Wisconsin Teachers' Union Lays Off 40% of Staff

[Taichiliberal]

So thats the reason the Corporations are all going overseas .....the taxes in the US are too low, and they have an overwhelming desire to pay more taxes.....

I'm glad the pinheads got that figured out.....

Nothing is more pathetic than watching Bravo try to mock/talk down to other people based on his sheer willful ignorance.

Here, You and Damo learn something:

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2010/0411/US-tax-bite-smaller-than-other-nations

 

[Liberty]

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 wonder how much money I would keep if this trend continues.

If'n I lived in Wisconsin.

And I be a tax payer.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

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"?

BULLSHIT! I challenge you to a debate on this in the war zone and defy you to defend your comments with facts.

 

[Taichiliberal]

You gotta update you vocab, Clara.....its like a broken record....repetitive and annoying like your fellow pinheads....

The barstool speed bump that is Bravo who references Howdy Doody is deluded enough to try and tell others that their vocabulary is "dated"!




If Post #59 didn't show what a complete jackass Bravo is, this latest mindfart of his removes all doubt! :lol:

 

[Damocles]

BULLSHIT! I challenge you to a debate on this in the war zone and defy you to defend your comments with facts.

Dude we've already gone over this in so many threads it's a bit ridiculous...

the top 50% pay about 97% of the taxes, most of the people talking about "fair share" are net receivers.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB110376651952307998.html

We don't need another thread about it. It's stupid. The reality is we have a very progressive tax system in which the top earners pay their "fair share"...

Remember, the figures there were before Obama dropped payroll taxes bringing even that "burden" down for the bottom 50%.

 

[PostmodernProphet]

BULLSHIT! I challenge you to a debate on this in the war zone and defy you to defend your comments with facts.

lol.....gotta hand it to you, Mott.....that impersonation of Touchie was spot on.......

 

[Mott the Hoople]

Dude we've already gone over this in so many threads it's a bit ridiculous...

the top 50% pay about 97% of the taxes, most of the people talking about "fair share" are net receivers.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB110376651952307998.html

We don't need another thread about it. It's stupid. The reality is we have a very progressive tax system in which the top earners pay their "fair share"...

Remember, the figures there were before Obama dropped payroll taxes bringing even that "burden" down for the bottom 50%.

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.).

 

[Damocles]

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.).

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"?

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

UTTER bullshit Damo. The market controls prices. If a corporation could double their price, they would...TODAY.

There are essentially four groups that can pay the corporate tax....

1) The stockholders/owners
2) The executives of the company
3) The other employees of the company
4) The consumers of that company's products/services

Now tell us.... which of those groups do you think are going to get stuck with the bill?

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

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/ezra-klein/2011/02/what_is_actually_being_propose.html

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

 

[Bfgrn]

There are essentially four groups that can pay the corporate tax....

1) The stockholders/owners
2) The executives of the company
3) The other employees of the company
4) The consumers of that company's products/services

Now tell us.... which of those groups do you think are going to get stuck with the bill?

If the market won't bear increased pricing...the answer is 1, 2 and 3 ONLY.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

If the market won't bear increased pricing...the answer is 1, 2 and 3 ONLY.

Wrong. If the product cannot support a price increase (which is not common) then the answer is #3. Most goods will see the cost passed on to consumers or a combination of #3 and #4. Unless you think the executives are going to be generous and pay it out of their salary? Or perhaps you think the Executives will take it out of the profit margin that shareholders like? You know... those shareholders that can have them fired?

The answer is #3 and #4.... it is not 1 or 2.

Which again is why the corporate tax is a highly regressive hidden tax on the lower and middle income families.... and YOU want to increase that tax on them.

 

[Alias]

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.

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.

 

[Bfgrn]

Wrong. If the product cannot support a price increase (which is not common) then the answer is #3. Most goods will see the cost passed on to consumers or a combination of #3 and #4. Unless you think the executives are going to be generous and pay it out of their salary? Or perhaps you think the Executives will take it out of the profit margin that shareholders like? You know... those shareholders that can have them fired?

The answer is #3 and #4.... it is not 1 or 2.

Which again is why the corporate tax is a highly regressive hidden tax on the lower and middle income families.... and YOU want to increase that tax on them.

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.

 

[cawacko]

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.

If the government raises taxes (let's say) 3% on your industry do you think most or all of those firms (in that industry) are going to eat the cost of that increase or pass it on to the consumers?

 

[Damocles]

If the market won't bear increased pricing...the answer is 1, 2 and 3 ONLY.

If the market won't bear increased pricing do you believe that they'll simply take a loss or maybe they might move their services to an outsourced location?

The reality is, the market will all increase prices if everybody is charged the tax. Corporations do not pay taxes, their consumers do. Every dime they make comes from the consumer, including the amount they may pay in taxation.

Again, reality and reason tells us that they are going to go to the source of their money in order to get the money to pay their taxes or they will reduce costs elsewhere (layoffs, outsourcing), logic and reason do not tell us they'll simply eat the cost due to "markets"... They'll change to make their product/service to meet the market prices, in order to do that they'll make any of the following changes: Layoffs, outsourcing, increased prices any of which are detrimental to our economy.

 

[Bfgrn]

If the government raises taxes (let's say) 3% on your industry do you think most or all of those firms (in that industry) are going to eat the cost of that increase or pass it on to the consumers?

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%?

 

[Alias]

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%?

Now that's funny......"you idealogues". You have obviously missed the fact that even the left is getting sick and tired of your idealogue in the people's house.

 

[Bfgrn]

If the market won't bear increased pricing do you believe that they'll simply take a loss or maybe they might move their services to an outsourced location?

The reality is, the market will all increase prices if everybody is charged the tax. Corporations do not pay taxes, their consumers do. Every dime they make comes from the consumer, including the amount they may pay in taxation.

Again, reality and reason tells us that they are going to go to the source of their money in order to get the money to pay their taxes or they will reduce costs elsewhere (layoffs, outsourcing), logic and reason do not tell us they'll simply eat the cost due to "markets"... They'll change to make their product/service to meet the market prices, in order to do that they'll make any of the following changes: Layoffs, outsourcing, increased prices any of which are detrimental to our economy.

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.

 

[Bfgrn]

Now that's funny......"you idealogues". You have obviously missed the fact that even the left is getting sick and tired of your idealogue in the people's house.

People who ignore facts and logic can only be driven by ideology or ignorance. So I was picking the lesser of the two...LOL