Home › Forums › Open Discussion › What Besides Unions?
- This topic is empty.
-
AuthorPosts
-
March 1, 2011 at 5:54 am #718766
redblackParticipantThe top 5% of earners pay over half of all federal income taxes. Whether you think thats not enough or not, its completely wrong to say the rich dont pay taxes.
of course they pay over half of all tax receipts.
they make 60% of the nation’s income and hold almost 90% of its wealth. that top 5% makes more money than the bottom 90% combined.
even if we had a flat tax, they’d still pay over half of the nation’s tax receipts.
and yes, america’s poverty line has risen to almost the 50th percentile because of republican policies.
and somehow wage earners are bankrupting the economy?
smitty said:
sna, keep up the good work, you are smoking these guys.
smokin’ something… care to share? :)
March 1, 2011 at 6:04 am #718767
dobroParticipant“The top 5% of earners pay over half of all federal income taxes”
You beat me to it, redblack. This is one of the common right wing dim bulb statements that pops up over and over from people who can’t figure out why that 5% pays a lot of the total taxes- its because they have all the money! Jeez!
March 1, 2011 at 6:16 am #718768
redblackParticipantI’m really struggling with the point being made against this thread. It has been said over and over again that union representation only accounts for 10% of the workforce.
crew chief: i read this on the bureau of labor statistics site recently, but i can’t find the links now.
the total u.s. workforce is about 153 million. currently 14 million or so are “officially” unemployed.
unionized employees comprise 12% of the total work force; about 7% public sector, 5% private sector.
SEIU and AFSCME have the largest enrollment, which goes to show you where the jobs are: service and government.
so, yes, the lower- and middle-class righties are attacking other lower- and middle-class wage earners so they can get a 1% or maybe 2% break on their taxes.
what they don’t realize is that if the unions fall, those at the top will be coming after their jobs next.
March 1, 2011 at 6:17 am #718769
snaParticipantRedblack: your percentages are all wrong.
http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html
Dobro: Its usually used to counter the false statement that “the rich pay no taxes.”
March 1, 2011 at 6:55 am #718770
dobroParticipantWell, I leafed back thru the thread and didn’t find any body saying “the rich pay no taxes”. I did find several examples of multi-billion dollar corporations that pay no taxes.
So what were you using it for since the “usual” reason doesn’t seem to appear here?
March 1, 2011 at 6:59 am #718771
redblackParticipantsna: my bad. it’s the top 20%.
The top-earning 5 percent of taxpayers (AGI over $159,619), however, still paid far more than the bottom 95 percent. The top 5 percent earned 34.7 percent of the nation’s adjusted gross income, but paid approximately 58.7 percent of federal individual income taxes.
however,
For example, the top 20% receives 59.1% of all income and pays 64.3% of all the taxes, so they aren’t carrying a huge extra burden. At the other end, the bottom 20%, which receives 3.5% of all income, pays 1.9% of all taxes.
http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html
doesn’t it seem a little lopsided? i know the rich pay taxes; i also know they offshore their wealth and avoid a lot of taxes, which is something that the folks who make chevys can’t do.
then there’s this:
http://www.businessinsider.com/15-charts-about-wealth-and-inequality-in-america-2010-4?op=1
read some of these charts and tell me who’s getting the short end of the stick.
March 1, 2011 at 7:13 am #718772
redblackParticipantMarch 1, 2011 at 7:37 am #718773
F16CrewChiefMemberI still don’t understand how stripping collective bargaining rights from a small percentage of represented public workers that already have taken pay and benefit cuts balances Wisconsins budget? Is there any charts out of Walkers camp that prove this helps? Again, we’re talking about a small amount of workers that probably only represent a fraction of Wisconsin’s budget.
March 1, 2011 at 4:33 pm #718774
JoBParticipantF16Crewchief…
it seems you are not alone in your lack of understanding…
March 1, 2011 at 4:38 pm #718775
JoBParticipant“The truth is if the super-rich paid their fair share of taxes, government wouldn’t be broke. If Governor Scott Walker hadn’t handed out tax breaks to corporations and the well-off, Wisconsin wouldn’t be in a budget crisis. If Washington hadn’t extended the Bush tax cuts for the rich, eviscerated the estate tax, and created loopholes for private-equity and hedge-fund managers, the federal budget wouldn’t look nearly as bad.
