Wisconsin Teachers' Union Lays Off 40% of Staff

Bfgrn said:
What don't you ideologues comprehend? If industry A could raise their prices today, they WOULD. If ONE competitor eats that cost increase, it would give them an advantage.

Here is a question to contemplate; Do you make more selling one item at 25% profit, or 10 items at 22%?
Click to expand...

I'm not really sure what is ideological about my question. Seems to me every company would be asking be asking the same question if their taxes were raised. I believe industries would raise their rates as a whole to compensate. for example the price of cigarettes. their taxes are continuously getting raised and their prices go up right along with it.
 
cawacko said:
I'm not really sure what is ideological about my question. Seems to me every company would be asking be asking the same question if their taxes were raised. I believe industries would raise their rates as a whole to compensate. for example the price of cigarettes. their taxes are continuously getting raised and their prices go up right along with it.
Click to expand...

Industries don't dictate prices, the market does. Industries can only try to maximize profit. If they can raise prices they will, TODAY. Cigarettes are not a great example because they have a segment of customers that are addicted to them.
 
Bfgrn said:
Industries don't dictate prices, the market does. Industries can only try to maximize profit. If they can raise prices they will, TODAY. Cigarettes are not a great example because they have a segment of customers that are addicted to them.
Click to expand...

Yes I get that industries would raise prices today if they could. If an entire industry gets hit with a 3% tax increase and they all increase their prices accordingly nothing changes other than the consumer pays more.
 
cawacko said:
Yes I get that industries would raise prices today if they could. If an entire industry gets hit with a 3% tax increase and they all increase their prices accordingly nothing changes other than the consumer pays more.
Click to expand...

It could happen, but it only takes one or two players to hold prices to circumvent industry wide price increases.

Here is your word for the day: Collusion

Also, President Obama has called for lowering the corporate tax rate and closing loopholes. Why aren't Republicans and corporations behind his proposal?
 
Damocles said:
Originally Posted by Mott the Hoople
But that's not what you said. You said that the poor pay no taxes, you didn't specify "federal taxes" and you are sadly mistaken. Many of the poor don't pay federal taxes and IT'S BECAUSE THEY DON"T HAVE ANY MONEY!!!!

Nor is siting a notoriously right wing source as the WSJ an objective source of data. Maybe you should try referencing the federal government sources instead of a group that has a well known agenda of enriching themselves (not that there is anything wrong with that, it's just the objective truth.).
Click to expand...



Right. The facts are there. Again, how much more than 100% of the taxes are a "fair share"? The reality is you want them to pay a higher rate, they already do pay more than a "fair share". And the assumption that the bottom 50% have "no money" is a bit much. Some of them have "no money" but many of them do. In my grandfather's time he'd have freaked if somebody suggested he pay a zero share while others pay the full share, that was pride in himself and his nation, he also had pride in his union and bought 'union made' label stuff as long as it was possible for him to do that. What the unions are nowadays would embarrass him. And the idea that somebody needs to pay more for benefits for all when they already pay all of that is a bit much to swallow. Do we collect enough? Maybe not, but it isn't because the "share" of the taxes that they pay is somehow not enough of a "share"... Should we make it so there are still more people who contribute nothing to the pool so we can increase their "share"?
Click to expand...


The assumption of yours that many of the bottom 50% have money to pay taxes is based on either ignorance, willful ignorance or wishful thinking. Please check into the current average of the minimum wage in this country, then go to the Dept. of Labor or Census bureau and check the number of the population that either meet or fall below the "poverty level" with regards to income. Throw in the cost of living and the whole right wing mantra of who pays most of the taxes takes on a whole different view.
 
Bfgrn said:
It could happen, but it only takes one or two players to hold prices to circumvent industry wide price increases.

Here is your word for the day: Collusion

Also, President Obama has called for lowering the corporate tax rate and closing loopholes. Why aren't Republicans and corporations behind his proposal?
Click to expand...

I am aware of what collusion is. Good luck proving in court that companies raising their rates or prices by the amount of federal tax increases qualifying as collusion.

Has Obama laid out a written proposal or has he just said verbally he would be willing to lower corporate tax rates and closing loopholes?
 
Superfreak said:
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
Once again, you have a bunch of willfully ignorant and insipidly stubborn neocon/teabag toadies cheering a headline by some right wing-nut article that's long on headlines, but short on substance, Here's a little clarification as to what's going on in Wisconsin and why:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezr...g_propose.html
Click to expand...


So..... to you... clarity on what is occurring in WISCONSIN can only be found from a liberal hack in DC?
Click to expand...

No, you Super Freaking neocon/teabag lapdog, the clarity comes from the CONTENT of the article presented, of which obviously you didn't read. Bottom line: Thanks to Walker's dictate, the unions would have to change their voter frequency policy, which means spending MORE money to organize a proper vote from their membership. It's a neat ploy, because in these cash strapped times the unions can't meet this criteria without either asking members to pony up more cash or start letting people go. So the Koch brothers sock puppet Walker promotes the agenda to get rid of union voting power in Wisconsin.

Next time, READ the material before your fingers hit the keys, you Super Freaking Fool....it will save you the humiliation.
 
Alias said:
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
Pity the poster who goes by the name "Alias".....as it is plain that "Alias" does not have the intellectual honesty to actually debate the information I provided which clarifies what is going on in Wisconsin, and WHY the unions have to cut back on thier ranks ... courtesy of Gov. Walker's policies. So instead, like a child Alias merely mocks....inserting his own words to simulate "cleverness".

Alias is a standing testament to the willfully ignornant and insipid stubborness that defends and supports the dishonest propaganda of the neocon/teabagger driven GOP.
Click to expand...

Gov. Walker is doing the job he was elected to do. Period.

The rest of your pathetically feeble post is just more lefty whining and crapping in your diaper. You're gonna have to grow up and learn how to crap in the crapper and feed yourself.
Click to expand...

See folks, Alias is ignorant and proud of his ignorance. He has NO CLUE as to the content of the article I sourced, yet he just spews cliches and mantras like a child. His claim that Walker is doing the job he was elected to do is totally wrong, as Alias cannot provide the campaign promise by Walker to eliminate unions and collective bargaining in his state (save for the cops and firemen, who he promised not to touch if they endorsed him). The ONLY job Walker is doing is that of the Koch brothers bidding, as so amply displayed in that candid phone conversation.

Now let's watch Alias continue his childish rant of frustration.
 
Damocles said:
Right. The facts are there. Again, how much more than 100% of the taxes are a "fair share"? The reality is you want them to pay a higher rate, they already do pay more than a "fair share". And the assumption that the bottom 50% have "no money" is a bit much. Some of them have "no money" but many of them do. In my grandfather's time he'd have freaked if somebody suggested he pay a zero share while others pay the full share, that was pride in himself and his nation, he also had pride in his union and bought 'union made' label stuff as long as it was possible for him to do that. What the unions are nowadays would embarrass him. And the idea that somebody needs to pay more for benefits for all when they already pay all of that is a bit much to swallow. Do we collect enough? Maybe not, but it isn't because the "share" of the taxes that they pay is somehow not enough of a "share"... Should we make it so there are still more people who contribute nothing to the pool so we can increase their "share"?
Click to expand...

Again, you're taking a turn out of Yurts book and putting words in my mouth. You're just factually incorrect that the bottom half doesn't pay taxes. They pay in regressive sales taxes with every purchage they make, they pay payroll taxes and State taxes and local taxes. And maybe, just maybe it slipped your mind that the top 10% pays 60% of the taxes but they also earn 55% of the wealth. That's what I call fair and you're sadly mistaken if you think it's otherwise. When you compare who pays how much of the taxes with who controls most of the wealth then you see our system is very fair. Yes, it is fair that the rich pay more of the taxes. For christs sakes they have the most money, are living the best and they gain the most advantages from government services then any segment of the population. So your argument that our tax system is unfair and is punitive just simply doesn't hold water.

http://visualizingeconomics.com/201...s-are-paid-by-the-poor-middle-class-and-rich/
 
Bfgrn said:
People who ignore facts and logic can only be driven by ideology or ignorance. So I was picking the lesser of the two...LOL
Click to expand...

The ignorant idealogue in the White House will soon be history. Then you all can go back to demonizing decent, honorable, honest Americans who will run this nation once again.
 
