The "Average" American couldn't afford a pair of "Average" shoes made by "Average American Workers" in an "Average American Factory".. not when the "Average" worker is 'demanding' higher wages and benefits and more perks.. So, the "Average" American Business turns to a place like China where labor is cheap, or Mexico, same reason, etc.. etc.. And in doing so, they can 'sell' an "Average Shoe" at a cost that the "Average American" can afford.. All these protesters 'think' the price of goods won't go up when the price of business does.. and we'll be locked in an ever-upward spiral of cost over production.. for.. ever!.. If you get a raise today so you can afford that new pair of shoes.. the price of that pair just went up because the guy making it wanted a raise so he could afford what "YOU" produce.. Even if it's a freakin Newspaper.. Seventy Five Cents for 'yesterdays' news..
Wow! what a question, lemme see, ok.. Fresh off the press (not this Press, but elsewhere) Labor Unions support "Occupy Wall Street Protestors".. Hmmm, No, the "Labor" movement isn't.. What it's actually trying to do is FORCE business to expand at a time when there is very little worth in doing so. >period< Cost of goods is going up, that includes the cost of 'raw materials' to make goods with! - So, let's 'occupy' somewhere and try to FORCE someone to hire you for a job.. right! Or, FORCE your neighbor to pay more taxes so the Democrats can spend it 'not' creating Jobs.. right.. And then the 'protest' gets ugly, someone catches a brick in the face.. a business burns down.. people get tazed.. someone is shot.. Jeepers! Ok, I vote, "HURT".. who's with me?
WAchamp, I won't say that the government hasn't helped some jobs go overseas with rediculous policies but you can't say that the unions haven't pushed jobs overseas with unrealistic pay and benefits with a straight face. Bottom line, if you couple lower wages with less regulations (not NO regulations so don't go there) it's a no brainer for a business/manufacturer. I agree we need to look at these trade agreements and even the playing field, especially when a foreign government manipulates the market in their favor.
for you that don't know, union members havea say if their money goes into any PACs. as far as having a choice to join, if you want the wages and benefits that a union contract gives then join ,if you don't then work at wal-mart. and the last issue of bagger had a story of 5 rich chinese who came to america to ride their Harleys and yes they cost 5x times as much in china.unions have not cost one job to go overseas, our Gov. did that with NAFTA ,N CAFTA, and FREE TRADE.If it wasn't for the Unions we wouldn't even have a tariff on chinese paper coming into this country. Try to imagine 5 yrs down the road when we are a 2class sociaty,there will be way to fight the rich corporations,like mobil,exxon or bp,but again the nice thing about being a democratic sociaty is we can say and vote the way we want.
Vauche, On you're last two comments, it is refreshing know that someone actually understands what America is about and why we became the Greatest Nation on earth. Thanks for putting it out there.
The more I think about it the more I'm starting to wonder if it would be a good idea in any way to increase the tax burden on businesses. I suppose if one really decreased a ton of regulations and red tape to make it easier to do business it might work by off-setting the increase in taxes paid by making it cheaper day to day. The key though is certainty in the end though. Set a tax rate and keep it there and stop hinting at new regulations and jobs will come without government throwing tons of money the problem. In the end the more people working the more revenue the government will get through taxes.
If that is the case and Informed was talking about the effective rate than I actually would agree, as I said. I don't think when many talk about raising the taxes though they are thinking of it in this manner.
I can't agree that we aren't taxed to highly though. On a personal tax level comparisons from country to country don't work. The difference in culture and expectations from government exclude such a comparisons. The US was founded on principles of the individual taking care of themselves not the government. Such a system need not have the high tax burden that European or more "socialistic" societies need to maintain them. However, as we become more "socialistic" in our practices (all the entitlement we see today) then yes, we ALL will have to pay a heck of lot more. Personally I feel if you want such things one should go to a country that offers them, there are several but there is only ONE USA and I would prefer it not be corrupted by such entitlemen
Vauche, I think that was Informed was referring to is more of raising the effective tax rate for corporations, not the actual tax rate. This is exactly what you're referring to by eliminating loop holes and would be considered by many Republicans to be a tax hike.
