Taxes Are Too Low

Lest you dismiss the article as HuffPo claptrap, it is actually from the AP (that well-known left wing source):

http://custom.yahoo.com/taxes/article-112061-0c8961e7-144f-45ba-920f-8df98fd4d028-by-one-measure-federal-taxes-lowest-since-1950

Agree, more or less. Except if you change the tax system to take a bite out of that 50k family paying not taxes, it would push misery on a great many families. Take a bigger chunk of the rich families.

How about "no representation without taxation". And more votes with every dollar you pay.

vat

Isn't a consumption tax way worse on the poor?

depends on how it's structured. what's included and what's not.

But if it were structured to exclude things like groceries, clothing under $20 blablabla, then wouldn't the 50k families still be paying very little in tax?

My question to midtowner: what should be the desired outcome? Is there an issue with the 50k, 2-child families paying no income taxes?
Sure, tax the rich - most people agree with this.
Or are you saying we should impose a very small tax on everyone who is currently not paying any income tax?

no, keep the families making less than $50k where they are. structure it so that the better off, who still seem to have plenty of wherewithal to spend, are targeted. at least that's my take.

i think there are two distinct issues that have gotten put together. our economy has come to a point where middle income people cannot afford to live. as such, they can't pay taxes either. on the other hand, how long can we pretend to be a democracy if less than half the population pays taxes?

meanwhile, a growing minority of the country believes that good paying jobs represent yet another entitlement that no one deserves.

CC: agree. There is something weird about a system where < 50% (what's the exact #) of the employed owe taxes? People always scream no taxation w/o representation, but hard to find the modern meaning of that.

I don't understand your 2nd point - do you mean to say that that more Americans think that no-one should get rich? Haven't heard that.

no. i believe that more and more americans believe that business has no responsibility whatsoever to pay living wages i.e. pay people as little as possible and let someone else worry about the consequences. i don't think that many people (particularly in ny) understand what it means to be an non unionized hourly worker. starting with no work, no pay.

i wish i knew the answer.

CC: my pet peeve is to see product A, previously made in USA (hopefully by people making min. wage), now outsourced, and I'm STILL paying $7.99 or more. There isn't that much price competitiveness on the shelf. In the last 2 years, pretty much every hardback children's book I've picked up has been printed offshore. Same price, though.

Most people I talk to are inherently anti-union, even if they're not die hard right wing or "rich".
#1 issue with the union is tenure and job "guarantee" - they don't see why if everyone outside the union is employment-at-will, why any other job should be different. And in fact, for public service employees, it's "their" tax money, so their bosses = public, if you will, and they don't understand the union safeguards.
Even union people I know have issues with their non-productive peers who can't be fired.

The union bosses better triangulate quickly, because, they are not winning public support.

of course most printing jobs in the usa were union jobs and at considerably more than minimum wage. now, all of those jobs are gone and as you point out you're still paying the same amount for the books. (of course, the counter argument is that otherwise you would be paying considerably more)

once again i think a couple of ideas are getting put together. municipal unions are a different flavor than unions that represent workers in private industry. of course, the latter is a dying breed if not altogether dead.

clearly it is shameful that politicians routinely buy blocks of votes from municipal union workers. but i think of it as a simple idea like finding a $100 bill on the sidewalk---i certainly wouldn't go out of my way to locate the rightful owner. aren't the politicians (and the voters) at least equally culpable as the unions?

CC: that argument about cheaper product is over-used. Especially with respect to some products. Fools like me pay $7.99 for a plastic bib and would pay $9.99 for another. I usually buy hardbacks as gifts and I wouldn't argue over $21.99 vs. $19.99.

Yes, I was talking about public service unions. Better get their act together quickly. The politician today will "buy" votes because it's efficient, but tomorrow, if he/she finds that vote ends up costing more than it's worth will readily ditch the public service union vote.

I certainly cannot defend public service unions.

The irony of all this is that the loss of these jobs and benefits (which seems to be inevitable) will have the unintended consequence of eliminating yet another large group of people who have jobs that enable them to live well and spend money.

I don't think that this reduction will somehow magically create wonderful efficiencies that will result in other jobs replacing them.

As I said earlier, i wish i knew the answer to all this.

It's not going to end well. But that's been said before - I feel like my generation has been bombarded with the "we are the new Rome" thing for almost 50 years, starting probably with Vietnam/civil rights/hell in a handbasket.

Commune, here I come.

