Proposal to Strip Corporations of Constitutional Rights Gains Momentum in Wisconsin

[chr5648]

Re: Proposal to Strip Corporations of Constitutional Rights Gains Momentum in Wisconsin

Total pay for one of Detroit's 199 Librarians? $67,000 a year. Average total compensation for a Barns and Noble floor employee; $24,000 !

Total pay for Wolfgang Puck? Over $12,000,000 a year. Average pay for a cook at McDonald's: a little over minimum wage!

They both make food, right?

Makes about as much sense as comparing a librarian to a Barnes and Noble floor employee.

http://www.halfsigma.com/2006/03/the_winnertakes.html

http://www.halfsigma.com/2011/01/bas...nsference.html

We can assume that puck has won a winner take all contest in the cooking industry. So are you saying that government supported detroit librarians have won a winner takes all contest? Comparing detroit librarians to puck is extremely illogical, at least it makes no sense to me.

[mesyn191]

Re: Proposal to Strip Corporations of Constitutional Rights Gains Momentum in Wisconsin

His point is drop's original point is illogical but is using hyperbole to demonstrate it.

[Raz]

Re: Proposal to Strip Corporations of Constitutional Rights Gains Momentum in Wisconsin

Not in general no. Its just a fluke that the gov. is actually paying people closer to what they should be getting to maintain a middle class standard of living.

For the sake of the discussion lets suppose that our domestic economy has been operating in an unsustainable mode, loaded with ficticious value - not only in housing stock, but ficticious profits in various industries, retailers being the most obvious.
As their margins are squeezed they cannot pay the salaries or bonuses they did during the "boom" years, and are forced to lay off some employees. Their profits decline and so do their tax remmitances. This applies to more than the retailers, the construction and leisure industries (boat and RV manufacturers) also come to mind.

Now governments at all levels receive their "income" from taxes, fees, and in the case of the Federal government, also by floating gargantuan quantities of debt, most of which is currently being purchased by the criminal organization they delegated their power of the currency to. But none of this applies to the real economy from which purchasing power is extracted by governments - federal, state and local - either by taxation or in the case of the Feds by inflation which covertly robs them.

It seems the donors in the real economy who can no longer earn a middle-class lifestyle are often expected to open another vein in order to exempt government employees from the painful reality of the marketplace.

[dcarrigg]

Re: Proposal to Strip Corporations of Constitutional Rights Gains Momentum in Wisconsin

For the sake of the discussion lets suppose that our domestic economy has been operating in an unsustainable mode, loaded with ficticious value - not only in housing stock, but ficticious profits in various industries, retailers being the most obvious.
As their margins are squeezed they cannot pay the salaries or bonuses they did during the "boom" years, and are forced to lay off some employees. Their profits decline and so do their tax remmitances. This applies to more than the retailers, the construction and leisure industries (boat and RV manufacturers) also come to mind.

Now governments at all levels receive their "income" from taxes, fees, and in the case of the Federal government, also by floating gargantuan quantities of debt, most of which is currently being purchased by the criminal organization they delegated their power of the currency to. But none of this applies to the real economy from which purchasing power is extracted by governments - federal, state and local - either by taxation or in the case of the Feds by inflation which covertly robs them.

It seems the donors in the real economy who can no longer earn a middle-class lifestyle are often expected to open another vein in order to exempt government employees from the painful reality of the marketplace.

Raz, you are right of course. As always, I thank you for your insight.

I just want to add that when the vampire squid sucks what blood it can from the productive economy and is not full, the government stands next in line to shed blood on the altar of Mammon.

Government employees will be handed the razor. They will kick and scream louder, but in the end, they will let blood.

Or is this not what we are beginning to see now?

[chr5648]

Re: Proposal to Strip Corporations of Constitutional Rights Gains Momentum in Wisconsin

Not in general no. Its just a fluke that the gov. is actually paying people closer to what they should be getting to maintain a middle class standard of living.