As for personal taxes, the US a 27% marginal tax rate, the second lowest in the world. Only Switzerland has a lower rate, at 20%. The idea that American citizens are too highly taxed is completely nonsense. Even if you look at a ratio of marginal tax rate to GDP per capita, American citizens pay less in taxes than almost anybody else in the world.
Infomed, nobody argues that unions have served a valuable function in the past. However you defeat any idea that unions are good for jobs when you bring up Michgian and Wisconsin as examples, both highly unionized states with high unemployment. A lot of corporation profits actually go back into the corporation or out to stock holders via dividends not to the "rich". I have no problem with eliminating the loop holes for corporations but we already have the second highest corporate tax in the world, we don't need to raise it and put another nail in the coffin.
Helped for decades! Before the labor movement there were unsafe working conditions (some still exist), no benefits and minimal wages, child labor, etc. Corporations are huge, impersonal organizations that have many protections not afforded individuals. Their focus is on the quarterly profit that primarily go to the rich, not to employees who do the work. Do you think there would be the increases in wages and benefits that have occurred over many years if individuals had to rely on the good will of corporations? Our economy is driven by consumer demand which has been possible with living wages. Look at Mich & Wis today, unions disassembled and benefits taken away. More jobs with lower taxes for the rich? You must be kidding! Let's have fair trade, not free trade, tax corporations and the rich as in the past. Remember corporations use our infrastructure to make money and we the working and middle class pay the highest taxes as percentage of income to build and maintain the inf
The big issue here is the way that Union leaders now see themselves as political players. If the money they'd spent on elections was spent on providing better benefits, training and support I think the answer would be different. Years ago, unions were needed to prevent companies taking advantage of workers. These days they are more worried about influence.
Whoops on the AFL-CIO emblem; what I was talking about was a demonstration in Calif. where some supporters were using the fist as a symbol on the banners. Sorry.
WAchamp, Majority rules equals MOB rules. Perhaps you don't know that the good old USA is not Democratic but a Republic. Majority does not rule in a Republic. Protection is supposed to be applied equal to each individual, a Republic is a system that is run by the Rule of Law not majority (alla MOB mentality). You are a great example of a union goon, you don't even know you're Country is a Republic. How sad !!!!
WAchamp, there can be no democratic process at the point of a gun. The unions gain hold through brutality and intimidation and maintain it in the same way. For what other reason would the unions favor card check? Further you ever try to cross a union picket line. Even if you're not part of the union you better have good insurance. You have a say as to where your dues go, what political canidate you support? Nope, the union tells you who and what to vote for. You ever spoken bad about or tried to get rid of a union? No, unions are not democratic as you're not free to leave it and you're not free not to join it.
vauche if you knew anything about Unions,youd know they are the most democratic example we have in America. Majority rules. To bad our elections don't work like that
Bryan I couldn't agree more with what you say. However the unions power comes from the dues owed by the members. Fewer members equals less money equals less power. So while the concept of the union is socialistic, you know the greater good for all members they also show exactly why unions and socialism always fail. Ironically I believe the example you brought up is one of the most common reasons people begin to dis-like unions as a whole. It's hard to work hard everyday and have a slacker next to you getting the same benefits and compensations.
Vauche, I think that you're a bit off. Socialism is about doing what's best for the society as a whole and providing for the society as a whole. A society doesn't benefit from keeping bad workers in protected, high paid jobs. What would benefit the society as a whole is to get rid of bad workers and replace them with competent, intelligent workers.
