Wisconsin Teachers' Union Lays Off 40% of Staff

RockX

Banned
National unions descended on Wisconsin to fight over collective bargaining because the real line of scrimmage was the political power of the unions. Since the legislation ended government collection of union dues, the ability of unions to strong-arm their members has already begun to wane.


On Monday, the Wisconsin Education Association Council announced it will lay off about 40% of its staff, a change executive director Dan Burkhalter blamed on Mr. Walker's "union-busting legislation." In December the union will face another reality check, as 51% of its members must vote to recertify it as their representative. With members no longer captive dues payers, the union has been forced to begin new outreach efforts, including home visits, to sell its relevance to workers.

The unions in school districts that inked contracts prior to the implementation of the budget repair bill in June will still be able to collect dues automatically from their members. It will be interesting to see how many school teachers in other districts will voluntarily pay dues after unions arguably squandered millions on the recall elections and failed to take over the state senate.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/wisconsin-teachers-union-lays-40-staff_590369.html


:lol:


That's what happens when they don't get the automatic dues taken out of paychecks and sent to off to the unions. That was the real core of their anger at the labor reforms instituted in Wisconsin. Maybe all the money that the unions spent on the recall election could have been better spent in paying their own employees.
 
Oh my God, this is funny. I'm crying as I'm laughing. It looks like they are going to have to do what BO says and share the sacrifice like the rest of their fellow Americans. Poor things.
 
Oh my God, this is funny. I'm crying as I'm laughing. It looks like they are going to have to do what BO says and share the sacrifice like the rest of their fellow Americans. Poor things.

You right wing scum are the lowest form of life on this planet. If going after teachers and retired people is fair game, when will you morally bankrupt pieces of shit start going to go after children? WHEN are the wealthy going to share the sacrifice???

Raised by wolves...
 
You right wing scum are the lowest form of life on this planet. If going after teachers and retired people is fair game, when will you morally bankrupt pieces of shit start going to go after children? WHEN are the wealthy going to share the sacrifice???

Raised by wolves...

:dunno: I suppose you'd need to go to Martha's Vineyard to ask the President. Maybe you can hire separate private jets to get on over there, a separate team for protection, etc.

My guess is, that since the top 50% pay all of the taxes, those below are net receivers, that the "wealthy" pay all of the taxes. How much more than 100% do you think is a "fair share"?
 
:dunno: I suppose you'd need to go to Martha's Vineyard to ask the President. Maybe you can hire separate private jets to get on over there, a separate team for protection, etc. My guess is, that since the top 50% pay all of the taxes, those below are net receivers, that the "wealthy" pay all of the taxes. How much more than 100% do you think is a "fair share"?


Historically, the term “tax rate” has meant the average or effective tax rate — that is, taxes as a share of income. The broadest measure of the tax rate is total federal revenues divided by the gross domestic product.


By this measure, federal taxes are at their lowest level in more than 60 years. The Congressional Budget Office estimated that federal taxes would consume just 14.8 percent of G.D.P. this year. The last year in which revenues were lower was 1950, according to the Office of Management and Budget.


The postwar annual average is about 18.5 percent of G.D.P. Revenues averaged 18.2 percent of G.D.P. during Ronald Reagan’s administration; the lowest percentage during that administration was 17.3 percent of G.D.P. in 1984.


In short, by the broadest measure of the tax rate, the current level is unusually low and has been for some time.



http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/05/31/are-taxes-in-the-u-s-high-or-low/
 
House Republicans released a new plan to reduce unemployment. Its principal provision would reduce the top statutory income tax rate on businesses and individuals to 25 percent from 35 percent.


No evidence was offered for the Republican argument that cutting taxes for the well-to-do and big corporations would reduce unemployment; it was simply asserted as self-evident.


One would not know from the Republican document that corporate taxes are expected to raise just 1.3 percent of G.D.P. in revenue this year, about a third of what it was in the 1950s.



http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/05/31/are-taxes-in-the-u-s-high-or-low/
 
The G.O.P. says global competitiveness requires the United States to reduce its corporate tax rate.


But the United States actually has the lowest corporate tax burden of any of the member nations of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.

31economist-bartlett2-blog480.jpg






Revenue Statistics of O.E.C.D. Member Countries, 2010




If taxes are low historically and in comparison with our global competitors, how are Republicans able to maintain that taxes are excessively high?




They do so by ignoring the effective tax rate and concentrating solely on the statutory tax rate, which is often manipulated to make it appear that rates are much higher than they really are.





http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/05/31/are-taxes-in-the-u-s-high-or-low/
 
You right wing scum are the lowest form of life on this planet. If going after teachers and retired people is fair game, when will you morally bankrupt pieces of shit start going to go after children? WHEN are the wealthy going to share the sacrifice???

Raised by wolves...

Laying off union staff is not going after children. The teachers could send those monies in that were previously confiscated, but are choosing not to.
 
The G.O.P. says global competitiveness requires the United States to reduce its corporate tax rate.


But the United States actually has the lowest corporate tax burden of any of the member nations of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.

31economist-bartlett2-blog480.jpg






Revenue Statistics of O.E.C.D. Member Countries, 2010




If taxes are low historically and in comparison with our global competitors, how are Republicans able to maintain that taxes are excessively high?




