Reply With Quote
And you never have solutions. Only ideas that make the economy worse.
I heard once that once an unemployed person who was collecting unemployment is hired, that the employer pays a higher unemployment insurance rate. No idea if it's true, but I wonder...
And you never have solutions. Only ideas that make the economy worse.
so you backhandedly admit there are problems?
Which of my ideas would make the economy worse?
Which of Repug/conservative/your ideas would make the economy better (for everybody).
there have been problems in this nation for decades. "Backhandedly?" WTF do you mean?
All of them. You are a true liberal to the core, and expect it is right to take from some to give to others. Not i agree there are times and cir stances this is necessary, but we have gone way out of control on social spending since the 60's.
Many of them. We have discussed such things before. As it stands now, the biggest two thing I think would be to place tariffs on many incoming goods and stop taxing production and earnings. Tax consumption instead.
Isn't this an oxymoron, besides the fact that trickle down didn't work and got us to this point?
It's not trickle down.
Scott Walker, the Governor of Wisconsin who is spearheading the GOP effort to crush collective bargaining, lavished relatively large salary increases on his staff when he was chief executive of the Milwaukee County Board. Walker surrep iously did this in 2008 - without the approval of the county board itself and at a time that the county was facing a fiscal deficit, and Walker was about to lay off a large number of union workers. In addition, 700 county positions had already been left vacant due to budgetary pressures.
According to a 2008 Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel (MJS) article,which exposed Walker's illicit personal staff raises, one aide was to achieve a 26% increase - solely initiated and approved by Walker - even though the staffer, Tom Nardelli, was to receive tax-payer funded pensions that would exceed $35,700 a year. A member of the Milwaukee County Board of Supervisors called Nardelli's salary increase "obscene," according the MJS.
As with the current "budget crisis" in the State of Wisconsin, Walker was helping to create a budget deficit, while using the situation he is responsible for to try and break the unions.
According to a February 18 New York Times editorial, "Just last month, he [Walker] and the Legislature gave away $117 million in tax breaks, mostly for businesses that expand and for private health savings accounts. That was a choice lawmakers made, and had it not been for those decisions and a few others, according to the state's Legislative Fiscal Bureau, the state would have had a surplus."
It's appropriate then to backtrack to 2008 and Walker's history of gilding the lily for his cronies while trying to break the back of working families becomes illuminated.
According to the MJS article en led "Walker Issues Hefty Raises to Top Milwaukee County Aides":
Milwaukee County Executive Scott Walker wants a 26% pay raise for his chief of staff, former Ald. Tom Nardelli, while bypassing traditional County Board approval in quietly issuing large pay raises over the summer to several other top aides.
Nardelli would get the biggest pay increase of top-tier county officials, a nearly $20,000 raise to $95,000 a year. Seven county administrators also scored increases of up to 12.5%.
Some supervisors are upset about being left out of the decision-making process for many of the raises and say Walker's timing couldn't be worse. Heavily rewarding a few top managers while Walker puts final touches on a 2009 budget that's expected to call for scores of layoffs of union workers sends a message of callous disregard, critics of the raises say.
Among the other big winners among Walker's top aides was Mitc International Airport Director Barry Bateman. His pay rises $13,595, or 11%, to $136,299 a year. Facilities Management Director Jack Takerian got an $11,771 (12.5%) raise, to nearly $106,000.
One of Walker's highly questionable claims in his Koch Brothers' efforts to squash unions by first going after public worker collective bargaining is that the union benefits are higher than in the private sector.
Yet, in 2008, the MJS reported:
Orville Seymer, field director for Citizens for Responsible Government Network, said the raises for Nardelli and some other Walker aides appeared excessive.
"I just think all these people are overpaid" and unlikely to command such salaries in the private sector, Seymer said.
In his stand-off as the point man for the Koch Brothers, Armey, and the national Republican Party, Walker is doing in 2011 what he did in 2008: enrich his cronies and the well-off at taxpayer expense, create a budget crisis, and then using the budgetary problem that he is responsible for to crush the unions.
History repeats itself, doesn't it - and so does the hypocrisy that threatens the existence of the American working family.
http://blog.buzzflash.com/node/12372
A few questions:
Do any other modern countries not have income tax?
Without income tax, how much would our other taxes have to go up?
If our consumption taxes went up, wouldn't you agree that would affect the poor more than the rich?
Don't you get it?
The biggest problem we have for elections is the people voting in politicians that will give them things. Everyone needs to pay taxes so that tax rate changes affect everyone. As it stands, most voters who pay no0 taxes don't give a damn about the rest of us. they need a stake in the burden too.
that en lement mentality.
It isn't American.
You know, you didn't answer any of my questions WC.
And even those who don't pay income tax still pay consumption taxes, right?
Maybe, but that's still a bull excuse. When I read "unemployed," I didn't automatically think of people collecting checks...I processed it as people looking for work, straight up, without government assistance. It's not just people getting laid off from jobs, it's recent AA and Bachelor's grads, people go back to school but need to work to make ends meet in the household...lots of different cir stances as to why someone is "unemployed." I'd be furious if I was looking for a job and saw a warning that I shouldn't apply.
Then again, even if it's not written down people still look down on applicants without current employers (active references).
I have explained this again and again in the past, and nobody addresses my main reasons.
Who care what someone else does anyway? Should we be followers, or leaders?
All things equal, why should an employer want to pay more?
I don't know if that's even true. I just threw it out there. It's always been easier to find a job while employed rather than not. With as many people looking for work, both employed and not, maybe employers are trying to weed out the lazy. It's bull not to take the initiative and not work There are plenty of minimum wage jobs out there. Sure, they don't pay much, but they at least show that you have sound work ethics rather than relying on Uncle Nanny, or being an unknown factor.
WC's kinder and gentler attack on the bottom 4 quintiles, esp on the bottom 2 quintiles
flat income tax
consumption tax
both horribly, punitively regressive. Neither is remotely possible, except in his conservative imagination.
If conservatives/Repugs are for something, you can be damn reliably sure that it's bad for the country as whole and for the bottom 98%.
Whats really sad is that WC holds a job like this one and he has the political views he does.
I might make $50k/year if i work real hard forever but those unions in other states are terribads.
What a ing idiot.
What...
Making everyone equally accountable is unfair?
you.
Is it really that hard to answer those questions? I'm not going to dig through all your posts.
Your last two sentences make no sense. I have no idea what you're trying to say.
"All Knowledge is built upon instinctive belief, failing that there is nothing left." -Bertrand Russell
I do know we pay among the highest corporate tax rates. Most countries use a consumption tax, some an income tax also. We are not alone in hurting, but we need to balance the trade deficit. Do you have a better idea, instead of worrying about the other guy?
Unfair in the sense that it affects some much more than others. People struggling to survive are affected more by consumption taxes, aren't they?
Now, if you wanted to get rid of sales tax on "staple" items, such as bread, that might be different.
Some countries have an income tax? Ok, so which modern countries DON'T have an income tax?
And you're worrying about the other guy too, it's jus that your other guy is the rich one.
Why do those of you opposed take such a narrow minded view? There is no need to tax necessities. If you tax only what is not your basic necessities, it doesn't hurt those who only buy the basics.
Have I ever said otherwise? I have always stated basic items, or in some other wording, that you don't tax food and the likes.
Fair enough. What do you consider necessities?
That would be debatable of course. Food in the stores, but not fast food. Diapers, bottles, toiletry items, etc. for starters.
The Bertrand quote is in the context of sensory experience at the basest level not on you feel about very human constructs.
He was talking about how reflective light is perceived by the eye.
I am not sure how that is to be applied here.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
