Wisconsin governor to end ALL collective bargaining rights for state workers.

[Lo Siento.]

Yes, it is what opened my eyes. Gov unions paid for an ad campaign to raise taxes. That tax revenue goes into the pockets of......gov union members. Just follow the money. It was a scam. There were other ways to prevent cuts in public services like making temporary cuts in gov union benefits or a temporary pay freeze for gov workers along with temporary tax increases. The point is the gov unions wouldn't budge an inch. Instead they pushed for tax increases that will be passed on to consumers & private sector workers.

Tell me why you think union members, who earn regular working class salaries, are a more deserving target than businesses and high earners?

The individual tax increase was on individuals that make $125,000 not $250,000. What the article doesn't say is that a new tax on businesses was added that was based on gross revenue instead of profit. This means that businesses that make no profit or even lose money had their taxes increased. Oregon was already considered a business unfriendly state. Now it's even more so. Oregon has the 6th highest corp taxes & the 5th highest individual income taxes in the country. This is driving businesses out of the state.

Jesus fucking christ, why can't gov union members make some small sacrifice to help the state in a recession in which private sector workers have been slaughtered?

Uuuuft. Private sector workers asked to make sacrifices, public sector workers asked to make sacrifices. And private businesses? No chance. You are a mug.

How else do you pass at least some of the cost of the recession on to the people benefitting from it, to the people who caused it, if not taxes on high incomes and businesses? You're basically arguing that they should be let off the hook, and that the economic hurt should be passed around more equitable amongst all the people who had nothing to do with the problems, and who weren't doing well even in the "boom".

You're even basing it on the ridiculous idea that most businesses relate their wages to their profit levels. They don't, they pay whatever we're desperate enough to take. When there profits go up they don't turn round and start hiring people/raising wages because it's good for the community. They invest because there is more money to be made.

Your "plague on all their houses" theory is basically just a rehash of the idea that the private sector is acting in all our best interests and we should leave them to get on with it, which is pure bollocks.

 

[TomUS]

That's meaningless. Someone's got to have the 6th highest corporate taxes in the country. The real question is whether corporate taxes cover the value that companies get from the services provided by the state, which I doubt.

No, the real question is whether high corporate taxes drive companies out of the state causing more unemployment (& less tax revenue to support public services & public employees).

Fuck you.

Ah, I see. The only workers that are of value are gov union workers. The other 95% of workers can go to hell because they work in the evil private sector?

 

[TomUS]

Tell me why you think union members, who earn regular working class salaries, are a more deserving target than businesses and high earners? Uuuuft. Private sector workers asked to make sacrifices, public sector workers asked to make sacrifices. And private businesses? No chance. You are a mug.

Don't you understand basic economics? The more private businesses are taxed, the worse it is for their employees. What do you think a private business is made up of? It's overwhelmingly average working people.

How else do you pass at least some of the cost of the recession on to the people benefitting from it, to the people who caused it, if not taxes on high incomes and businesses? You're basically arguing that they should be let off the hook, and that the economic hurt should be passed around more equitable amongst all the people who had nothing to do with the problems, and who weren't doing well even in the "boom".

I am for high income earners paying more taxes, but at the Federal level. If Oregon does it, many move across the state line....to say, Washington state where there is no income tax. Oregon then loses tax revenue.

Your "plague on all their houses" theory is basically just a rehash of the idea that the private sector is acting in all our best interests and we should leave them to get on with it, which is pure bollocks.

Of course the private sector acts in it's own best interest.....just like gov unions do. Do gov unions show any concern at all for their brother private sector workers? Hell no.

 

[DotCommunist]

Don't you understand basic economics? The more private businesses are taxed, the worse it is for their employees. What do you think a private business is made up of? It's overwhelmingly average working people.

economic distribution of profits is weighted to whom? The average joe?

To trot the line you just did shows no real understanding of economics.

 

[Lo Siento.]