Bfgrn said:
If a moderate change in corporate tax will cause a company to absorb a 'loss', they are already on their way out of business. The words you need to use is 'less profit'. You always want to maximize profit, but the market dictates price. You seem to think corporations have consumers over a barrel, it is the other way around. They can price their product as high as they want, but if they can't sell that product, 100% of nothing is nothing.
Click to expand...

Again, if all costs increase for every corporation so does the market pricing. It's stupid to ignore that reality. And again, one may decide to take "less profit" or work at a loss for a short period but if his competitors take an advantage by lowering costs by outsourcing they either follow or die.

Pretending that these policies work in vacuums and that if everybody's costs go up it wouldn't be inflationary or detrimental to the job market is only ignorant pretense. The reality is corporations do not pay taxes, their consumers pay them. Punitive taxes on corporations are a form of sales tax. I'm good with that. Shoot, I'd go for a tax system that only charged corporations taxes and kept the government out of our business. I just don't ignore the reality that if such a system existed it would be anything but progressive, it would in fact be regressive taxation. The idea that it works in vacuum and that the consumer would never bear the cost of their taxes is ignorant of reality.

It may make you feel like you are "taxing the rich" to say "tax the corporations more" but it is very real; corporations do not pay taxes, their consumers do.
 
Taichiliberal said:
See folks, Alias is ignorant and proud of his ignorance. He has NO CLUE as to the content of the article I sourced, yet he just spews cliches and mantras like a child. His claim that Walker is doing the job he was elected to do is totally wrong, as Alias cannot provide the campaign promise by Walker to eliminate unions and collective bargaining in his state (save for the cops and firemen, who he promised not to touch if they endorsed him). The ONLY job Walker is doing is that of the Koch brothers bidding, as so amply displayed in that candid phone conversation.

Now let's watch Alias continue his childish rant of frustration.
Click to expand...

LOL. The frustration would have to be on your end, bub. You're among the bunch that spent 31 million and gained nothing. Nothing. That is frustration, big time. Unions do not belong in Govt.
 
Damocles said:
Again, if all costs increase for every corporation so does the market pricing. It's stupid to ignore that reality. And again, one may decide to take "less profit" or work at a loss for a short period but if his competitors take an advantage by lowering costs by outsourcing they either follow or die.

Pretending that these policies work in vacuums and that if everybody's costs go up it wouldn't be inflationary or detrimental to the job market is only ignorant pretense. The reality is corporations do not pay taxes, their consumers pay them. Punitive taxes on corporations are a form of sales tax. I'm good with that. Shoot, I'd go for a tax system that only charged corporations taxes and kept the government out of our business. I just don't ignore the reality that if such a system existed it would be anything but progressive, it would in fact be regressive taxation. The idea that it works in vacuum and that the consumer would never bear the cost of their taxes is ignorant of reality.

It may make you feel like you are "taxing the rich" to say "tax the corporations more" but it is very real; corporations do not pay taxes, their consumers do.
Click to expand...

Corporations are externalizing machines. They're constantly figuring out ways to get somebody else to pay their costs of production. That's their nature. But the market controls prices Damo. Anyone who is in business has to know the cost to bring their product to market, then add profit and determine a price. Taxes are no different than any other cost.

But taxes have a public benefit. They help pay the costs of what government (we, the people) provides in public services, utilities and infrastructure those corporations require to conduct business. If corporations don't pay, then citizens are stuck with the bill.

President Obama has called for lowering corporate taxes and closing loopholes that currently allow corporations like Exxon Mobil and GE to pay ZERO taxes.

You should be for his proposal, are you Damo?
 
Bfgrn said:
President Obama has called for lowering corporate taxes and closing loopholes that currently allow corporations like Exxon Mobil and GE to pay ZERO taxes.
Click to expand...

interesting, in light of the fact that one of the "loopholes" that permitted GE to pay zero taxes came from Obama's stimulus package granting tax credits to companies that produced energy saving appliances......
 
PostmodernProphet said:
interesting, in light of the fact that one of the "loopholes" that permitted GE to pay zero taxes came from Obama's stimulus package granting tax credits to companies that produced energy saving appliances......
Click to expand...

But, but, but...the stimulus package was socialism...
 