I'm pretty sure it took more than 50 years for the Roman empire to collapse. :-)

"The union bosses better triangulate quickly, because, they are not winning public support."

Why should union bosses give a damn about public opinion? If I'm a union boss, this has been a great month for me. TSA agents just got the right to unionize, which means for dues for me. And if someone publicly complains about unions too much, naked airport scanner photos of them may "accidentally" end up on Flickr. Control of the TSA gives union bosses immense power that they did not have just a few weeks ago.

instead of complaining about the benefits that union workers have, maybe non union workers should fight for those benefits. The mantra seems to be that if you don't have certain benefits, NOBODY should have them.

I'm sure that's what the dinosaurs were thinking. Even my usual liberal, UWSer is NOT with the unions. Really. I don't know if you're some kind of weird caricature or if you really believe what you say. I want the unions to survive, I want them to keep at least a base of well-paid jobs in the economy. But I don't think it's going to happen. Keep spouting.

" want the unions to survive, I want them to keep at least a base of well-paid jobs in the economy. But I don't think it's going to happen."

It won't happen if you let anti worker Republicans continue spouting their anti union propaganda unchecked.

It's not propaganda. And it's exactly attitudes like yours on the classic, liberal knee-jerk left which refuses to acknowledge that there is huge backlash among people who would be natural supporters of the unions. I give up.

Most people know nothing about unions, except for all of the propaganda they hear on Fox News. According to Glenn Beck, and yes, he actually said it, unions are working with the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt to overthrow the govt.

If this is not propaganda, I don't know what is.

your endless spouting here does not help your cause.

There was also a huge backlash in the 50s and 60s against minorities. Maybe we should have listened to all of the racists instead of passing the Civil Rights Act. NEWSFLASH: I don't really care what the public thinks.

I have never EVER turned on Fox News. Neither do most people I know.

There are members of my extended family in unbreakable unions, and even they are disgusted by union rhetoric & reality sometimes.

it's not just republicans, that's the thing. it's just about everyone. the problem is one of publicity. the union issues are being aired out like a fat woman's oversized laundry on an outdoor clothesline. everyone can see it, and nobody wants to.

people (the 80% or more who haven't captured much of the nation's wealth) don't look forward very well. all they see is a class of people who are doing relatively well comparatively while their own security is declining and their expenses/benefits/pensions are declining or being eliminated.

unions are fighting tooth and nail because they did give up wage growth, generally, in return for benefits. now nothing is sacred. but nothing is sacred for so many americans who did their best.

we need to quit pointing fingers at various groups, enemies, etc. and try to figure out a way to do our best to promote growth, create and repair infrastructure, and ensure that our young get the education they need (and that isn't necessarily college, at all) to provide for themselves and their children. and we need to quit blaming the elderly, no point in it, we certainly don't want to become a modern-day Calcutta, so let's put out thinking caps on and find some solutions.

will the unions have to compromise? fuck yes. will it necessarily be fair? fuck no. is it fair that 17%ish of our labor force is under or unemployed? no. life isn't fair. and the fact that our corporations have absorbed virtually all of the cost benefits from "free trade" while cutting local employment rolls is just one such example.

Agreed, ar. And in the boom times, it may have been funny to joke about the slow DMV clerk or padding overtime, but it's not funny anymore because many more people are hurting. Don't see the unions operating from a position of strength.

I've always suspected that union bashing was started by Wall St. to divert attention away from their offensively high pay. Usually I see ti during bonus time and then it starts to go away, until the next bonus season, in which it comes back in full force.

"but it's not funny anymore because many more people are hurting."

So your saying that because peopel are hurting, unions should be forced to suffer too?

sometimes it helps to shut up and listen. try it.

socialist, of course. the salaries for employees in public unions are paid for by the people, and we don't have any f'ng money to pay them. if the people are hurting, the members of the unions should be sharing at least some of the pain as well. we're not talking about being dismantled, although if they keep up the way they're going and take your advice they will be. i am certainly not in favor of municipal bankruptcies to vacate pension obligations, but if they don't agree to some compromises that may be where they see themselves. no, it's not "fair." nothing about this economy is fair.

you're a piss poor socialist.

many govt. workers have been laid off or furloughed. I guess your not happy that enough govt. workers are suffering? If you rode the subway lately, I am sure you have noticed all of the empty token booths. Or the longer lines at city and state agencies like the DMV. Or the longer lines at the Post Office.

inflation tax is the most vicious. it is coming back. stealing secretly from those who don't understand it. the most afflicted are the poor and middle class.