Don't you understand basic economics? The more private businesses are taxed, the worse it is for their employees. What do you think a private business is made up of? It's overwhelmingly average working people.

Don't you understand basic economics?! There's absolutely nothing that says that low corporation taxes lead to higher wages and higher employment. It's just a trickle-down economics fantasy.

In the absence of collective bargaining companies pay whatever salaries they think they can get away with. They don't rise and fall with profits. They follow the supply and demand for skilled and unskilled workers. Similarly companies charge their consumers what the market will stand. They don't "pass on costs to consumers/workers", they set their prices and wages according to whatever criteria they work out to best benefit their company. The two things are utterly unrelated. That you seem to think they are, that these companies are looking to "pass the savings on to their customers" or "reward their workers for their bumper profits" just shows what a naïve mug you are.

The only possible negative is that taxes take money away from private businesses that could be invested in new projects. Which is offset by the money instead being invested in public sector projects which also produce employment, and generate economic growth. In fact, the only victim from socialising profits is... the business owners and shareholders.

I am for high income earners paying more taxes, but at the Federal level. If Oregon does it, many move across the state line....to say, Washington state where there is no income tax. Oregon then loses tax revenue.

If that is, in fact, the result, then the unions are shooting themselves in the foot not "scamming you".

Of course the private sector acts in it's own best interest.....just like gov unions do. Do gov unions show any concern at all for their brother private sector workers? Hell no.

Most trade unions organise private AND public sector workers. Most trade unions lobby for legislation that benefits workers across the economy (Health and Safety legislation, labour legislation, statutory holiday requirements, stuff like that). High levels of unionisation in general pushs up wages for low-skilled or semi-skilled workers, which has the knock on effect of pushing up wages across the economy. Oh, and private sector workers are big users of public sector services like public transport, public hospitals and state schools, so public sector trade unions help maintain and improve standards in social services.

So, hell yes.

 

[Barking_Mad]

Don't you understand basic economics? The more private businesses are taxed, the worse it is for their employees. What do you think a private business is made up of? It's overwhelmingly average working people.

Well im sure they will all look forward to their cut of the massive profits they overwhelmingly contribute to making....right?

 

[Yuwipi Woman]

No, the real question is whether high corporate taxes drive companies out of the state causing more unemployment (& less tax revenue to support public services & public employees).

2/3 of corporations pay no tax.

The Government Accountability Office said 72 percent of all foreign corporations and about 57 percent of U.S. companies doing business in the United States paid no federal income taxes for at least one year between 1998 and 2005.

More than half of foreign companies and about 42 percent of U.S. companies paid no U.S. income taxes for two or more years in that period, the report said.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2008/08/12/us-usa-taxes-corporations-idUSN1249465620080812

In Wisconsin the new Governor took $136 Million dollars from the budget and used it to give corporations a tax break. Then, he claims that there's a deficit and "everyone will have to make sacrifices" and proceeds to cut social programs and wages for teachers and firefighters.

Please don't bother talking to me about trickle down economics. It does work, never has, and never will. Other economic theories offer better results.

 

[TomUS]

2/3 of corporations pay no tax.

But their employees do. When a corporation moves, so does the tax revenue.

Please don't bother talking to me about trickle down economics. It does work, never has, and never will. Other economic theories offer better results.

I'm not defending trickle down. I'm saying that what Oregon did, upping taxes on corporations in a recession costs jobs.

 

[nino_savatte]

Ah, a dyed in the wool neolib.

 

[Yuwipi Woman]

I'm not defending trickle down. I'm saying that what Oregon did, upping taxes on corporations in a recession costs jobs.

Everything you've said has defended trickle down. You've done nothing but repeat Neo-con memes directly from Rush and Beck.

 

[TomUS]

They don't "pass on costs to consumers/workers"

Oh but they do. If a company's costs increase it doesn't just accept lower profits. It passes the increased costs on in anyway it can. If it didn't, it wouldn't be around very long.

