• 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!

Beginning of the End for Public Unions?

Last two years beginning of a downward slide for Public Sector Unions?

  • Yes, their power has waxed and now it shall wane.

    Votes: 40 62.5%

  • Unions will respond and their power will grow.

    Votes: 14 21.9%

  • It depends on November.

    Votes: 10 15.6%
  • Total voters
    64
This study of ALL TAXES paid by ALL AMERICANS to ALL LEVELS of government paints a very different picture to the skewed and inaccurate narrative that Turtle has been pushing.


http://www.ctj.org/pdf/taxday2009.pdf

The total federal, state and local effective tax rate for the richest one percent of
Americans (30.9 percent) is only slightly higher than the average effective tax rate for
the remaining 99 percent of Americans (29.4 percent).
Click to expand...

We have been through this before folks.

and more data from tax day 2011 which supports the same conclusions

http://www.ctj.org/pdf/taxday2011.pdf
 
Last edited:
teamosil said:
So you are just pointing out that "progressive taxes are progressive"... That's a useful piece of analysis in your opinion? You understand that would be true in any tax system whatsoever, right? If we had 1% of the taxes being progressive and 99% of them being regressive, you could still sit around and whine about how the system is too progressive so long as you're willing to ignore the taxes that aren't... It's just stupid man. Think about it for one second. Just one second. That's all I ask.
Click to expand...

what is stupid is claiming that the tax SYSTEM is not progressive enough using a ton of non progressive taxes to discuss the SYSTEM and then demanding that the ONE progressive tax ought to become EVEN MORE Progressive in order to balance off all the non-progressive taxes that are factored into the SYSTEM that you complain about.

and that is the point you have been ignoring all along. Trying to balance FICA, state sales taxes, gasoline taxes, cigarette taxes, hotel taxes, property taxes which are not progressive or are only semi-progressive by making the FIT more progressive is dishonest.
 
teamosil said:
No, that is not even remotely close to true. The top 1% have enough wealth to cover the entire deficit forever. The top 1% own 35% of all the wealth of the country. The total wealth of the US is around $70 trillion. So, 35% of $70 trillion would be $24.5 trillion. If you assume a 5% rate of return each year, that would be enough to cover the entire deficit every year forever without dipping into the principle.



When you look at all taxes, our system is fairly mildly progressive up most of the way (people in poverty pay 16%, somebody who is very well off, but still has to work, pays 31%. But then it drops way off for the rich. Somebody who makes many millions a year from investments only pays 15% or so.
Click to expand...

complete idiocy. But thanks for showing what you really want to have happen. And you prove the point I made in my last post-you are using many non-progressive taxes to create an overall tax rate and then you claim that overall system is not progressive enough because you have included many non-progressive taxes in that system

why cannot you get it through your head that taxes have to be evaluated on their individual merit and its moronic to say we have to make the overall system more progressive by raising the top rates on a progressive tax to counterbalance non-progressive taxes that were never intended to be progressive?
 
cpwill said:
I'm fine with choice and I'm fine with the existence of closed shops - just so long as the system is balanced and non-union shops are allowed as well :). Government should not tilt the scales in favor of either employees or business owners; they should rather be left to work things out between themselves.
Click to expand...

the reason why the unionistas hate that environment is obvious
 
haymarket said:
The "induspatable facts" you post about the wealthy paying a certain percentage of income tax have no relationship with your pontifications you then make upon the subject of taxation.



We have been through this many many many times before in thread after thread. You are well aware that when ALL TAXES PAID by ALL PERSONS to ANY LEVEL OF GOVERNMENT are considered, the percentage paid by the wealthy as a percentage of total income is only a tiny bit more than the percentage paid as a percentage of total income by average workers.