I voted hurt but I agree with sparty on this one. The question is too open ended as unions had a purpose that once help the economy. However, currently I believe that purpose has been served and the union leadership has been hijacked by the communist, socialist network. Unionism is by nature a socialistic concept and really doesn't work with capitalism. The ever increasing wages and benefits eventually hit a tipping point and the house of cards collapses as products become priced out of the market, think auto-industry here. In this sense, the current unions are not helping anyones economic situation except China's and India's.
Bryan, I'll accept that. The comment was made mostly that unions are not the heart-beat of the middle class. I also believe they are on the way to wrecking what little is left of free enterprise and capitalism; the things that made this the Greatest Economy the world has ever known.
Abbot, some of your numbers are a bit misleading in how they're presented. I'll clarify.
According to the Bureau of Labor statistics: 12% of All workers in the US are represented by unions. 7.7% of all private industry workers are represented by unions. 6.3% of ALL workers are represented by private industry unions. 40% of all public sector workers are represented by unions. 6.75% of ALL workers are represented by public sector unions.
The truth is only 12% of the USA is unionized, 7% of those belong to public unions. That hardly accounts for our middle class. 85% of jobs are held by the private sector, these people are the heart-beat of America. You know, small businesses, the one's Obama is throwing under the truck, get your facts straight. By the way, Harley's are more expensive in China, not 5 times as much but 2 times as much.
I hope people remember that if it was'nt for the Labor Movement we would not have a middle class America. But we cotinue to elect politicians that allow our jobs to be shipped overseas in the name of Free Trade.Free trade does not mean Fair trade. One example, if you own a harley davidson you paid roughly 20,000 to 25,000 in this country in China that same motorcycle would cost 5 times as much.
EStacey
The "Average" American couldn't afford a pair of "Average" shoes made by "Average American Workers" in an "Average American Factory".. not when the "Average" worker is 'demanding' higher wages and benefits and more perks.. So, the "Average" American Business turns to a place like China where labor is cheap, or Mexico, same reason, etc.. etc.. And in doing so, they can 'sell' an "Average Shoe" at a cost that the "Average American" can afford.. All these protesters 'think' the price of goods won't go up when the price of business does.. and we'll be locked in an ever-upward spiral of cost over production.. for.. ever!.. If you get a raise today so you can afford that new pair of shoes.. the price of that pair just went up because the guy making it wanted a raise so he could afford what "YOU" produce.. Even if it's a freakin Newspaper.. Seventy Five Cents for 'yesterdays' news..
0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
EStacey
Wow! what a question, lemme see, ok.. Fresh off the press (not this Press, but elsewhere) Labor Unions support "Occupy Wall Street Protestors".. Hmmm, No, the "Labor" movement isn't.. What it's actually trying to do is FORCE business to expand at a time when there is very little worth in doing so. >period< Cost of goods is going up, that includes the cost of 'raw materials' to make goods with! - So, let's 'occupy' somewhere and try to FORCE someone to hire you for a job.. right! Or, FORCE your neighbor to pay more taxes so the Democrats can spend it 'not' creating Jobs.. right.. And then the 'protest' gets ugly, someone catches a brick in the face.. a business burns down.. people get tazed.. someone is shot.. Jeepers! Ok, I vote, "HURT".. who's with me?
0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
Vauche
WAchamp, I won't say that the government hasn't helped some jobs go overseas with rediculous policies but you can't say that the unions haven't pushed jobs overseas with unrealistic pay and benefits with a straight face. Bottom line, if you couple lower wages with less regulations (not NO regulations so don't go there) it's a no brainer for a business/manufacturer. I agree we need to look at these trade agreements and even the playing field, especially when a foreign government manipulates the market in their favor.