If that is, in fact, the result, then the unions are shooting themselves in the foot

They are indeed. The tax increases in Oregon will result in prolonging the recession & will result in public employee layoffs and probably reduced public services. But, gov union contracts call for layoffs to be done based on seniority, not job performance. So the newer, lower paid workers will be the first to go. So, for the majority of gov workers, it makes sense for their unions to push for tax increases instead of making some sacrifices.

 

[Lo Siento.]

Oh but they do. If a company's costs increase it doesn't just accept lower profits. It passes the increased costs on in anyway it can. If it didn't, it wouldn't be around very long.

God, you're slow. I just explained to you why that's not the case.

Let's go through again, this time for a 5 year old.

At NO TIME do capitalist organisations just accept lower profits. They are constantly seeking to maximise profit. In booms, in busts, when they pay lots of tax, when they pay no tax at all. All the time they're looking to maximise profits. Agreed?

Your idea, that companies are able to pass on costs to costumers and workers assumes the opposite of this idea. That during the good times, or when something goes well for workers they are busily paying their workers above market rate, and charge their costumers under market rate. It's assuming the existence of money that the company is frittering away, just because it can.

I mean, who the fuck convinced of such utter bullshit? The businessman reluctantly lowering salaries because of tax cut? If I was a shareholder and the executive of my company responded to tax rise by cutting salaries, I'd be asking, "well, if you could cut their salaries, why didn't you do it sooner, you useless idiots" They lower salaries because THEY CAN. Real wages have been dropping consistently for 30 years in the US, largely because union resistance in the private sector was broken over that period.

They are indeed. The tax increases in Oregon will result in prolonging the recession & will result in public employee layoffs and probably reduced public services. But, gov union contracts call for layoffs to be done based on seniority, not job performance. So the newer, lower paid workers will be the first to go. So, for the majority of gov workers, it makes sense for their unions to push for tax increases instead of making some sacrifices.

but, but, I thought it was a scam before. Oh, and there's no evidence that people (on any significant scale anyway) take complex decisions to move house and change life in response to tax regimes, btw. It's another right-wing scare story with no basis in reality.

Tax increases do carry a risk of prolonging recessions, but so do cuts in public services.

 

[spring-peeper]

Prices do actually go down around here.

I wonder how they do it if the companies are not willing to loss some profit to gain a marketing edge.

 

[Santino]

Prices do actually go down around here.

I wonder how they do it if the companies are not willing to loss some profit to gain a marketing edge.

To gain a marketing edge with what purpose?

 

[Lo Siento.]

Prices do actually go down around here.

I wonder how they do it if the companies are not willing to loss some profit to gain a marketing edge.

what do you mean? when do they go down? after tax cuts? There might, conceivably, be a marketing push after a high profile tax cut. Just like companies often run promotions on VAT rises, stating that they aren't going to charge the extra VAT. In general though, taxes aren't going to effect prices in a direct way, because companies don't set prices in the way TomUS seems to think (ie. totalling up all the costs and adding what they consider a reasonable mark up). Prices go up and down based on multiplying prices by expected sales and seeing what comes up with the biggest profit.

 

[spring-peeper]

what do you mean? when do they go down? after tax cuts? There might, conceivably, be a marketing push after a high profile tax cut. Just like companies often run promotions on VAT rises, stating that they aren't going to charge the extra VAT. In general though, taxes aren't going to effect prices in a direct way, because companies don't set prices in the way TomUS seems to think (ie. totalling up all the costs and adding what they consider a reasonable mark up). Prices go up and down based on multiplying prices by expected sales and seeing what comes up with the biggest profit.

I don't remember tax cuts happening here for a long, long time, so I doubt the prices dropped due to tax cuts.

Each time a provincial government increases the minimum wage, businesses claim that prices will go up. I don't remember seeing this to be true, either.

Most costs are due to a cut in the raw materials or better techonologies. If all that businesses care about is an increase in profits, why would they drop the price of apple juice? Why not keep the cost at $1 per litre? I'm now buying my juice at $.77 a can, the lowest price in years.

