Former Wisconsin Attorney Gen: Gov. Walker Violated Ethics, Election and Labor Laws

Superfreak said:
Not sure how or when Michigan decided not to tax the benefits, but it was a stupid decision.
Click to expand...

given the decades of control of the state by the auto unions, I have my suspicions.......we are after all the state with a business tax which called the difference between receipts and expenses, "excess income" instead of profit....
 
Bfgrn said:
You know freak, it is people like you who literally make me sick. The word Nazi seems too mild. The right is so devoid of any morals or human qualities that I honestly wonder if they were raised by wolves. We have problems in this country, but NONE of them can be attributed to people like schoolteachers, fireman, nurses or snowplow drivers. But they are being scapegoated by Republican scum bag corporate ass lickers like Walker. We need major tax reform. Take on the same urgency we had when we entered WWII...raise the taxes to 94% on any income over 1 million dollars. If the entitled elite don't like it, they can go live in the squalor their outsourced jobs support.
Click to expand...

Though I certainly don't agree with the radical nature of your proposal you do have a point. It's rediculous that a professional person earning $300,000/year is in the same tax braket (35%) as Bill Gates. This is nuts! By simply reforming our tax structure to a new top marginal bracket of something like 38 to 40% for those making over $750,000/year with modest spending cuts, and ending the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan fixing the budget deficit would be fairly easy to do and we would still have historically low top marginal tax rates for the wealthy.

This notion by Republicans of fixing the economy on the backs of working people will back fire on them and will only radicalize the people against them. They should study their history. I hear Repelicans talking about sharing the sacrifice. In reality they want us to make the sacrifices so that they don't have to share the wealth.
 
raise the taxes to 94% on any income over 1 million dollars. If the entitled elite don't like it, they can go live in the squalor their outsourced jobs support.

this is the kind of statement that makes me go, uhmm this dude dropped out of college.
 
Schadenfreude said:
the real problem is that too many government pension funds are under funded, that and the fact that the economy tanked
Click to expand...

And who's fault is this? Why weren't these pensions fully funded by the government when they contractually agreed to them and why is this the fault of public service workers? Let us also keep in mind, who is responsible for this recesion? A handful of corporate Bankers. Not the public service workers.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Though I certainly don't agree with the radical nature of your proposal you do have a point. It's rediculous that a professional person earning $300,000/year is in the same tax braket (35%) as Bill Gates. This is nuts! By simply reforming our tax structure to a new top marginal bracket of something like 38 to 40% for those making over $750,000/year with modest spending cuts, and ending the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan fixing the budget deficit would be fairly easy to do and we would still have historically low top marginal tax rates for the wealthy.

This notion by Republicans of fixing the economy on the backs of working people will back fire on them and will only radicalize the people against them. They should study their history. I hear Repelicans talking about sharing the sacrifice. In reality they want us to make the sacrifices so that they don't have to share the wealth.
Click to expand...

People like Gates and Buffett don't make their money in salary they make their money in stock they own of their companies.
 
Topspin said:
raise the taxes to 94% on any income over 1 million dollars. If the entitled elite don't like it, they can go live in the squalor their outsourced jobs support.

this is the kind of statement that makes me go, uhmm this dude dropped out of college.
Click to expand...

Well I don't know about that but is rather radical. Ya know I can see having a top marginal tax rate of 50% for those who make more then 100 million a year. They won't exactly be starving, it will force them to invest or pay that money in taxes and thus put more money into circulation thus creating more jobs and a higher standard of living across the board and it would prevent to much money accumulating into to few families and thus creating a monied aristrocracy.

What is truly unfair about our current tax structure is that it penalizes our upper middle and professional class people who earn between $100,000 and $300,000/year. These are the people who are the true engine of our economy and they should not be taxed at the same rate as Bill Gates or the Koch brothers.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
And who's fault is this? Why weren't these pensions fully funded by the government when they contractually agreed to them and why is this the fault of public service workers? Let us also keep in mind, who is responsible for this recesion? A handful of corporate Bankers. Not the public service workers.
Click to expand...

Because the people in charge who give raises to the these pension funds that the government cannot fully fund only care about the short term benefit they receive from the happy beneficiaries. They aren't going to be in office when the long term bill comes due so it doesn't really affect them. Plus they know the tax payers will ultimately bail the funds out.

So within this game who has the taxpayers backs here?
 
cawacko said:
Because the people in charge who give raises to the these pension funds that the government cannot fully fund only care about the short term benefit they receive from the happy beneficiaries. They aren't going to be in office when the long term bill comes due so it doesn't really affect them. Plus they know the tax payers will ultimately bail the funds out.

So within this game who has the taxpayers backs here?
Click to expand...
That's not a relevent argument. Those negotiations are agreed to by Government executives and their legislatures. They have a contractual, legal and moral obligation to fully fund those pensions over the long haul when they make those commitments.

If you make a contract in business to pay a 20 year loan at x% interest you can't decide that the banks will have to accept payments on the principle with no interest over the long term becuase you didn't anticipate a down turn in business. That's not how it works.
 
Bfgrn said:
I will address your 'wet behind the ears' blather in more detail, but I have to go out and run some errands.

But here are some very basic ethics and morals issues for you to ponder with your tiny little bean counter mind:

If Walker's plan is such a good one, WHY didn't he lay this out during the campaign? If we profess an allegiance to the Constitution, our founding documents, the tenets of our founding fathers and the representative republic they created, then isn't it an ethical and moral obligation that the rhetoric and campaign promises of our candidates and the policies they create be copacetic? And when these representatives gain office, and their actions reveal that their rhetoric was merely a ruse to gain power, who among us should stand by, or allow our fellow citizens to be steamrolled and trampled?

It is ironic that you folks on the right 'preach' about our Constitution and limited government, until you gain power. THEN the Constitution is an enemy and truth is a menace. And heavy handed government over We, the People is suddenly sanctioned, cheered and defended...
Click to expand...

Funny how you had the time to write the above, but you yet again were too cowardly to answer the simple questions.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
And who's fault is this? Why weren't these pensions fully funded by the government when they contractually agreed to them and why is this the fault of public service workers? Let us also keep in mind, who is responsible for this recesion? A handful of corporate Bankers. Not the public service workers.
Click to expand...

Because politicians love doing two things...

1) Promising things that THEY won't be around to pay for

2) Making unrealistic assumptions so that they can pretend their fantasy is actually reality.

Many were funded, but the expectations are almost always the same by the idiotic politicians. They assume a standard growth rate of 8% that never deviates. They rarely account for recessions and when recessions do hit, they project higher growth rates to accommodate. All the while they continue promising benefits they know they won't have to deliver because they will be long gone.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
That's not a relevent argument. Those negotiations are agreed to by Government executives and their legislatures. They have a contractual, legal and moral obligation to fully fund those pensions over the long haul when they make those commitments.

If you make a contract in business to pay a 20 year loan at x% interest you can't decide that the banks will have to accept payments on the principle with no interest over the long term becuase you didn't anticipate a down turn in business. That's not how it works.
Click to expand...

How is it not relevent? When schandenfreude said pensions are underfunded you said whose fault is that and asked why they weren't fully funded. I just gave a response that the government workers who agree to the pension raises yet don't fund them are only looking for the short term benefits to themselves and aren't worried about the long term problems.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Well I don't know about that but is rather radical. Ya know I can see having a top marginal tax rate of 50% for those who make more then 100 million a year. They won't exactly be starving, it will force them to invest or pay that money in taxes and thus put more money into circulation thus creating more jobs and a higher standard of living across the board and it would prevent to much money accumulating into to few families and thus creating a monied aristrocracy.

What is truly unfair about our current tax structure is that it penalizes our upper middle and professional class people who earn between $100,000 and $300,000/year. These are the people who are the true engine of our economy and they should not be taxed at the same rate as Bill Gates or the Koch brothers.
Click to expand...

The above is nothing but nonsense. WHY should they not be in the same bracket? Paying the same percentage of income is not the same as paying the same dollar amount.

If Bill Gates earns 1000 times what that upper middle class person does and they both pay 35%, Bill Gates will end up paying about 1000 times the middle class persons total taxes.

The insanity of 'we have to tax them at higher percentages to make it fair' is quite simply.... retarded.

Especially the way our current system is set up.

Take the tax code from 70k pages to 1.

Eliminate all loopholes and deductions save the standard deduction. Make the standard high enough to protect low and lower middle income families. Then tax all income sources at the same rate. It is fair, progressive and simple enough that even morons in Ohio will understand it.
 
cawacko said:
No doubt. Don't they usually only pay capital gains tax on those stock options they earn in place of salary?
Click to expand...

Not exactly. If an executive is awarded stocks or stock options and he purchases the options at below market value and turns around and sells them at market values then the profits would not be a capital gain but income. Since it does not have a basis capital gains would not apply and it would be taxed as income. If, for example, Bill Gates purchases stock in his company and then sells them some year later for a profit then the profits would be taxed as capital gains.
 
cawacko said:
Because the people in charge who give raises to the these pension funds that the government cannot fully fund only care about the short term benefit they receive from the happy beneficiaries. They aren't going to be in office when the long term bill comes due so it doesn't really affect them. Plus they know the tax payers will ultimately bail the funds out.

So within this game who has the taxpayers backs here?
Click to expand...

No one. Which is exactly WHY FDR didn't want public unions. It pits the government worker against taxpayers. Yet the terms are negotiated between the government worker and politicians. Politicians who in turn rely on funding from unions to get elected are not prone to look out for the tax payer in those negotiations.
 
cawacko said:
How is it not relevent? When schandenfreude said pensions are underfunded you said whose fault is that and asked why they weren't fully funded. I just gave a response that the government workers who agree to the pension raises yet don't fund them are only looking for the short term benefits to themselves and aren't worried about the long term problems.
Click to expand...

Like hell. You're blaming them for the shortcomings of those who contractually agreed to pay and fully fund those pensions. It is not their fault that those who agreed to fund those pensions fully did not do so. Those agreements by the State to fund those pensions were done so with the full faith and credit of the State and they had, as I said, a contractual, legal and moral obligation to fully fund those pensions. The fact that they did not is not the fault of the workers who negotiated those pension benefits.

Like I said, try defaulting on a loan and making that kind of argument and see how that will fly with your bank.
 
freak is right, politicians will get together and make an assumption on a not realistic rate of return which lowers the expense/amount needed to fund. They don't frequently get together to lower the return assumptions and thus increase funding requirement. Hence the problem.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Like hell. You're blaming them for the shortcomings of those who contractually agreed to pay and fully fund those pensions. It is not their fault that those who agreed to fund those pensions fully did not do so. Those agreements by the State to fund those pensions were done so with the full faith and credit of the State and they had, as I said, a contractual, legal and moral obligation to fully fund those pensions. The fact that they did not is not the fault of the workers who negotiated those pension benefits.

Like I said, try defaulting on a loan and making that kind of argument and see how that will fly with your bank.
Click to expand...

Ok, let's take a specific example. In California in 1999 our Governor boosted the the required annual return of public employee unions pensions to some 8%. The market was so hot at the time people didn't blink much at it. As the market turned it obviously was a huge issue. But you say I shouldn't blame the Governor for agreeing to that deal. Considering he's the highest ranking official in the state who do I blame? The President? Congress? Did they force our Governor to sign that deal?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top