You also know this is because
1 - the wealthy pay a very low rate of FICA tax compared to most people
2- most state and local taxes are flat or regressive in nature

This is a long established fact. It also explains why you are obsessed with discussing only the federal income tax and inheritance taxes.
Click to expand...

as usual you miss the point. I discuss progressive taxes when discussing if they are "progressive enough" while you and teamosil try to claim they are not progressive enough because the do not make the rich's overall tax rate (which includes many NON PROGRESSIVE) taxes) Progressive enough

show us where the income tax and the estate or death tax was intended to counter non-progressive taxes so that everyone's OVERALL tax rate-state local and federal-was supposed to be a certain progressive rate
 
haymarket said:
This study of ALL TAXES paid by ALL AMERICANS to ALL LEVELS of government paints a very different picture to the skewed and inaccurate narrative that Turtle has been pushing.


http://www.ctj.org/pdf/taxday2009.pdf


We have been through this before folks.

and more data from tax day 2011 which supports the same conclusions

http://www.ctj.org/pdf/taxday2011.pdf
Click to expand...
]Great. Then everyone is roughly paying the same percentage of their income for the functioning of government. So the rich are paying their fair share after all. Thanks for pointing that out.
 
Fletch said:
]Great. Then everyone is roughly paying the same percentage of their income for the functioning of government. So the rich are paying their fair share after all. Thanks for pointing that out.
Click to expand...

You are being disingenuous. If the rich are indeed paying the same overall percentage of total income, that is a failure of our tax system.

It takes a certain amount of basic dollars just to keep body and soul together. That reality leaves the wealthy with a far higher percentage of their income which is NOT used for basic living expenses but which is highly discretionary. The entire idea of progressive taxation takes this reality strongly into consideration. You apparently do not.

To refuse to do that is the opposite of a fair share.
 
TurtleDude said:
all the people police have saved? LOL

Your silly stories are just that. Nothing is more transparent than those who suck at the public teat wanting others to supply more milk


Walker proved lots of us are tiring of the little piggies squealing for more and more milk paid for by those of us who aren't dependent on the government hog
Click to expand...


None of the pigs at the trough make a dime without the 99% there is no more pigs without the 99%....no big pig banks without all the little people paying their exhorbitant fees....the 1% pigs take 99% of everything from the 99% then they want more....its all going to come to an end...and it will start if romney doent get elected...
Soon the private sector working morons that have been duped by the pigs into being AFRAID to fight for what they should have...will wake up...
 
The only pigs at the trough there are in this country are the politicians at the local,state and national level who spend like drunken sailors...refuse to be fiscally responsible...and think only of their next election and how they're going to win it at all costs. But ya'll just keep on arguing about the rich not paying their fair share and clamor for them to pay more. It doesn't make any difference HOW much any of us pay. Our politicians are the greedy pigs who will always overspend and demand more.
 
haymarket said:
You are being disingenuous. If the rich are indeed paying the same overall percentage of total income, that is a failure of our tax system.
Click to expand...
The purpose of the tax system is to fund the government. You want the tax system to redistribute wealth from those who have more than you do to, well, you. Robbing Peter to pay haymarket is haymarket stealing form peter. Your years as an educator should help you make this obvious link. So, what you want is a government that engages in a criminal enterprise on your behalf. If people on the left would just admit that, I might havd a bit more respect for you.

It takes a certain amount of basic dollars just to keep body and soul together. That reality leaves the wealthy with a far higher percentage of their income which is NOT used for basic living expenses but which is highly discretionary. The entire idea of progressive taxation takes this reality strongly into consideration. You apparently do not.
Click to expand...
There is no reason I can see for a free society to embrace a Marxist tax system. You like welfare state? Move to Europe. You can help hasten their collapse, not contribute to ours.

To refuse to do that is the opposite of a fair share.
Click to expand...
Who made you the gatekeeper of fairness?
 
ThePlayDrive said:
It's not a choice in some places because it's not a choice to benefit from what unions negotiate.
Click to expand...
An employer should be free to pay thier workers what ever wages and benefits they want to their employees regardless of who negotiated those wages and benefits. If an employer wants to pay a new worker the same benefits and wages that union workers have then that is the business of the employer and employee, not the employee,union and employer.
If you teach in a public school where unions negotiate better security, then you are a free rider if you don't pay union dues. That's ridiculous.
Click to expand...
It is ridiculous to force people to join a union if they don't want to join a union. If someone wants to take the job and not join a union,take the job and and join the union or take a job but join a different union then that should be their choice.