 

[ViolentPanda]

God, you're slow. I just explained to you why that's not the case.

Let's go through again, this time for a 5 year old.

At NO TIME do capitalist organisations just accept lower profits. They are constantly seeking to maximise profit. In booms, in busts, when they pay lots of tax, when they pay no tax at all. All the time they're looking to maximise profits. Agreed?

In fact, in Tom's country there is a legal obligation on corporations to do right by the shareholders - that is generally narrowly interpreted to mean "maximise profits", and has been so interpreted for at least the last 30 years.

If Tom believes that corporate entities in the US do anything other than this, then he's living in a dream-world.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Everything you've said has defended trickle down. You've done nothing but repeat Neo-con memes directly from Rush and Beck.

IME (and that of a few mates spread over the Northern states) this kind of "economics for idiots by idiots" is fairly prevalent, and was even before Rush got addicted to prescription painkillers and Glenn discovered he could cry on cue by thinking about...well, let's not go there today, hmm?

I've asked the same mates about high school economics, and they've all said that the usual economic history gets taught, not this doctrinaire crap, gets taught, so it's obviously a conscious thing, to decide that all the disproved economic schtick actually has some validity.

 

[audiotech]

 

[TomUS]

God, you're slow. I just explained to you why that's not the case.

Let's go through again, this time for a 5 year old.

At NO TIME do capitalist organisations just accept lower profits. They are constantly seeking to maximise profit. In booms, in busts, when they pay lots of tax, when they pay no tax at all. All the time they're looking to maximise profits. Agreed?

Your idea, that companies are able to pass on costs to costumers and workers assumes the opposite of this idea. That during the good times, or when something goes well for workers they are busily paying their workers above market rate, and charge their costumers under market rate. It's assuming the existence of money that the company is frittering away, just because it can.

I mean, who the fuck convinced of such utter bullshit? The businessman reluctantly lowering salaries because of tax cut? If I was a shareholder and the executive of my company responded to tax rise by cutting salaries, I'd be asking, "well, if you could cut their salaries, why didn't you do it sooner, you useless idiots" They lower salaries because THEY CAN. Real wages have been dropping consistently for 30 years in the US, largely because union resistance in the private sector was broken over that period.



but, but, I thought it was a scam before. Oh, and there's no evidence that people (on any significant scale anyway) take complex decisions to move house and change life in response to tax regimes, btw. It's another right-wing scare story with no basis in reality.

Tax increases do carry a risk of prolonging recessions, but so do cuts in public services.

Did you go to the Kim Jong Il school of economics? Of course companies are always trying to maximize their profits. That's why they pass on increased costs to customers and employees whenever they can....to avoid profit decreases. It's really not that difficult a concept. When profits decrease or are expected to, companies react. I've personally witnessed this in companies I've worked for. Profit decreases usually lead directly to layoffs, pay cuts or price increases. I know a guy who was an accountant for Kikkoman, the soy sauce co. Years ago, the price of soybeans increased all of a sudden. As direct result, the co then gradually increased the price of it's sauce.

That people (& companies) decide where to locate based on tax rates is not right wing scare story, it's reality where I live & a common topic of conversation. I personally know people who moved from Oregon to Washington to avoid Oregon taxes, as well as people who will not live in Oregon because of the taxes.

Unlike government unions who think they have a god given right to business as usual no matter what happens in the economy, those in the REAL world have to make adjustments.

 

[FridgeMagnet]

<edit - never mind>

 

[Bernie Gunther]

It's amazing isn't it. Capitalism is a law of nature, but any attempt by the working class to organise in their own interests is some sort of sin against god ...

 

[DotCommunist]

Did you go to the Kim Jong Il school of economics?

did you just piss your chips? yes you did.