0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
WAchamp
for you that don't know, union members havea say if their money goes into any PACs. as far as having a choice to join, if you want the wages and benefits that a union contract gives then join ,if you don't then work at wal-mart. and the last issue of bagger had a story of 5 rich chinese who came to america to ride their Harleys and yes they cost 5x times as much in china.unions have not cost one job to go overseas, our Gov. did that with NAFTA ,N CAFTA, and FREE TRADE.If it wasn't for the Unions we wouldn't even have a tariff on chinese paper coming into this country. Try to imagine 5 yrs down the road when we are a 2class sociaty,there will be way to fight the rich corporations,like mobil,exxon or bp,but again the nice thing about being a democratic sociaty is we can say and vote the way we want.
1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
Abbott
Vauche, On you're last two comments, it is refreshing know that someone actually understands what America is about and why we became the Greatest Nation on earth. Thanks for putting it out there.
0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
Vauche
The more I think about it the more I'm starting to wonder if it would be a good idea in any way to increase the tax burden on businesses. I suppose if one really decreased a ton of regulations and red tape to make it easier to do business it might work by off-setting the increase in taxes paid by making it cheaper day to day. The key though is certainty in the end though. Set a tax rate and keep it there and stop hinting at new regulations and jobs will come without government throwing tons of money the problem. In the end the more people working the more revenue the government will get through taxes.
1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
Vauche
If that is the case and Informed was talking about the effective rate than I actually would agree, as I said. I don't think when many talk about raising the taxes though they are thinking of it in this manner.
I can't agree that we aren't taxed to highly though. On a personal tax level comparisons from country to country don't work. The difference in culture and expectations from government exclude such a comparisons. The US was founded on principles of the individual taking care of themselves not the government. Such a system need not have the high tax burden that European or more "socialistic" societies need to maintain them. However, as we become more "socialistic" in our practices (all the entitlement we see today) then yes, we ALL will have to pay a heck of lot more. Personally I feel if you want such things one should go to a country that offers them, there are several but there is only ONE USA and I would prefer it not be corrupted by such entitlemen
1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
BryanJSebeck
Vauche, I think that was Informed was referring to is more of raising the effective tax rate for corporations, not the actual tax rate. This is exactly what you're referring to by eliminating loop holes and would be considered by many Republicans to be a tax hike.
As for personal taxes, the US a 27% marginal tax rate, the second lowest in the world. Only Switzerland has a lower rate, at 20%. The idea that American citizens are too highly taxed is completely nonsense. Even if you look at a ratio of marginal tax rate to GDP per capita, American citizens pay less in taxes than almost anybody else in the world.
1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
Vauche
Infomed, nobody argues that unions have served a valuable function in the past. However you defeat any idea that unions are good for jobs when you bring up Michgian and Wisconsin as examples, both highly unionized states with high unemployment. A lot of corporation profits actually go back into the corporation or out to stock holders via dividends not to the "rich". I have no problem with eliminating the loop holes for corporations but we already have the second highest corporate tax in the world, we don't need to raise it and put another nail in the coffin.
3 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
Informed50
Helped for decades! Before the labor movement there were unsafe working conditions (some still exist), no benefits and minimal wages, child labor, etc. Corporations are huge, impersonal organizations that have many protections not afforded individuals. Their focus is on the quarterly profit that primarily go to the rich, not to employees who do the work. Do you think there would be the increases in wages and benefits that have occurred over many years if individuals had to rely on the good will of corporations? Our economy is driven by consumer demand which has been possible with living wages. Look at Mich & Wis today, unions disassembled and benefits taken away. More jobs with lower taxes for the rich? You must be kidding! Let's have fair trade, not free trade, tax corporations and the rich as in the past. Remember corporations use our infrastructure to make money and we the working and middle class pay the highest taxes as percentage of income to build and maintain the inf
1 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
Believe
The big issue here is the way that Union leaders now see themselves as political players. If the money they'd spent on elections was spent on providing better benefits, training and support I think the answer would be different. Years ago, unions were needed to prevent companies taking advantage of workers. These days they are more worried about influence.
6 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
Abbott
Whoops on the AFL-CIO emblem; what I was talking about was a demonstration in Calif. where some supporters were using the fist as a symbol on the banners. Sorry.
