Wanna go back to the Union Topic?

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

Before the late seventies, GM was making great cars with the same unionized workers Joe. They were also making a good profit, right?

Anyway, even if the UAW was partially to blame, certainly you dont absolve the GM execs of all guilt, right?

283096[/snapback]

 

Of course not. Poor management coincided with greedy unions to create the problem.

 

One point of debate: The quality of American cars was already worse than that of imports by the 60s.

[Campy]

All taxes should be based on consumption, not production.

283099[/snapback]

I think the argument against that is that people with a lower income would pay a disproportionate percentage of their income as tax. If a person's salary is 1M, 75K, or 20K per year, they would all pay the same dollar-for-dollar amount of tax on, say milk or baby formula, and that would place an unfair burden on the poor. I'm pretty sure that's what led to the staggered income tax system.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

I think the argument against that is that people with a lower income would pay a disproportionate percentage of their income as tax.  If a person's salary is 1M, 75K, or 20K per year, they would all pay the same dollar-for-dollar amount of tax on, say milk or baby formula, and that would place an unfair burden on the poor.  I'm pretty sure that's what led to the staggered income tax system.

283118[/snapback]

 

And as it exists now, doesn't the tax system allow an entire class of people to pay NO taxes whatsoever?

 

That doesn't seem right either.

[KRC]

I think the argument against that is that people with a lower income would pay a disproportionate percentage of their income as tax.  If a person's salary is 1M, 75K, or 20K per year, they would all pay the same dollar-for-dollar amount of tax on, say milk or baby formula, and that would place an unfair burden on the poor.  I'm pretty sure that's what led to the staggered income tax system.

283118[/snapback]

 

...but the person making $20K/year is also not buying the expensive homes, cars and other luxury items that say the $1M/year person is buying.

 

Flat Tax, anyone?

[KD in CA]

Very often, mid-level white collar workers want to feel that they are in some way superior to a union electrician, etc. It angers them to see a cops kid get braces because of benefits that their union fought for, when they perhaps cannot.

 

Bill, I'm sure you are right about some people having a sense of superiority, but I think it has more to do with the fact that those middle manager level people can't afford braces for their own kids, they see the local school district cutting the music program because of lack of funding, the pot holes don't get filled on their street, etc., but then they have to foot the bill for the public employees union that strong arms it's way to some huge pay increase or generous benefits package. Who is fighting for the taxpayers?

 

At my company, we try to give a generous benefits package because 1) like most companies (despite the propaganda from unions and proponents of big gov't) we do value our employees, 2) it is very costly to replace employees who leave, 3) it is proven that good benefits = more productive workers. The difference is that in the private sector, there is a bottom line. If we don't make a profit, we go bankrupt. We can't run a deficit and we can't go raise taxes on the companies that are making money. Thus, the benefit costs need to be managed just like any other major expense item. And that means passing on some of the cost to the employees. It's economic reality. To push through a benefits package just because you can and let some future taxpayer worry about it is irresponsible.

[KRC]

The difference is that in the private sector, there is a bottom line.  If we don't make a profit, we go bankrupt.  We can't run a deficit and we can't go raise taxes on the companies that are making money.  Thus, the benefit costs need to be managed just like any other major expense item.  And that means passing on some of the cost to the employees.  It's economic reality.  To push through a benefits package just because you can and let some future taxpayer worry about it is irresponsible.

283124[/snapback]

 

Just steal it from the salaries of those eeeevil, greedy CEO's. Why should they be making more money than anyone else.

[Bill from NYC]

Bill, I'm sure you are right about some people having a sense of superiority, but I think it has more to do with the fact that those middle manager level people can't afford braces for their own kids, they see the local school district cutting the music program because of lack of funding, the pot holes don't get filled on their street, etc., but then they have to foot the bill for the public employees union that strong arms it's way to some huge pay increase or generous benefits package.  Who is fighting for the taxpayers?