Maybe people don't believe that workers should get lifetime payments for not working after early retirements. Maybe that is why people don't push for these types of benefits in the private sector, because they know it is ridiculous.

the private sector used to have lifetime pensions until greedy executives did away with them EXCEPT for themselves. They still have them.

How many govt. workers should we lay off?

How many teachers?

How many cops?

How many firemen?

How many prison guards?

socialist, have significantly more than 10% of gov't workers been fired and required to find new jobs? because that's the figure for the general population.

you don't get it, one bit. i'm on your side and i can't stand you and what you write. yes, protection for union workers would be lovely, and i don't like what's happening in local gov't. but what's the alternative? where's the money? we simply do not have it.

and yes, we'll all suffer from less services. anyone remember the garbage stench in the '80s?

nicercatch, let's get through this period of deflation first, okay? we're still plugging holes, commodity speculation aside.

Once again LICC Dope proposes another brilliant plan to re-distrubute money to the top. Of course he will NEVER be at the top. Nobody from LIC will ever see the top, except the top of the building they stand on top of before jumping after losing everything in the next crash.

How many government workers can we avoid laying off if the unions would agree to reasonable benefit reforms?

WHy should unions give back benefits? They are better off forcing the city to lay off cops and firemen and when crime goes up or it takes 30 minutes for a fire truck to arrive, the public blames the politicans and demands they re-hire the laif off workers immediately. It works every time.

you honestly think that will work this time? go live in your PT Cruiser.

and you think they should be allowed to do so? i'm pro-union, and i don't think there's any way in hell they shouldn't have to compromise. increase productivity, just like everyone in a non-union job has been required to do.

most people are compromising. just because big business isn't, which isn't fair, doesn't mean that unions will escape it.

easy or hard, H.I., easy or hard.

IF the govt. wants to save money, they can do more work in-house instead of outsourcing eveyrhting to for profit companies where money mysteriously goes "unaccounted" for.

you are an idiot.

no, you are. You know nothing about what your talking about. All I see are right wing talking points.

give it up. you are not helping your cause.

oh lord. me right wing? the product of a union family? a former union employee myself? and relatively left (with some moderate economic ideas) on most levels?

all i see are unrealistic pro-union talking points. i want the unions to survive, unlike many on this board. they will not have a rat's ass chance of doing so if they keep their current position.

kind of like the way obama feels when he's accused of being a socialist.

exactly, cc.

Obama and the Republicans are doing a great job of destryong all of the jobs they possibly can:

Layoff govt. workers: CHECK

Outsourcing: CHECK

More H1-B Visas: Working on it

What possible interest would Obama have in destroying jobs? I'll be the first to bash him because he is far too middle of the road (or even Chicago school) and he kowtows way too much to vested Wall Street interests, but even he realizes that creating jobs has to be a higher priority now. He should have done that first and should do so to a greater degree, but he will reap no political benefit if unemployment stays this high.

alpie, what don't you get about the fact that we don't have enough money for everything? really? and most gov't layoffs haven't been federal, until recently i believe the feds have continued to increase payrolls, partially offsetting state and local. it's the STATES and CITIES.

outsourcing? sadly started under my man clinton. hugely accelerated under bush. now would take change in policies to reverse, obama to my knowledge hasn't proactively increased it.

how many visas are we talking about? really?

Socialist is the rarest of posters: able to stir invective from all parts of the political spectrum. Truly a talented individual.

Because politicans don't care about regular people. They are entrenched in the D.C. establishment. Most politicians likely don't even know any unemployed people. When Boehner was interviewed a few weeks ago about his brothers and mentioned one of them lost their job, he did not even know whether he found a new one!

All of the peopel politicans spend most of their time with all make 6 dgits: other politicans, lobbyists, lawyers, CEOs, big time donors, etc. They do not know any unemployed people. They don't exist to them.

"alpie, what don't you get about the fact that we don't have enough money for everything?"

Cut the defense budget. Cut subsidies. Close tax loopholes. Many govt. licensing fees have not been raised for decades. Certainly airlines can afford to pay more in FAA registration fees and coal mines can pay more for permit fees.

alpie, you just don't get it. many of us agree with cutting the defense budget, subsidies. may of us don't like politicians or big business as they are currently operating. that doesn't mean that a certain group of people who are paid for by the people will be willingly paid for when so many of the people are in worse shape.

step out of your argument and think. it's not a republican vs. democrat argument any more.