And if America had higher marginal tax rates and more tax brackets at the top – for those raking in $1 million, $5 million, $15 million a year – the budget would look even better.”
“The truth is that while the proximate cause of America’s economic plunge was Wall Street’s excesses leading up to the crash of 2008, its underlying cause — and the reason the economy continues to be lousy for most Americans — is so much income and wealth have been going to the very top that the vast majority no longer has the purchasing power to lift the economy out of its doldrums.”
http://robertreich.org/post/3476451774
we can’t win this battle of wills until we stop letting the far right conservatives set the agenda for the discussion.
what a relief to read an intelligent man making a reasoned argument…
March 1, 2011 at 5:51 pm #718776
KBearParticipant“If Governor Scott Walker hadn’t handed out tax breaks to corporations and the well-off, Wisconsin wouldn’t be in a budget crisis.”
What the hell is he talking about? Walker just became governor in January. He certainly didn’t create the crisis. Pretty sloppy argument coming from someone like Robert Reich.
March 1, 2011 at 6:11 pm #718777
redblackParticipantkbear: by that logic, he’s not busting the unions there, either, because he’s only been there two months.
Walker signed a law on Jan. 31 that says that companies that relocate to Wisconsin will not have to pay corporate taxes for two years. The law stipulates that the company must move at least 51 percent of the workers on its payroll or at least those who account for $200,000 in wages. Walker also signed into law a bill that gives small tax breaks to companies that create jobs. It’s debatable whether these could fairly be considered “giveaways,” since they are intended to reward companies for creating jobs.
it makes my skin crawl to cite politifact, but there you go.
March 2, 2011 at 5:09 pm #718778
ishpeopleMemberHave you seen this one?:
(Hope that works—if not, it’s on the IAMAW’s facebook page, Wall Photos, ‘Hey, Break it up over there!’
March 2, 2011 at 5:25 pm #718779
JoBParticipantishpeople…
love that cartoon…
I am tickled to see political cartooning making a comeback.
March 2, 2011 at 5:32 pm #718780
JoBParticipantIf what Walker was after was economic concessions… he got them… he is now engaged solely in union busting.. and has already been joined by Ohio…
there are a couple of bottom line take-aways from the Bureau of Labor Statistics report on Unions..
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/union2.nr0.htm
One is that public union members comprise half of all union members in the United States…
The other is that workers covered by union contracts make a couple hundred dollars more per week than those who aren’t…
and that is after the effect of union contract negotiations on the general labor market.
It isn’t just public worker’s unions that are at risk here.. it’s your wages.
March 2, 2011 at 8:10 pm #718781
dawsonctParticipantComparing salaries of public employees with those of similar education level you find that public employees give up a lot for the privilege of working FOR us, helping OUR government provide for her citizens.
Does that janitor or bus driver make a comparatively good wage? Sure, but the more education a public employee has, the less they make in the public sector when compared to those in the private sector.
Yes, the janitors in Olympia make more than the people sweeping up in Wal-mart, but do we REALLY want to drag a few of the last remaining vestiges of the American middle-class down into the poverty-level employment offered by multi-national corporations?
March 2, 2011 at 8:18 pm #718782
dawsonctParticipantFor every union-wage-level job in America, one NON-union job with equal pay and benefits is created, so destroying unions destroys the middle-class.
Again, makes you wonder why conservatives HATE Americans, though they constantly contend to be the only patriots in our Nation. Love America, hate Americans.
—
The super-wealthy aren’t, and have NOT been hurting or pulling their fair share in our Nation for WELL over thirty years. The contention is, if we give them enough of our collective tax revenues, they will create jobs. It’s been over thirty years, when does the trickle-down begin? Our Nation can’t afford another thirty years of wealth-care.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.