Bfgrn said:
Bullshit. Here is some math for pea brains like you. 100% of nothing is NOTHING. If a corporation, or a company COULD raise their prices today, they WOULD. Prices are driven by the market. The only way to make significant gains in market share are to offer a unique or superior product, or to buy market share by lowering your price.
Click to expand...

you are not just increasing the tax on ONE corporation. You are raising it on ALL of them. Which means they ALL raise their prices or cut costs somewhere. So in your world where no one can raise prices (despite the fact we see it daily in the real world).... WHERE do you think the corps are going to cut costs..... from executives pay? from the stockholders? or from the remaining employees via wages/benes?

It is quite amusing watching you liberals try to spin this. You constantly tell us how evil the executives are and the wealthy... yet you seem to think them benevolent when it comes to increases in taxes and seem to think THEY will pay them for you.
 
Taichiliberal said:
No, you Super Freaking neocon/teabag lapdog, the clarity comes from the CONTENT of the article presented, of which obviously you didn't read. Bottom line: Thanks to Walker's dictate, the unions would have to change their voter frequency policy, which means spending MORE money to organize a proper vote from their membership. It's a neat ploy, because in these cash strapped times the unions can't meet this criteria without either asking members to pony up more cash or start letting people go. So the Koch brothers sock puppet Walker promotes the agenda to get rid of union voting power in Wisconsin.

Next time, READ the material before your fingers hit the keys, you Super Freaking Fool....it will save you the humiliation.
Click to expand...

Actually dear Tai.... I read the article back in February when Klein first posted it. It is pure liberal nonsense as I stated.
 
Superfreak said:
you are not just increasing the tax on ONE corporation. You are raising it on ALL of them. Which means they ALL raise their prices or cut costs somewhere. So in your world where no one can raise prices (despite the fact we see it daily in the real world).... WHERE do you think the corps are going to cut costs..... from executives pay? from the stockholders? or from the remaining employees via wages/benes?

It is quite amusing watching you liberals try to spin this. You constantly tell us how evil the executives are and the wealthy... yet you seem to think them benevolent when it comes to increases in taxes and seem to think THEY will pay them for you.
Click to expand...

HOW many times do I have to repeat this FACT? If a corporation, or a company COULD raise their prices today, they WOULD. Prices are driven by the market.

They can try to pass on costs, but the MARKET is STILL the regulator...ALWAYS. All it takes is one or two competitors to absorb that cost to squash increases. It is a risk worth taking, because the gains in revenue are not speculative, they are REAL.

Maybe today's greedy CEO's need to be publicly chastised by the President of the United States. It has happened before, and the corporations BACKED DOWN and lowered their prices.

 
Bfgrn said:
HOW many times do I have to repeat this FACT? If a corporation, or a company COULD raise their prices today, they WOULD. Prices are driven by the market.

They can try to pass on costs, but the MARKET is STILL the regulator...ALWAYS. All it takes is one or two competitors to absorb that cost to squash increases. It is a risk worth taking, because the gains in revenue are not speculative, they are REAL.

Maybe today's greedy CEO's need to be publicly chastised by the President of the United States. It has happened before, and the corporations BACKED DOWN and lowered their prices.
Click to expand...

You can say it as many times as you want.... but the FACT of the matter is.... The point you continue to IGNORE.... IF they cannot raise their prices THE EMPLOYEES ARE GOING TO BE THE ONES PAYING THE CORPORATE TAX.... NOT THE EXECUTIVES. THE PROFIT MARGIN TO THE STOCKHOLDERS IS NOT LIKELY TO TAKE THE HIT EITHER.

That said.... you pretend that corporations do not have ANY pricing power. That is completely absurd. Take a look at food, clothing, energy etc.... prices have ALL escalated in a time of economic DOWNTURN. People cannot afford the higher costs, yet the costs are STILL RISING....

The point being.... that if you raise the cost to corporations via tax increases those companies WILL pass as much of that on to consumers as they can. PERIOD. In the case of goods/services that we all HAVE TO HAVE... the consumer doesn't have the control on pricing. If food goes up, consumers may choose a cheaper brand, but they are not going to stop buying food. Same for clothing, energy, healthcare etc...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top