Die hard union supporters seem to forget that unions exist to benefit the workers not the union,union supporters and what ever candidates whom the union supports. So it doesn't matter if someone is in a union or not.
 
randel said:
as i stated earlier, no one is 'forced' to do anything....you always have a choice on where to work, if you don't like working in a union shop, there are plenty of places out there that are non-union...
Click to expand...

That is simply false.If you want to be a public school teacher, police officer, fire fighter or some other public sector worker with a union then you must join a union.So please do not sit there at your computer and lie your ass off about it being a choice.

why should you have the right to walk into a place that is a union shop, where the employees voted for unionization, and say 'no thanks' to joining the union, but still be able to enjoy the benefits of that union's presence?
Click to expand...

Because I did not vote to join a union nor is it any of the union's business what an employer pays an individual employee. That is why I should be allowed to say no thanks.
 
Fletch said:
Then if you want to work for a union shop go to where one already exists and dont impose one on my company.
Click to expand...
sorry chief, if i feel my interests are better met by attempting to band together with a group of like minded people, it is my right to form a union....just as a company attempts to maximize profit, i have every right to attempt to maximize the value i recieve for my labor..
 
American said:
You really don't have a ****ing clue, do you? Unions don't employ people, companies do.
Click to expand...
so...you have anything constructive to add? if not, move on.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
That is a silly argument as well, since there is but ONE gov't. Too allow a minority (gov't workers) to dictate labor policy to the majority (the taxpayer/voters) is insane. Why should we, the people, be forced to cede labor negotiating power to the few among us that CHOOSE to work in the gov't jobs that we offer? If 2% of the public works for the gov't, then barely over 1% get to be the sole deciders of whether a gov't union can come to exist. In non right-to-work states that means that ALL gov't employees must pay union dues, and ALL taxpayers must honor any contract made with them. If the gov't has the "right" to alter SS retirement ages AFTER that citizen has been required to pay SS taxation (yet has not yet attained the benefit age), we should certainly be able to alter a "labor contract" that assigns retirement benfits for ANY gov't worker that has not yet retired. It is time to stop the madness of treating ONLY gov't employees, not the citizens that must support them trough taxation, as "super citizens" with special union contract rights that are not applicable to ALL citizens. After all of the screaming in WI about how "unfair" the teachers were treated one would expect a mass exodus of these highly qualified and educated folks, yet NONE (as far as I know) quit and the applictaions for these positions are still backed up with hundreds waiting for an opening.
Click to expand...
the only way you 'cede' anything, is if you don't get off your ass and vote, if you don't hold your representatives accountable...
 
from Teamosil

Fundamentally TD, you just are not on the same team as the American people.
Click to expand...

If you put those words on the side of a mountain in 250 feet high letters lit at nighttime, you still could not give it proper attention.

Well said!!!! :2wave::peace
 
TurtleDude said:
and that is the point you have been ignoring all along. Trying to balance FICA, state sales taxes, gasoline taxes, cigarette taxes, hotel taxes, property taxes which are not progressive or are only semi-progressive by making the FIT more progressive is dishonest.
Click to expand...

Why? That is totally absurd. You think we should just pretend the regressive taxes don't exist? Why? Just to intentionally distort our understanding of the tax system? Obviously you understand that's stupid.

TurtleDude said:
why cannot you get it through your head that taxes have to be evaluated on their individual merit
Click to expand...

Because, obviously, that makes no sense whatsoever... How could anybody possibly know whether a tax should be more progressive or more flat or whatever without knowing where we stand currently?
 
Fletch said:
The purpose of the tax system is to fund the government. You want the tax system to redistribute wealth from those who have more than you do to, well, you. Robbing Peter to pay haymarket is haymarket stealing form peter. Your years as an educator should help you make this obvious link. So, what you want is a government that engages in a criminal enterprise on your behalf. If people on the left would just admit that, I might havd a bit more respect for you.