It would also be prudent to distinguish between the federal government, who can print money, issue debt, and tax. While, State, County, and municipal governments ability to print money is nonexistent, and the ability to float debt is also usually limited at the state, county, and municipal levels except in voter referendums and big public works projects. So a good portion of government workers that are at the state, county, and municipal level get their pay/benefits from property taxes, sales taxes, income taxes, fees, vehicle violations, etc, which tend to come directly out of average joes pockets.

No wonder average joe is pissed, he is distinguishing between the federal employee that he doesn't feel he supports and non federal gov employees from the state, county, and municipality which is clearly seen through property taxes, sales taxes, income taxes, fees, vehicle violations, etc.

http://www.mycentraljersey.com/artic...ey=mod|mostcom

A nice little trick the local gov is playing now, more tickets to boost revenues. This article doesn't go into a new trend, but in new jersey the big thing now is CORPORATE sponsored red light camera, I see then everywhere, and its more reasons for people to be mad at government, workers, and its waste.

[Thailandnotes]

Re: Proposal to Strip Corporations of Constitutional Rights Gains Momentum in Wisconsin

http://www.sott.net/articles/show/22...ow-About-Taxes

Nine thing the rich don't want you to know about taxes...

[mesyn191]

Re: Proposal to Strip Corporations of Constitutional Rights Gains Momentum in Wisconsin

As their margins are squeezed they cannot pay the salaries or bonuses they did during the "boom" years, and are forced to lay off some employees. Their profits decline and so do their tax remmitances. This applies to more than the retailers, the construction and leisure industries (boat and RV manufacturers) also come to mind.

Except profits are up and have been for a while while wages and benefits have been on a downturn since the mid to late 70's at the very least. Also you have to consider this too:



Profits rebounded a year ago to HIGHER than the bubble years but the unemployment and wage situation is still in the gutter and shows no signs of shifting significantly to the upside any time soon. Note that chart only goes up to 1Q 2010, AFAIK its even more out of whack now then it was then. That wealth is just not trickling down. The wage vs. productivity chart is huge but on the 2nd page of this thread. If you want I'll repost but it breaks tables.

It seems the donors in the real economy who can no longer earn a middle-class lifestyle are often expected to open another vein in order to exempt government employees from the painful reality of the marketplace.

You also have to bear in mind that the corps and rich don't pay nearly what they should in taxes either. The chart that demonstrates that for the rich at least isn't too big so I'll repost it.

[mesyn191]

Re: Proposal to Strip Corporations of Constitutional Rights Gains Momentum in Wisconsin

So a good portion of government workers that are at the state, county, and municipal level get their pay/benefits from property taxes, sales taxes, income taxes, fees, vehicle violations, etc, which tend to come directly out of average joes pockets.

The states would've been fine if they hadn't squandered the cash that was supposed to go towards retirements and employees. For the politicians to turn around and then blame those same employees for all the budget ills they've created is particularly galling to me.

No wonder average joe is pissed, he is distinguishing between the federal employee that he doesn't feel he supports and non federal gov employees from the state, county, and municipality which is clearly seen through property taxes, sales taxes, income taxes, fees, vehicle violations, etc.

The Avg. Joe's you see getting pissed about gov. and/or union worker "over compensation" have been lied to by the rich owned mass media. All you hear about is how much these people get paid instead of how little the private employee is getting and/or how expensive things are vs. their wages. You hear all about how others must share the pain, but that seems apply to the middle class and poor only, and not the rich who've only gotten richer these last few years. Or at least that is what you could be easily mistaken to believe given how the media reports on these things.

[Raz]

Re: Proposal to Strip Corporations of Constitutional Rights Gains Momentum in Wisconsin

Most of the jobs and wages in the private sector of the United States are found in small businesses - not Toll Brothers, Target or Brunswick Corp.
And most of them operate as S-Corporations where the corporate income flows through to the 1040s of the shareholders and are not counted as corporate income on the 1120s filed by C-Corporations.