0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
Abbott
Vauche, Great comment. The new emblem of the AFL-CIO speaks for itself. The big bad fist of Communism, in bright red, unbelievable.
2 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
Abbott
WAchamp, Majority rules equals MOB rules. Perhaps you don't know that the good old USA is not Democratic but a Republic. Majority does not rule in a Republic. Protection is supposed to be applied equal to each individual, a Republic is a system that is run by the Rule of Law not majority (alla MOB mentality). You are a great example of a union goon, you don't even know you're Country is a Republic. How sad !!!!
4 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
Vauche
WAchamp, there can be no democratic process at the point of a gun. The unions gain hold through brutality and intimidation and maintain it in the same way. For what other reason would the unions favor card check? Further you ever try to cross a union picket line. Even if you're not part of the union you better have good insurance. You have a say as to where your dues go, what political canidate you support? Nope, the union tells you who and what to vote for. You ever spoken bad about or tried to get rid of a union? No, unions are not democratic as you're not free to leave it and you're not free not to join it.
3 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
WAchamp
vauche if you knew anything about Unions,youd know they are the most democratic example we have in America. Majority rules. To bad our elections don't work like that
1 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
antilib
0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
Vauche
Bryan I couldn't agree more with what you say. However the unions power comes from the dues owed by the members. Fewer members equals less money equals less power. So while the concept of the union is socialistic, you know the greater good for all members they also show exactly why unions and socialism always fail. Ironically I believe the example you brought up is one of the most common reasons people begin to dis-like unions as a whole. It's hard to work hard everyday and have a slacker next to you getting the same benefits and compensations.
5 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
BryanJSebeck
Vauche, I think that you're a bit off. Socialism is about doing what's best for the society as a whole and providing for the society as a whole. A society doesn't benefit from keeping bad workers in protected, high paid jobs. What would benefit the society as a whole is to get rid of bad workers and replace them with competent, intelligent workers.
0 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
Vauche
I voted hurt but I agree with sparty on this one. The question is too open ended as unions had a purpose that once help the economy. However, currently I believe that purpose has been served and the union leadership has been hijacked by the communist, socialist network. Unionism is by nature a socialistic concept and really doesn't work with capitalism. The ever increasing wages and benefits eventually hit a tipping point and the house of cards collapses as products become priced out of the market, think auto-industry here. In this sense, the current unions are not helping anyones economic situation except China's and India's.
3 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
Abbott
Bryan, I'll accept that. The comment was made mostly that unions are not the heart-beat of the middle class. I also believe they are on the way to wrecking what little is left of free enterprise and capitalism; the things that made this the Greatest Economy the world has ever known.
5 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
BryanJSebeck
Abbot, some of your numbers are a bit misleading in how they're presented. I'll clarify.
According to the Bureau of Labor statistics: 12% of All workers in the US are represented by unions. 7.7% of all private industry workers are represented by unions. 6.3% of ALL workers are represented by private industry unions. 40% of all public sector workers are represented by unions. 6.75% of ALL workers are represented by public sector unions.
1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
Abbott
The truth is only 12% of the USA is unionized, 7% of those belong to public unions. That hardly accounts for our middle class. 85% of jobs are held by the private sector, these people are the heart-beat of America. You know, small businesses, the one's Obama is throwing under the truck, get your facts straight. By the way, Harley's are more expensive in China, not 5 times as much but 2 times as much.
3 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
Spartytruth
With such a broad vague question, the result means nothing.
3 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
WAchamp
I hope people remember that if it was'nt for the Labor Movement we would not have a middle class America. But we cotinue to elect politicians that allow our jobs to be shipped overseas in the name of Free Trade.Free trade does not mean Fair trade. One example, if you own a harley davidson you paid roughly 20,000 to 25,000 in this country in China that same motorcycle would cost 5 times as much.
2 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »