisconsin since he was sworn in. The unions aren't causing the debt. Walker's trying to pin them as scapegoats.[QUOTE="Theokhoth"][QUOTE="Wasdie"]
This wouldn't be on the table if union's weren't a big part of debt causeing problem. Source
Wasdie
I love the phrase "harmful tax cuts". I love it.
The hell with it, lets increase taxes on business. God knows that they don't help our state at all.
I'd rather tax the people making seven-figure salaries, but "fiscal conservatives" killed that one. Let's cut education instead; lord knows all school does these days is breed more anti-business liberals.[QUOTE="GabuEx"]
[QUOTE="Wasdie"]
I love the phrase "harmful tax cuts". I love it.
The hell with it, lets increase taxes on business. God knows that they don't help our state at all.
Wasdie
If there's no such thing as a harmful tax cut, why don't we cut taxes to zero?
Because then the government can't even function. A healthy tax increase on businesses... that doesn't make sense to me. How does it promote them coming to Wisconsin, who does that promote them hiring employees, how does that promote them to keep workers pay and benifits...
All tax cuts and tax increases are subject to the Laffer curve, a curve that notes that there is a certain level of taxation at which government revenues are maximized. (This is obvious from the fact that tax rates of both 0% and 100% will both create revenues of $0, given that no taxes are brought in at one end and that no incentive to make money is present at the other.) If a given tax rate is on the left side of the peak in the Laffer curve, increasing taxes will cause increased government revenue without stifling the incentive to make money of those on whom the tax increase was placed. In terms of closing a budget shortfall, this is a perfectly valid option.
The notion that taxation should only go down, down, down, never up, is a terribly fiscally irresponsible one. There is a proper level of taxation to create fiscally sound government operations, and it is not zero.
[QUOTE="cd_rom"]
Flat out giving people job security makes them lazy and incompetent. The math teachers in my school didn't do anything because there weren't enough qualified math teachers in Tennessee, and they knew very well they weren't getting fired for slacking.debusentel
Very true. In the private sector you have to work, have to perform or your gone. Ever wonder why it takes years for a new off-ramp to be built? or six months to get some street lights fixed? How about how much fun it is to go to the DMV?
Except it is not the government that builds the off ramps or maintains city lights. They contract that out so any time there are delays in that, you can blame the private sector that the government contracted because they were the cheapest. DMV is government but I have never had an issue unless it is in a metropolis type setting where everybody goes to one location rather then the other 9 because they were too incompetent to look at the map.
[QUOTE="GabuEx"]
[QUOTE="Wasdie"]
I love the phrase "harmful tax cuts". I love it.
The hell with it, lets increase taxes on business. God knows that they don't help our state at all.
Wasdie
If there's no such thing as a harmful tax cut, why don't we cut taxes to zero?
Because then the government can't even function. A healthy tax increase on businesses... that doesn't make sense to me. How does it promote them coming to Wisconsin, who does that promote them hiring employees, how does that promote them to keep workers pay and benifits...
A tax cut does not promote job creation as conservatives like to believe. Big businesses operate on the production possibility frontier and the consumption possibility frontier. They produce at the efficient point on those frontiers where the make maximum revenue vs number of products produced/bought. They have ZERO incentive to add employees unless they are below that optimal point. Big businesses do not employ people out of the goodness of their heart, they employ just enough to obtain those optimal points. If they get a tax break, that extra money is just pocketed and provides no benefit to anybody but themselves. There is absolutely NO logical reason to give big business additional tax breaks other then to let the rich get richer.
[QUOTE="Wasdie"]
[QUOTE="GabuEx"]
If there's no such thing as a harmful tax cut, why don't we cut taxes to zero?
ttobba07
Because then the government can't even function. A healthy tax increase on businesses... that doesn't make sense to me. How does it promote them coming to Wisconsin, who does that promote them hiring employees, how does that promote them to keep workers pay and benifits...
A tax cut does not promote job creation as conservatives like to believe. Big businesses operate on the production possibility frontier and the consumption possibility frontier. They produce at the efficient point on those frontiers where the make maximum revenue vs number of products produced/bought. They have ZERO incentive to add employees unless they are below that optimal point. Big businesses do not employ people out of the goodness of their heart, they employ just enough to obtain those optimal points. If they get a tax break, that extra money is just pocketed and provides no benefit to anybody but themselves. There is absolutely NO logical reason to give big business additional tax breaks other then to let the rich get richer.
They don't just "pocket" the money. Portions of it are towards expansion. This requires new employees. There is a **** ton of empirical evidence for the fact that higher tax rates on business, ceteris paribus, correlates to higher unemployment.
They don't just "pocket" the money. Portions of it are towards expansion. This requires new employees. There is a **** ton of empirical evidence for the fact that higher tax rates on business, ceteris paribus, correlates to higher unemployment.Business do not expand when the reach the optimal PPF and CPF ratios. When those ratios are reached, they DO pocket any extra the got from tax breaks.coolbeans90
Edit: I would also like to point out that the state with the highest current unemployment(Nevada) has ZERO income taxes on corporations or individuals and that is a trend across the nation. There is a balance between taxes and employment. Cut, cut, cut is a failure of an idea in every way.
If the people really want to support the protesters, they can all pay higher taxes to the state government so the budget gets balanced.
Business do not expand when the reach the optimal PPF and CPF ratios. When those ratios are reached, they DO pocket any extra the got from tax breaks.[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]They don't just "pocket" the money. Portions of it are towards expansion. This requires new employees. There is a **** ton of empirical evidence for the fact that higher tax rates on business, ceteris paribus, correlates to higher unemployment.
ttobba07
Edit: I would also like to point out that the state with the highest current unemployment(Nevada) has ZERO income taxes on corporations or individuals and that is a trend across the nation. There is a balance between taxes and employment. Cut, cut, cut is a failure of an idea in every way.
Great. Those change. And my former statement stands.
And obviously there is a balance, given government spending obviously also plays some role in unemployment. No one has argued otherwise. You'd have to hold a lot of factors constant to make assumptions from states.
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment