Obama vs. the Tea Party--who can lead?

swchandler · Joined: 08 Nov 1993 Posts: 10588

Really, no argument from me. When I mentioned that I wasn't a strong supporter of unions, I guess should qualify that by saying that I wouldn't have been interested in joining a union and living under their thumb. That said, I'm not against unionization and collective bargaining. Your points were well made, and it's difficult to argue against them.

Corporate interests and the impacts of globalization have had devastating effects on workers and ultimately on the American middle class, and it's certainly apparent that things are out of whack. Sharing the wealth with workers makes for a stronger more vibrant economy, and lessens the need for government welfare and dependence. Unfortunately though, I don't think that the investor class gets the picture. Any time the idea of raising the minimum wage comes up, it's amazing how adamant the US Chamber of Chamber works against it. Such a one sided view misses the fact that broad based buying power is at the heart of a vibrant economy. Sadly, folks fighting poverty aren't increasing consumer demand.

One way to balance things is to focus on progressive taxation. If the 1% aren't interested in creating jobs, increased taxation liberates dollars in another way and allows for more fair distribution.

boggsman1 · Joined: 24 Jun 2002 Posts: 9120 Location: at a computer

watch out chandler...all the economics professors on these pages are about to call you a socialist!!!!

MalibuGuru · Joined: 11 Nov 1993 Posts: 9300

techno900 · Joined: 28 Mar 2001 Posts: 4161

I think there was and still may be a place for organized labor. However, much of our manufacturing has now gone overseas because of our high labor costs, a result of organized labor. What good is a $25-$30 per hour job if the plant shuts down because the company went overseas.

As most of you should know, minimum wage never has and never will be a living wage. That's not it's purpose. It's a wage where the high school grads and drop outs can get summer or seasonal work to get their foot in the work force door. It's also a place where those that need a second job can make some additional money. Those that show promise get promotions and move up. Those that still want more, learn a trade or expand their education.

At the moment, because of the recession, minimum wage jobs are taken by folks out of work and needing a living wage, which they aren't getting.

I am not opposed to increasing minimum wage, but to make it a living wage, that will create more problems than it will fix.

keycocker · Joined: 10 Jul 2005 Posts: 3598

Our legal residence has nothing to do with where we live so just change your address and rock on. It must be real address but you don't have to live there.
This is usual among expats because we must have a legal tax residence in the US even if we haven't been back here in years.

coboardhead · Joined: 26 Oct 2009 Posts: 4303

Techno...it is true that our labor costs are higher. And, one of the major reasons is higher healthcare costs for a US worker.

I do not have a problem with unions dealing with private corporations. I do have a problem with government employee unions. These unions have a great deal of influence over the election of their bosses. This can appear to be as much coercion as collective bargaining.

pueno · Joined: 03 Mar 2007 Posts: 2807

KGB-NP · Joined: 25 Jul 2001 Posts: 2856

THE TAX SYSTEM EXPLAINED IN BEER
Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100...
If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this...
The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would pay $7..
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.
So, that's what they decided to do..

The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve ball. "Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20". Drinks for the ten men would now cost just $80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes. So the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men ? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his fair share?

They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from every body's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer.

So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by a higher percentage the poorer he was, to follow the principle of the tax system they had been using, and he proceeded to work out the amounts he suggested that each should now pay.

And so the fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% saving).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33% saving).
The seventh now paid $5 instead of $7 (28% saving).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% saving).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% saving).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% saving).

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But, once outside the bar, the men began to compare their savings.

"I only got a dollar out of the $20 saving," declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man, "but he got $10!"

"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar too. It's unfair that he got ten times more benefit than me!"

"That's true!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $10 back, when I got only $2? The wealthy get all the breaks!"

"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison, "we didn't get anything at all. This new tax system exploits the poor!"
The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had their beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!

And that, boys and girls, journalists and government ministers, is how our tax system works. The people who already pay the highest taxes will naturally get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas, where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.

For those who understand, no explanation is needed.
For those who do not understand, no explanation is possible

rigitrite · Joined: 19 Sep 2007 Posts: 520 Location: Kansas City

Too bad that your folksy anology is complete BS. It ignores the fact that the richest guy (your tenth guy) doesn't pay for beer at all, because he's in a completely separate earnings/tax universe from the others who are paid in wages and have W2's. NO, the rich guy has invested in the beer itself, and only has to pay 1/2 the rate of the others, unless of course the beer doesn't increase in value, then he pays nothing (but still gets to drink). Of course he also has legions of beer breaks and loop-holes not available to those wage earning suckers, because even if the beer does increase in value, he can defer the amount he owes to the next year and not pay, in fact, if he's got a great beer attorney he can defer paying indefinitely and never pay at all, meanwhile enjoying all the free beer that those other suckers are happy to pay for him to drink. This post is already to long to describe how the rich guy can put his beer in to a trust and never have to pay for it, while getting drunk off the endless rewards of being a 1% er.