 

At my company, we try to give a generous benefits package because 1) like most companies (despite the propaganda from unions and proponents of big gov't) we do value our employees, 2) it is very costly to replace employees who leave, 3) it is proven that good benefits = more productive workers.  The difference is that in the private sector, there is a bottom line.  If we don't make a profit, we go bankrupt.  We can't run a deficit and we can't go raise taxes on the companies that are making money.  Thus, the benefit costs need to be managed just like any other major expense item.  And that means passing on some of the cost to the employees.  It's economic reality.  To push through a benefits package just because you can and let some future taxpayer worry about it is irresponsible.

283124[/snapback]

 

Your posting makes total sense. The thing is, unions do seem to be going in the direction that you cite. Other than Long Island Teachers, I am not seeing any huge contracts being awarded to uninized workers, are you?

 

Then of course, there is the other extreme, Wal Mart. They are being slowly picked apart by lawsuits, and I am loving it. Aren't you just as sick of funding Wal Mart employees with food stamps, etc. as you are of paying for benefits for public employees? It is almost the same thing, no?

[KD in CA]

I think the argument against that is that people with a lower income would pay a disproportionate percentage of their income as tax.  If a person's salary is 1M, 75K, or 20K per year, they would all pay the same dollar-for-dollar amount of tax on, say milk or baby formula, and that would place an unfair burden on the poor.  I'm pretty sure that's what led to the staggered income tax system.

283118[/snapback]

 

Why is tax a percentage of income be any sort of relevant measure? Income is an objective measure of one's production/contribution.

 

What you are saying is that someone should pay twice as much for a quart of milk because they earned twice as much money as another person?

 

And then people wonder why that first guy feels under attack by this system!

[Campy]

...but the person making $20K/year is also not buying the expensive homes, cars and other luxury items that say the $1M/year person is buying.

283122[/snapback]

I understand what you're saying.

 

To play devil's advocate, there are many more people at 20K than at 1M, and I think the belief was that the millionaires simply can't consume enough to offset the much greater number of 20Ks. I think many claimed that belief was reinforced by the wealthy industrialists being unable to carry the economy after the Crash of '29.

[KRC]

I understand what you're saying. 

 

To play devil's advocate, there are many more people at 20K than at 1M, and I think the belief was that the millionaires simply can't consume enough to offset the much greater number of 20Ks.  I think many claimed that belief was reinforced by the wealthy industrialists being unable to carry the economy after the Crash of '29.

283148[/snapback]

 

Which is why I propose a flat tax coupled with smaller government.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

Damn you, thread hijackers!

[KRC]

Damn you, thread hijackers!

283156[/snapback]

 

Hey, you are not dealing with amateurs here. We are professionals.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

Hey, you are not dealing with amateurs here. We are professionals. 

283159[/snapback]

 

Just don't crash it into the server.

[erynthered]

Hey, you are not dealing with amateurs here. We are professionals. 

283159[/snapback]

 

 

 

A professional thread hijacker, you must be an Arab

[KRC]

A professional thread hijacker, you must be an Arab

283164[/snapback]

 

Watch out when I get on a plane.

[Campy]

What you are saying is that someone should pay twice as much for a quart of milk because they earned twice as much money as another person?

283144[/snapback]

No, I'm not saying that at all, in fact, I'm saying the opposite. The poor would pay a much greater percentage of his low income on our fictitious milk tax leaving less money for other puchases, which are essentially contributions to to the economy (survival goods, luxury items, and lastly, investments).

 

The wealthy can afford bear a bigger tax burdern without adversely effecting their contributions to the economy in terms of consumption, and there simply aren't enough of them, and they can't just consume enough, to offset the loss of the majority poor/lower income people's contribution to the economy.

 

You aren't the first person to have the consumption-tax idea, and I'm only passing on what I understand the argument against that to be, and frankly, I can see where they were coming from.

[Campy]

Which is why I propose a flat tax coupled with smaller government.

283154[/snapback]

KRC in '08!

[Bill from NYC]

Which is why I propose a flat tax coupled with smaller government.

283154[/snapback]

 

And what would you do with the deductions of mortgage interest and property taxes?

[KRC]

And what would you do with the deductions of mortgage interest and property taxes?

283180[/snapback]

 

Flat Tax. There are no deductions. The tax rates would be smaller, which negates the deductions you would have received. Smaller government requires less tax revenue to sustain itself.

[KRC]

KRC in '08!

283175[/snapback]

 

Thanks.