That's where "eat the rich" becomes problematic and at some level even counterproductive. If the Federal government takes 50% of Donald the Trump's income his kids will still go to college wherever they want, and they won't need a student loan. Not so with the "rich" guy who owns a small business and earns $250,000 per year. Taking half of his income forces a real material change in his personal circumstances, and is likely to make him reconsider the huge risk of capital and the 70-hour work weeks. Top it off with the fraudulent monetary system of "Bubbles" Ben Bernanke and the vampire squid of the banksters and Wall Street and there's good reason for capital to hide out in precious metals rather than be invested in productive use.

I don't think that going back to a 39% tax rate as existed during the Clinton years is unreasonable, but "eat the rich" is rather short-sighted.
According to IRS data for the 2008 tax year, the combined taxable income of all Americans who earned over $100,000 that year was $1.59 Trillion.
The Federal government could confiscate all of their taxable income and the budget would be in balance. And the Maxine Waters crowd would be happy (except for Maxine!).

It seems to me that the bigger problem is the structure of our domestic economy, a fraudulent and totally corrupt monetary system, and the totally unrealistic expectations concerning entitlements that have been foisted onto the American people. We desperately need to reinstate Glass-Steagall, have a monetary system based on a gold certificate ratio with an end to fractional reserve lending, means-test Social Security, provide a much lower tax rate to the C-Corps who bring manufacturing back to the US and punish those who domecile here but operate most of their production overseas, and yes, address the whole idea of collective bargaining for public employees.

I stand with FDR on that subject: government employees should not have the right to unionize nor should collective bargaining be forced upon government at any level.

[jiimbergin]

Re: Proposal to Strip Corporations of Constitutional Rights Gains Momentum in Wisconsin

[QUOTE=Raz;194738]Most of the jobs and wages in the private sector of the United States are found in small businesses - not Toll Brothers, Target or Brunswick Corp.
And most of them operate as S-Corporations where the corporate income flows through to the 1040s of the shareholders and are not counted as corporate income on the 1120s filed by C-Corporations.

That's where "eat the rich" becomes problematic and at some level even counterproductive. If the Federal government takes 50% of Donald the Trump's income his kids will still go to college wherever they want, and they won't need a student loan. Not so with the "rich" guy who owns a small business and earns $250,000 per year. Taking half of his income forces a real material change in his personal circumstances, and is likely to make him reconsider the huge risk of capital and the 70-hour work weeks. Top it off with the fraudulent monetary system of "Bubbles" Ben Bernanke and the vampire squid of the banksters and Wall Street and there's good reason for capital to hide out in precious metals rather than be invested in productive use.

I don't think that going back to a 39% tax rate as existed during the Clinton years is unreasonable, but "eat the rich" is rather short-sighted.
According to IRS data for the 2008 tax year, the combined taxable income of all Americans who earned over $100,000 that year was $1.59 Trillion.
The Federal government could confiscate all of their taxable income and the budget would be in balance. And the Maxine Waters crowd would be happy (except for Maxine!).

It seems to me that the bigger problem is the structure of our domestic economy, a fraudulent and totally corrupt monetary system, and the totally unrealistic expectations concerning entitlements that have been foisted onto the American people. We desperately need to reinstate Glass-Steagall, have a monetary system based on a gold certificate ratio with an end to fractional reserve lending, means-test Social Security, provide a much lower tax rate to the C-Corps who bring manufacturing back to the US and punish those who domecile here but operate most of their production overseas, and yes, address the whole idea of collective bargaining for public employees.

I stand with FDR on that subject: government employees should not have the right to unionize nor should collective bargaining be forced upon government at any level.[/QUOTE

Raz, a great post. I agee completely.

[Stroebel]

Re: Proposal to Strip Corporations of Constitutional Rights Gains Momentum in Wisconsin

Or is this not what we are beginning to see now?

Your google search brought up a number of news links on layoffs implemented by the former Wisconsin governor, a Democrat. Public employees were already taking a hit even before Gov. Walker started laying into them.