They do so by ignoring the effective tax rate and concentrating solely on the statutory tax rate, which is often manipulated to make it appear that rates are much higher than they really are.





http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/05/31/are-taxes-in-the-u-s-high-or-low/

Corporate income taxes is a regressive sales tax, the poorest will pay the most. It is stupid to pretend that they don't pass tax costs on to the consumer. You can feel all warm inside for "punishing the rich", but in reality you simply make it more difficult for the poor to afford what they need.

None of this, of course, changes that the top 50% of earners pay all of the taxes. How much more than 100% is a "fair share"?

Did you know that if we simply seized all the property of the top 1% (the supposed ones we're going to tax 'the most'), we'd only be able to pay our bills for two months?

The reality is that punishing the rich in the form of corporate taxation is going to get you exactly the opposite result.
 
Corporate income taxes is a regressive sales tax, the poorest will pay the most. It is stupid to pretend that they don't pass tax costs on to the consumer. You can feel all warm inside for "punishing the rich", but in reality you simply make it more difficult for the poor to afford what they need.


Good news. A lot of corporations pay no income taxes at all. Therefore, the cost of goods and services should be decreasing, according to your logic.
 
:dunno: I suppose you'd need to go to Martha's Vineyard to ask the President. Maybe you can hire separate private jets to get on over there, a separate team for protection, etc.

My guess is, that since the top 50% pay all of the taxes, those below are net receivers, that the "wealthy" pay all of the taxes. How much more than 100% do you think is a "fair share"?

This is not about the President. This is about the American people. The American worker and middle class are not to blame for this crisis. If we are going to take from teachers and the elderly, HOW MUCH should they have to give Damo? Their homes? Their families? Their lives?

America has always paid for wars and the depression by raising the taxes on the wealthy. The poor and middle class CAN'T absorb it.

You right wingers are always trying to create an aristocracy in some form or other. Monica Lewinskys for the opulent.
 
You right wing scum are the lowest form of life on this planet. If going after teachers and retired people is fair game, when will you morally bankrupt pieces of shit start going to go after children? WHEN are the wealthy going to share the sacrifice???

Raised by wolves...

I'm retired, you little cocksucker. Take your parasitic lying scrawny ass back to the crapper where you belong.
 
Corporate income taxes is a regressive sales tax, the poorest will pay the most. It is stupid to pretend that they don't pass tax costs on to the consumer. You can feel all warm inside for "punishing the rich", but in reality you simply make it more difficult for the poor to afford what they need.

None of this, of course, changes that the top 50% of earners pay all of the taxes. How much more than 100% is a "fair share"?

Did you know that if we simply seized all the property of the top 1% (the supposed ones we're going to tax 'the most'), we'd only be able to pay our bills for two months?

The reality is that punishing the rich in the form of corporate taxation is going to get you exactly the opposite result.

UTTER bullshit Damo. The market controls prices. If a corporation could double their price, they would...TODAY.
 
Retired? Did you refuse Social Security and Medicare?

They never do.

Tom Grimes lives on Social Security but denounces government assistance as "false philanthropy."



Grimes insists that people would figure out how make do on their own if the government didn't give them stuff, but he doesn't turn down government assistance to figure out how to make do on his own.




Diana Reimer insists that it's not the job of the government to help insure the people, but she relies on Medicare which is government-run insurance — because she "deserves" it.





Jeff McQueen, like other Tea Baggers, wants government to be smaller but also wants the government to be more involved with regulating free trade — then votes for Republicans who want to cut back on government regulations.




Amy Townsend, according to the Dallas Morning News, says that no government programs work well because they are inefficient and fears the "death panels" she thinks will be created by health insurance reform.




However, she and her family are surviving because of government programs: unemployment and COBRA.




She'll apply for government-subsidized health insurance when the time comes.





http://www.skepticism.org/propagand...-politics-of-resentment-self-destruction.html










 
:dunno: I suppose you'd need to go to Martha's Vineyard to ask the President. Maybe you can hire separate private jets to get on over there, a separate team for protection, etc.

My guess is, that since the top 50% pay all of the taxes, those below are net receivers, that the "wealthy" pay all of the taxes. How much more than 100% do you think is a "fair share"?

hey, where were from 2000-2008?
 
The many adjustments to income permitted by the tax code, plus alternative tax rates on the largest sources of income of the wealthy, explain why the average federal income tax rate on the 400 richest people in America was 18.11 percent in 2008, according to the Internal Revenue Service, down from 26.38 percent when these data were first calculated in 1992.



Among the top 400, 7.5 percent had an average tax rate of less than 10 percent, 25 percent paid between 10 and 15 percent, and 28 percent paid between 15 and 20 percent.



The truth of the matter is that federal taxes in the United States are very low.



There is no reason to believe that reducing them further will do anything to raise growth or reduce unemployment.





http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/05/31/are-taxes-in-the-u-s-high-or-low/
 
Retired? Did you refuse Social Security and Medicare?

I went to work in 1965 full time when I was 16 and have paid into each program. That is my money.

Do you understand the difference between MY money and money handed out to people who never put a dime in the pot? You're a whining cocksucker who doesn't understand how this works and you need your damn nose broke, you miscreant little punk.
 
hey, where were from 2000-2008?

Congress spends the money. The Dems took over in January 2007 and controlled until January, 2011. The Dems had total control from January 2009 until January 2011. Obama and the last congress added twice as much to the debt in 2 years as Bush did in his total of 8 years.
 
Back
Top