 

[SpineyNorman]

Most costs are due to a cut in the raw materials or better techonologies. If all that businesses care about is an increase in profits, why would they drop the price of apple juice? Why not keep the cost at $1 per litre? I'm now buying my juice at $.77 a can, the lowest price in years.

So that they can sell more units in an effort to... maximise profits.

 

[TomUS]

It's amazing isn't it. Capitalism is a law of nature, but any attempt by the working class to organise in their own interests is some sort of sin against god ...

Actually I don't think that's what this is about. This recession has been going on for over 2.5 years. During that time private sector workers, both union & non-union have taken massive cuts. And where was the outcry from the small privileged subset of the working class, the public sector unions? Where were their offers of concessions to help out? They just kept demanding raises & tax increases. Now that the federal aid to states has run out & they are under pressure, suddenly the rallies & protests erupt. Are they the only real members of the working class?

 

[ernestolynch]

You're an idiot. You think workers in private companies voluntarily took pay cuts! SHITHEAD!

 

[ernestolynch]

Tell me an instance in history where wage reductions and spending cuts ever ended a recession, SHITHEAD.

 

[Lo Siento.]

Did you go to the Kim Jong Il school of economics? Of course companies are always trying to maximize their profits. That's why they pass on increased costs to customers and employees whenever they can....to avoid profit decreases. It's really not that difficult a concept. When profits decrease or are expected to, companies react. I've personally witnessed this in companies I've worked for. Profit decreases usually lead directly to layoffs, pay cuts or price increases. I know a guy who was an accountant for Kikkoman, the soy sauce co. Years ago, the price of soybeans increased all of a sudden. As direct result, the co then gradually increased the price of it's sauce.

That people (& companies) decide where to locate based on tax rates is not right wing scare story, it's reality where I live & a common topic of conversation. I personally know people who moved from Oregon to Washington to avoid Oregon taxes, as well as people who will not live in Oregon because of the taxes.

Unlike government unions who think they have a god given right to business as usual no matter what happens in the economy, those in the REAL world have to make adjustments.

Dear Mug,

The only people for whom capitalism is always "business as usual" are the people you're defending, private businesses. Large companies have been quite happily making big profits before and during the recession that they caused. When economic recovery happens, they will swallow the vast majority of the benefits, just as they did during the long period of economic growth caused by the advent of neoliberalism. All this whilst our wages stayed exactly the same or decreased in value.

You've evidently got precisely zero understanding of how capitalism actually works, and you're incapable of actually reading and understanding what I'm writing. Companies are constantly trying to maximise profits, regardless of any other economic factor. In your example, if they didn't think they could sell their Soy Sauce for the higher price, they wouldn't raise prices. They do it because they can. They simply aren't making the calculations (costs + reasonable markup) that you think they are.

I don't care what your, probably imaginary, friends tell you, there's no documented research whatsoever suggesting that any "the brain drain" happens on any SIGNIFICANT scale.

If you, living in a country where organised labour is shit on time and again by the state and big business, believe that their defence of their members purchasing power during a recession they had NOTHING TO DO WITH CAUSING is the real problems, and that the real victims are the very capitalists who exploit us, then there's no hope for you.

Yours,

Lo Siento.

I'm done now.

 

[Lo Siento.]

Actually I don't think that's what this is about. This recession has been going on for over 2.5 years. During that time private sector workers, both union & non-union have taken massive cuts. And where was the outcry from the small privileged subset of the working class, the public sector unions? Where were their offers of concessions to help out? They just kept demanding raises & tax increases. Now that the federal aid to states has run out & they are under pressure, suddenly the rallies & protests erupt. Are they the only real members of the working class?

'cause the way to solve all our problems is that everybody makes a few sacrifices so we can pay off the capitalists' debts, right?!

Mug

 

[TomUS]

You're an idiot. You think workers in private companies voluntarily took pay cuts! SHITHEAD!

No & they were fired by the millions & they dad no power to make some consessions to avoid tax increases. Did the public employee unions give a damn? No. SHITHEAD!