Wisconsin public school teachers anywhere near retirement are bailing out now to preserve their retirement benefits. The numbers of retirees are double and triple the norm. The evacuation has already begun.

Meanwhile, with tax returns due on Monday, Sarah Palin is coming to Madison this weekend.

It is worth noting that Wisconsin is the founding place and overwintering site the Ringling Bros. Circus, whose history is preserved at the Circus World Museum in Baraboo, Wisconsin.

http://circusworld.wisconsinhistory....t/History.aspx

The general feeling around here is the hope that Palin and the Tax Party won't besmudge Wisconsin's proud circus tradition.

[chr5648]

Re: Proposal to Strip Corporations of Constitutional Rights Gains Momentum in Wisconsin

The states would've been fine if they hadn't squandered the cash that was supposed to go towards retirements and employees. For the politicians to turn around and then blame those same employees for all the budget ills they've created is particularly galling to me.


The Avg. Joe's you see getting pissed about gov. and/or union worker "over compensation" have been lied to by the rich owned mass media. All you hear about is how much these people get paid instead of how little the private employee is getting and/or how expensive things are vs. their wages. You hear all about how others must share the pain, but that seems apply to the middle class and poor only, and not the rich who've only gotten richer these last few years. Or at least that is what you could be easily mistaken to believe given how the media reports on these things.

http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/category/ratings

http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/

The data seems to show that few people watch the mass media and more people watch culturally degrading program such as the jersey shore and other reality TV. "right wing" Foxnews doesn't even reach 1% of the US population and the other "left wing" networks, reach a minimal amount people. The reality is people don't care. The people who watch network news, don't watch it to get facts but, to "feel" good.

Humans are emotional creatures and they think emotionally. How did bush get elected, he made the electorate feel good, obama made people feel hope and change, jfk won on the laurels of his youthful looks to the female population. Avg. joe doesn't think logically or rationally he thinks emotionally, when average joe has to dig in his pockets for higher property taxes, sales taxes, income taxes, fees, tickets, etc. he feels emotion. When he sees how much a state, county, local worker makes and sees that he is paying for it, he gets emotional. When Avg. joe sees the plutocracy graph above he doesn't feel anything.

[DSpencer]

Re: Proposal to Strip Corporations of Constitutional Rights Gains Momentum in Wisconsin

http://www.sott.net/articles/show/22...ow-About-Taxes

Nine thing the rich don't want you to know about taxes...

Ugh. Fighting propaganda with more propaganda.

Some of what the article talks about it is worthwhile reading. And in my mind it is further proof of a goal that I would hope everyone could get behind: simplify the tax code. It would save so much money on IRS agents and accountants and would also allow for tax debate that was very straightforward. How can we thoroughly debate a tax code that not one person ever born can fully understand?

However, I find claims like this very frustrating:

Person A pays $6,084 in taxes.
Person B pays $58,176,761 in taxes.
Person A is "taxed much more" than Person B.

I get that they are making the comparison based on % of income, but why is that the only relevant measure? Is a teacher, policeman, construction worker going to work for $6,000 dollars per year simply because it's a high percentage of what some median wage worker makes? A person paying $58 million in taxes could support a small city worth of government services yet somehow this is not a fair amount? Based on what criteria? The arbitrary notion that paying a higher percentage of income is "fair"?

You also have to bear in mind that the corps and rich don't pay nearly what they should in taxes either. The chart that demonstrates that...

When you say "you have to bear in mind that..." what you really mean is "it's my opinion that...". Putting a chart behind a statement like that does not turn your subjective opinion into an objective fact.

As a disclaimer, I'm not in favor of the status quo or trying to defend it. I just think that if issues are to be reasonably debated it shouldn't be with half-truths and opinions presented as facts.

[WildspitzE]

Re: Proposal to Strip Corporations of Constitutional Rights Gains Momentum in Wisconsin

Except profits are up and have been for a while while wages and benefits have been on a downturn since the mid to late 70's at the very least. Also you have to consider this too:

There is no malicious intent with the following question, just being direct: Have you ever owned or run a business that requires employees? The reason I ask is because you chose to put this graph up.