Midtowner: this is a funny 5-way convo. Me, you, AR, cc, socialist. We're all fairly left-wingish and bashing Socialist. That's the problem, Socialist - we are your natural allies and you're alienating us. I'm assuming you are a public service employee (could be wrong).

and the next time someone acuses Obama of being a Socialist, just ask them where the fastest train in the world is. When they inevitably say Japan or South Korea, tell them WRONG. It's in China... COMMUNIST China. The free market can't even bring us a stinking train tht can go faster than a soccer mom minivan on I-95.

China is communist - muhahaha.

Of course it's not about left versus right. Far be it from me to defend socialists... but amongst them were some major intellectuals. 'Socialist' in an embarassment to socialists that is how mentally stunted he is

se10024
20 minutes ago
ignore this person
report abuse Of course it's not about left versus right. Far be it from me to defend socialists... but amongst them were some major intellectuals. 'Socialist' in an embarassment to socialists that is how mentally stunted he is

i think the key word in your post is "were". i'm not sure the brilliant minds who conceived, championed and ultimately mainstreamed these ideas really knew how they would ultimately evolve in a real world of flawed people. the theoretical society they were building depended in its entirety on an idealized version of virtuous man. i'm not sure these same brilliant minds would advocate today, having seen the reality of their vision, what they advocated then. i am not using these words interchangeably, but the original goal of both communism and socialism really was freedom. it was supposed to liberate people from material concerns so they could live their lives in a pure state and environment of creativity and production. the point was to forcibly evolve humans beyond our natural baseness.

>aren't the politicians (and the voters) at least equally culpable as the unions?

NO.

While perhaps any individual politician can be scorned (something you are good at), the politician is not a party to the deal and don't have to pay the bills. And as far as the voters, it would be a great idea if voters were presented with each municipal union contract and allowed to vote on it. Then they could be blamed.

>i wish i knew the answer.

>As I said earlier, i wish i knew the answer to all this.

Give me a break. You are all scorn, blame, scold. But no, don't blame me columbiacounty, I'm a nice guy, I don't know all the answers. I'm just a caveman lawyer.

>Why should union bosses give a damn about public opinion?

Aren't you Socialist the one who is complaining about the public opinion about unions? How the unions are being viewed unfairly by the public?

>It won't happen if you let anti worker Republicans continue spouting their anti union propaganda unchecked.

Socialist, aren't the unions actually the most anti-worker out there? They keep their benefits for the older retirees, but the newer workers, they screw those guys bad by agreeing to lower pay, lower benefits, higher thresholds. The unions are more anti-worker than anyone out there because they are only interested in protecting the older selfish workers with their padded overtime and inflated pensions.

>I've always suspected that union bashing was started by Wall St. to divert attention away from their offensively high pay

You realize that Wall Street companies make a lot of money. If they don't pay the employees from the money they make, then there's more money for the owners / shareholders / capitalists. Socialist, are you anti-employee and pro-capitalist?

Why not let government union workers retire after just 10 years with lifetime benefits? Hey why not, because they'll just stop picking up the garbage or putting out fires if we don't give in. Socialist's arguments are just ridiculous.

"CC: my pet peeve is to see product A, previously made in USA (hopefully by people making min. wage), now outsourced, and I'm STILL paying $7.99 or more. There isn't that much price competitiveness on the shelf. In the last 2 years, pretty much every hardback children's book I've picked up has been printed offshore. Same price, though."

That's because the CEO of that American company who's outsourcing those jobs to "save" money is really pocketing the difference.

How else could he possibly sustain an eight-figure compensation package?

"That's because the CEO of that American company who's outsourcing those jobs to "save" money is really pocketing the difference."

Not exactly, what you have,like with retailers such as supermarkets is a tier of systems that makes a .50 cent item retail for $3.00 dollars.
When you establish a program of goods in say a supermarket, they want a guaranteed minimum of sales along with a slotting allowance( basically rent for the single hook in the store). For example, each item must do $500K per year, plus $3K per hook a year.Not to mention a return allowance and a whole host of other things. THis money doesn't grow on a farm. It is billed back in the price. If you ever wonder why you see a 50% difference in price between your drug store or supermarket vs Walmart or COstco, that's where it is. Focusing on the manufacturing cost between USA and overseas is basically focusing on the .50 to .80 cent part of it.
Not to say there is no effect, especially in things like cars or electronics where margins are so tight.
But having sneakers manufactured here instead of China solves nothing.
Besides you'd rather have the job of selling the sneakers than making them.