• 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!

Unions’ Health Benefits May Avoid Tax Under Senate Proposal

You can think that if you like. I will let you, and I'll sleep just fine.

I love conservatives who like to make mindless bitch threads about Obama and democrats, and when you call them on bad information, they duck and run.
 
Other than the The Obama and the Democrats trying to protect their union buddies and guarantee that the union membership will vote for said same, can anyone come up with a reason why union health-care benefist should not be taxes like everyone else's?

This, folks, is the "change" that The Obama and the Dems have brought to DC.

Some animals are more equal than others.

The friends of the pigs got better treatment than others.
 
I love conservatives who like to make mindless bitch threads about Obama and democrats, and when you call them on bad information, they duck and run.
Not sure how this is a mindless bitch thread -- the issue itself is perfectly worthy of discussion, and had actually been the topic of reasoned discussion until you got here and made it abut me.

That you dont like my associating the idea with The Obama and the Dems in general doesn't mean a lot to me.
 
Every administration has unfair tax proposals.

For example, Bush's tax cuts for the rich.

You mean the tax cuts that kept the economy growing for six straightyears.

Sure, naturally that didn't benefit anyone but the people who already had money. I mean, a growing economy produces jobs, and those don't help anyone that's not rich, right?
 
His tax cuts for the rich. And I did have a problem for that, the rich have no reason to get tax cuts, they have plenty of money, the could be a little bir productive to society and pay for things.

So, what you're saying is that you don't have any clue how much the wealthiest are charged in taxes, and you don't have any clue what they do with their money that the government oh-so-graciously allows them to keep.


But you think it's just fine for the government to punish people who exercise their freedom to choose to not join goonions.

So, let's see, you say it's okay for the government to punish success, ie taxing the rich, and you say it's okay for the government to punish independence, ie, people who don't want goonions.

Who else do you think the government should punish for not being aligned with your views?
 
Ah yes -- what a surprise.
Gotta protect those good Dem voters!

No, I'm not protecting any voters, I'm just saying that there is no problem with incentives, but taxing a 'minority' so to say, is not a good way to do anything.

Um... you know that the proposed taxation of benefits are for those who get health care from their employer, right?
So, the difference is...?
You have to work somewhere to get health care from an employer.

"Join a union or your taxes will go up".
Thats not an incentive, that's coercion.

No, its more like "Join a union and get an additional tax cut."

That IS an incentive.
 
To be in a union, you obviously work for a living,

?

No, where's you ever get that idea? I had two crews working for me once, a union crew that I was required to offer first dibs to for every job, and the non-union crew. You'll never guess which crew did more work, faster, with fewer mistakes and less hassle.

It wasn't the crew charging my budget fifty bucks an hour to take mandatory coffee breaks, that's certain.
 
Just to make this perfectly clear to everyone in this thread, adn everyone reading this thread, and everyone thats going to join this thread.

It is NOT punishment. It is extra. Incentive. It is ADDITIONAL.
 
No, its more like "Join a union and get an additional tax cut."

That IS an incentive.


Cite the Constitutional authority granted the Federal goverment to violate the First Amendment guarantee of freedom of association.

Cite the Constitutional authority granted the Federal government to violate the equal protection under the law afforded the people by the Fourteenth Amendment.

Explain your opposition to the influence of special interest groups on the actions of government.
 
Just to make this perfectly clear to everyone in this thread, adn everyone reading this thread, and everyone thats going to join this thread.

It is NOT punishment. It is extra. Incentive. It is ADDITIONAL.

So the federal government is going to tax people MORE if they're not in a goonion, which is the proper interpretation of the proposal, and you're claiming they're not punishing people for not joining a goonion.

Explain.

But don't deny the fact of punishment.

The only thing you've made perfectly clear is that you like red Kool-Aid.
 
What the hell does red kool aid have to do with anything?

And it is not punishment. It is extra for the Union workers. Non union workers arent being punished and no ones being forced into unions.

Anyone had the choice to join or not.
 
What the hell does red kool aid have to do with anything?

Metaphors are mysterious to the unitiated.

Don't worry, many others reading that post will know exactly why the color red was specified.


And it is not punishment.

Not an allowed argument.

People choosing to not be in a goonion are taxed more.

That's punishment.

You have to deal with the facts as they are, not with your interpretation of them.

You see, the rest of us haven't drunk the red Kool-Aid and don't intend to.
 
You wont be punished with higher taxes, your just wont be lowered as much. This is also an incentive for workers to join unions. I think its good.

From what I hear from the prounion folks, unions are the neatest thing since sliced bread. Why whould there be a need to tax the carp out of someone as an incentive to join a union?

This is just another example of forcing the Liberal agenda on main street America. Most folks don't want anything to do with Liberalism, so the Liberals will just force it on them.
 
What the hell does red kool aid have to do with anything?
If you don't know, Google it, somewhere on Wikipedia there should be an explanation.

And it is not punishment. It is extra for the Union workers. Non union workers aren’t being punished and no ones being forced into unions.

Put another way, non union workers are not allowed to benefit from the tax cut. How, in any interpretation of the situation, would that be considered fair?

Anyone had the choice to join or not.
Not always the case. There are some workplaces where you must be a union member to work. At least as I understand it.
Thus, if you wanted to work there, you would have no choice but to join the union.
 
Last edited:
The friends of the pigs got better treatment than others.


Damn good point. I'm starting to think that there aren't that many people, especially Leftists, that have read Animal Farm.
 
Other than the The Obama and the Democrats trying to protect their union buddies and guarantee that the union membership will vote for said same, can anyone come up with a reason why union health-care benefist should not be taxes like everyone else's?

Would this pass Constitutional muster?
 
You wont be punished with higher taxes, your just wont be lowered as much.

If I'm not being taxed on my health care benefits now and tomorrow I am, please explain to me how I'm not paying higher taxes.

This is also an incentive for workers to join unions. I think its good.

Naturally. Anybody who takes a crap on the concepts of freedom and liberty would be ecstatic over this.
 
Back
Top Bottom