See...labor tends to be a resource that is managed on a long term basis based on long term expectations. It's not like an inventory that you can - now a days - almost match to your business cycles. Your graph illustrates this, otherwise why didn't employment drop more precipitously starting Q308 when corporate profits tanked? (Imagine the downward pressure on wages this dip would've caused if employment had followed that line, ouch)

Obviously, there are exceptions like temps (which IIRC temp employment has been moving up, not a surprise) or project related employment. Hiring full time employees tends to be a process that involves long term thinking and is a long term decision, an important consideration is the things one has to deal with (thanks in large measure to the government) when you fire/lay off someone.

Perhaps the reason employment hasn't picked up is because businesses don't expect this rosy nominal uptick as permanent (in spite of what the "sentiment" factoids say) or are waiting to see it take hold further to reduce the odds of having to undetake a costly recruitment and immediate lay-off proposition?

[dcarrigg]

Re: Proposal to Strip Corporations of Constitutional Rights Gains Momentum in Wisconsin

Most of the jobs and wages in the private sector of the United States are found in small businesses - not Toll Brothers, Target or Brunswick Corp.
And most of them operate as S-Corporations where the corporate income flows through to the 1040s of the shareholders and are not counted as corporate income on the 1120s filed by C-Corporations.

That's where "eat the rich" becomes problematic and at some level even counterproductive. If the Federal government takes 50% of Donald the Trump's income his kids will still go to college wherever they want, and they won't need a student loan. Not so with the "rich" guy who owns a small business and earns $250,000 per year. Taking half of his income forces a real material change in his personal circumstances, and is likely to make him reconsider the huge risk of capital and the 70-hour work weeks. Top it off with the fraudulent monetary system of "Bubbles" Ben Bernanke and the vampire squid of the banksters and Wall Street and there's good reason for capital to hide out in precious metals rather than be invested in productive use.

I'm with you on the $250k/yr bit. It's too low - functionally middle class - to leave that as the top marginal rate. There should be at least one additional bracket - probably around $4M/yr if there could only be one. That way you won't be increasing rates on actual small business owners and professional couples in high cost-of-living areas but still decreasing the pool of capital that will likely find its way into the speculative bonanza.

We are at a point where soon the regressive payroll taxes (6.2% up to $108k) will result in receipts that total more than the entire progressive income tax system. It's not a good place to be in.

I don't think that going back to a 39% tax rate as existed during the Clinton years is unreasonable, but "eat the rich" is rather short-sighted.
According to IRS data for the 2008 tax year, the combined taxable income of all Americans who earned over $100,000 that year was $1.59 Trillion.

You are right there. There is not enough pay delivered as 'income' to make it work. Capital gains must be "re-tethered" to income tax rates - the wider the gap, the more distortion exists.

From the CBO:

The favorable efficiency effects derived from lowering capital gains tax rates may be offset by the inefficiency generated by increasing the wedge between the tax treatment of capital gains and other income from capital. The differential between those tax rates can channel economic activity into endeavors that lend themselves to accruing gains: they distort a firm's choice, for instance, between reinvesting earnings internally (to provide capital gains) and paying dividends that stockholders might reinvest more productively elsewhere. Indeed, the favorable treatment of capital gains plays a role in many tax shelters that misallocate investment. It is difficult to determine the net impact on the allocation of existing capital that might be produced by these second-order efficiency effects from changing the treatment of gains.

The Federal government could confiscate all of their taxable income and the budget would be in balance. And the Maxine Waters crowd would be happy (except for Maxine!).

Of course confiscating all income is not the way to go. The way I see it, the only way to wind down the FIRE merry-go-round to where it serves the larger economy rather than the other way around is to build a tax structure that promotes this. Of course one should be rewarded for being a successful entrepreneur.

It seems to me that the bigger problem is the structure of our domestic economy, a fraudulent and totally corrupt monetary system, and the totally unrealistic expectations concerning entitlements that have been foisted onto the American people.

I tend to think that you can't simply shred the entitlements and let people sink. I find it ironic that the same politicians touting the 'knowledge economy' don't realize that the 'knowledge economy' is what is wrong here.

No matter how much money .gov throws at education, there will still be a large block of people who simply do not 'get' mathematics and hard science. Until there are real vocational opportunities in this economy, I fear that cutting people out and leaving them on their own will only result in the money saved on entitlements being spent on criminal justice.

We desperately need to reinstate Glass-Steagall

Yes.

Have a monetary system based on a gold certificate ratio

I fear that this will come if and only if all hell breaks loose.

With an end to fractional reserve lending

I don't know if that can be ended now. We're pretty far down the rabbit hole. I absolutely agree that the percentage of capital required to be held in reserve should increase substantially, however.

Means-test Social Security

I'm for eliminating the wage base - after that, means testing doesn't matter. Benefits need to decrease on a percentage basis as income goes up until one hits a 'benefit cap.' Right now, the benefit cap is determined by the wage base.

Rather than saying, 'Social Security will only take in so much of a person's income' and setting benefits on that, one could say 'Everyone pays the same percentage into Social Security, but there is a maximum benefit that one may receive.'

Means testing requires investigators, forms, badges, guns, bureaucracy, etc. A simple rule change would likely take care of most of the issue.

That being said, I'll take means testing over nothing.

Provide a much lower tax rate to the C-Corps who bring manufacturing back to the US and punish those who domecile here but operate most of their production overseas.[/COLOR]

Something does need to be done here. C-corps have been loosing total share of business activity for some time. S-corps and LLCs are taking up the slack. The current system provides incentives for tax havens.

C-corp business activity:



Number of S-corps and LLCs:



Ultimately, it would be nice to see corporate tax incentives for producing in the U.S., hiring in the U.S. and maintain or increase median wage vs. CPI in the U.S. It would be a lot better than providing incentives to move production oversees and keep capital units here so that they can declare losses and get a fat check from old Uncle Sam.

I stand with FDR on that subject: government employees should not have the right to unionize nor should collective bargaining be forced upon government at any level.

I think it's relatively besides the point. The economic issues at large are much bigger and more important than public unions. It's only 38% of the public sector anyways. Eliminating it, to me, is just more show that scares the middle class into taking it deeper from the rentiers.

Sure, public sector unions stifle the young and creative, make flexibility difficult, dump money into politics, and make merit pay all but impossible. These things are not good - but they are not the root of our economic problems either.

This issue drives me nuts because it's nothing more than a fantastic wedge for our wonderful two parties to act like there's a difference while they give away our future to the bank.

We're living in an age where municipalities and states have been borrowing against expected future federal revenue to match this year's federal revenue and doing it for a decade. They assume an 8% return on pension funds - and then underfund them and invest them with the herd. The result is a dirty debt pit.

Some arithmetic, once again, just for illustration:

In 2010 there were 3,823,142 teachers in the U.S. Even at $100,000 per year total compensation package (which is more than they get on average), that's $382.4 Billion/yr. Fire them all and it makes less of a dent than confiscating everything from the rich.

There were 21,114,528 public employees in the U.S. in 2006. 18% of all public employees are teachers. So multiply $400 billion by about 5 and there you are. About $2T per year if they all earn $100k in total compensation on average (which they don't). Fire all of them, create 21M new unemployed and pay out 50% of their wages temporarily in unemployment and you solve the budget problem - or you could confiscate all of the money declared as income of people in the top two brackets - 5.5M people.

Both ideas are silly to me.

At the end of the day, capital needs to be squeezed from the top where it quickly pools in opaque financial instruments. Greater economic rewards need to be provided for production and employment, and rentier capital needs to be reigned in. FIRE needs to wind down from 20% of the economy and find a sustainable place again. Loosing sight of the larger goal is not an option.