There is no reason I can see for a free society to embrace a Marxist tax system. You like welfare state? Move to Europe. You can help hasten their collapse, not contribute to ours.

Who made you the gatekeeper of fairness?
Click to expand...

What garbage. How is any person working for the government and providing a service to the American people engaged in a criminal enterprise? That is just the sort of wildly irresponsible, hyperbolic over-the-top radical extremist nonsense that poisons the libertarian ideology.

And as far as FAIRNESS goes - I have come to the conclusion that there NEVER will be any agreement upon what that means. Lets trash it because it is a rubric that can never be properly applied. Flush it today.

We should be talking about a level of taxation that is APPROPRIATE.
 
Last edited:
Comfort Food said:
The problem with taxing the rich is that even if you took all of their wealth, 100% of it, it would still not pay for the expenditures of our government and would destroy our economy. Our current progressive tax system allows half of all Americans to pay no income tax or receive a refund on taxes they did not pay. I am in favor of a progressive tax structure, but it seems you are attempting to make a point that isn't true. I say attempting because I've read your past couple posts waiting for an actual point to be made, but it never happened. It's just banter.
Click to expand...
i don't believe anyone has called for taking all the wealth of the rich....
 
randel said:
i don't believe anyone has called for taking all the wealth of the rich....
Click to expand...

Of course nobody has called for that. But it ruins the three card montie game of the far right for you to point it out. ;)
 
Jenn said:
Anytime I have had an issue to discuss with employers, all I did was go in and discuss those with them. I have found them open to talking with me, believe it or not! In my way of thinking, Unions are simply mafia-like thugs who bring threats to the table.
Click to expand...
sure, they will talk to you, they may even smile and nod at you, tell you they understand, and that they will look into whatever issue you have.....they say that at least, any action on the other hand is rare, because you are an individual, with nothing backing you up. as for unions, obviously, you know not what you talk about.
 
randel said:
sorry chief, if i feel my interests are better met by attempting to band together with a group of like minded people, it is my right to form a union....just as a company attempts to maximize profit, i have every right to attempt to maximize the value i recieve for my labor..
Click to expand...
I have no problem with people forming unions, that is their right. I am simply pointing out that the employer has rights as well. One of my rights as an employer is to decide who will and who will not work for me. If you have a right to unionize, I have the right to can you for doing so.
 
Fletch said:
I have no problem with people forming unions, that is their right. I am simply pointing out that the employer has rights as well. One of my rights as an employer is to decide who will and who will not work for me. If you have a right to unionize, I have the right to can you for doing so.
Click to expand...

What you describe is the classic clash of rights. Thankfully, we have a system in place which decides what they happens when the rights of one individual - the employer - clash with the rights of hundreds or thousands of others - the employees.
 
Jenn said:
Anytime I have had an issue to discuss with employers, all I did was go in and discuss those with them. I have found them open to talking with me, believe it or not! In my way of thinking, Unions are simply mafia-like thugs who bring threats to the table.
Click to expand...
How employers deal with their employees varies from place to place. Don't make the mistake (which you already seem to have done) of assuming that your experience is everyone's experience. Maybe you don't need a union because you have great employers who take everything you say seriously and treat you well. Many other people don't have that experience and therefore, need unions. Your story has absolutely zero affect on their reality.
 
jamesrage said:
That is simply false.If you want to be a public school teacher, police officer, fire fighter or some other public sector worker with a union then you must join a union.So please do not sit there at your computer and lie your ass off about it being a choice.



Because I did not vote to join a union nor is it any of the union's business what an employer pays an individual employee. That is why I should be allowed to say no thanks.
Click to expand...
you always have a choice james, always, no one is holding a gun to your head, no one is forcing you to work in a union shop, as i stated, you can always find another job in a non union shop, so yes, you have a choice....and no free riders james, you want what my dues paid to negotiate for , join the union, don't expect to get freebies.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom