Yellow | I hate my union,although I don't have the guts to quit!
- Thread starter azzman
- Start date
I never said constitutional![/QUOTE]
You ccompared it! Stop tring to sqirm your way out of it. Now who's playing word games?
But okay if you're not talking about constitutional rights, then what rights are you talking about?
Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk 2
Okay what is their share? They already pay most of the taxes in this country.
Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk 2
He's not talking about being wealthy he's talking about how wealth is created. You don't know the difference?
Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk 2
Whether you choose to call it a subsidy or tax break or Corporate welfare, it all has the same result....The Tax dollar that would have gone to the Government...didn't.. and the Dollars that the Company would have been "out" due to the "normal tax" now remains with the Company....So call it what you like the effect on Government revenue is the same.....they take in less...and the result to the Companies are the same...they have more dollars than they would have had otherwise.......That's the reality of the situation without regard for the word you wish to use.....
I was wondering just how you always manage to bring "Marxism" into the equation....That has nothing whatsoever to do with Corporate welfare vs subsidies or tax breaks.....I think it's rather extreme that you'd make such a proclamation, that in the case that someone holds an alternative view, that somehow makes them a "Marxist" and believing that ALL money belongs to the government....or Private Property ownership is wrong.....There is nothing in the Posters comments that would even remotely suggest that....
I completely understand and respect that you have a different way of looking at things but your trying to make way to big of a stretch here......
Pilot, he and I bring up Marxism for two reasons.
First- azzm's posts are paraphrased quote from Karl Marx's writings. I've posted comparisions, and he he agrees, asks where Marx was wrong?
Second- (I can't link on this phone). Read the Ten Planks of Communism. Our way of Governance the past 100 years IS Marxist. Obama is just the final nail in the coffin.
A few of those planks are abolition of private property, and progressive income taxes. Both fit azzm's view that the Rich are only rich because they exploited labor.
No- Corporate writeoffs are NOT money government Should have anyway. Private ownership means it's Your Property- not Government's. Read our Constitutuon. No Income Tax. Power belongs to the States and the Individual. Marxism created progressive Income tax (16th Amdnement). Direct Election of Senators (17th) changed us from Congress protecting the States to Government is god. Without direct election- income tax, medicare, and obamacare, and the UN would never have been forced on the Citizens. We changed from a Representative Republic to a Democratic Socialist (Marxist) State....
End Baseline Budgeting, and the argument ends on 'who owes taxes' without write-offs. Real budgeting starts at zero. Make a Real budget, determine how much to spend, and then set a one size fits all taxrate- send the same bill to all 309 million citizens. Right now we EACH owe over $200,000....
First- azzm's posts are paraphrased quote from Karl Marx's writings. I've posted comparisions, and he he agrees, asks where Marx was wrong?
Second- (I can't link on this phone). Read the Ten Planks of Communism. Our way of Governance the past 100 years IS Marxist. Obama is just the final nail in the coffin.
A few of those planks are abolition of private property, and progressive income taxes. Both fit azzm's view that the Rich are only rich because they exploited labor.
No- Corporate writeoffs are NOT money government Should have anyway. Private ownership means it's Your Property- not Government's. Read our Constitutuon. No Income Tax. Power belongs to the States and the Individual. Marxism created progressive Income tax (16th Amdnement). Direct Election of Senators (17th) changed us from Congress protecting the States to Government is god. Without direct election- income tax, medicare, and obamacare, and the UN would never have been forced on the Citizens. We changed from a Representative Republic to a Democratic Socialist (Marxist) State....
End Baseline Budgeting, and the argument ends on 'who owes taxes' without write-offs. Real budgeting starts at zero. Make a Real budget, determine how much to spend, and then set a one size fits all taxrate- send the same bill to all 309 million citizens. Right now we EACH owe over $200,000....
Last edited by a moderator:
Consider this if you will..... Exxon Mobil and other big oil companies continue to exploit tax loopholes for nearly $4 billion in subsidies each year. These subsidies include write-offs for drilling costs and a deduction for domestic production. and yes I wrote subsidies...and I know that's like poking your ear...or eye, in this case, but just play along.... a 2011 Citizens for Tax Justice report points out:Over the past two years, Exxon Mobil reported over $9 billion in pretax U.S. profits. But it enjoyed so many tax subsidies that its federal income tax bill was only $39 million—a tax rate of only 0.4 percent.
Wouldn't you like to pay that rate on your federal income taxes?
In terms of "dollars" yes they pay more than you do..or I do...however as a proportional percentage of their income they pay less than you do on your income, which I presume to be less than Nine Billion dollars over the last few years..That is what is meant when you hear people talk about "fair Share"... not in terms of just a "dollar number"....I know you will point to some other source that will support Poor old Exxon and you'll continue to be an advocate of Wealthy Corporations paying in less of their incomes as a percentage...because that's what you do... I never heard any Executive or CEO advocate for lower taxes for the working class...or for you Stoney, in particular....Maybe I just didn't hear that report on Fox....or any other news and information outlet I listen to...I don't have the T.V and radio on 24/7
I belong to the Constitution Party. That party calls for returning to our Constitution, and Ending all income taxes, all direct taxes, period.
I am rational- realize we owe more money than exists, so I'd call for ending income tax and replacing it with the Fair Tax, so that there are individuals paying taxes. Corporations would be billed nothing. Business would flood to our shores, as we would be the only nation with zero tax on business. That means jobs, which means wealth to the Middle Class. Ends Lobbyists, writeoffs, and jealousy in the taxcode.
Jimmy, I can't speak to azzmans position regarding Marxism, however I only asked that question in response to the following exchange...:
and then this from Mr Stoney:
To me, as a reader trying to understand the point trying to be made regarding "subsidies" and Corporate welfare", Some how it went to the issues of Private property rights and all earned money belongs to the government..... that is the basis for my remarks.....
But to your point....It goes back to the same thing..."write off" or whatever term you wish to use...it is still resulting in less revenue to the treasury than otherwise would have occurred.. without a "write off" Such Write offs reduce the amount of taxable income...key word..reduce....meaning less was received than otherwise. The bottom line result is the same....less tax revenue and more to the Corporate bottom line....Same result...different terms to describe..I'm not trying to justify any thing..just my opinion on the parsing of words...
Furthermore...I think everyone understands what Private Property means.... there is not any doubt about that...So I'm not sure what your point is on that....
Regarding the 16th amendment..In 1895, in the Supreme Court case of Pollock v Farmer's Loan and Trust (157 U.S. 429), the Court disallowed a federal tax on income from real property. The tax was designed to be an indirect tax, which would mean that states need not contribute portions of a whole relative to its census figures. The Court, however, ruled that the tax was a direct tax and subject to apportionment. This was the last in a series of conflicting court decisions dating back to the Civil War. Between 1895 and 1909, when the amendment was passed by Congress, the Court began to back down on its position, as it became clear not only to accountants but to everyone that the solvency of the nation was in jeopardy. In a series of cases, the definition of "direct tax" was modified, bent, twisted, and coaxed to allow more taxation efforts that approached an income tax. Finally, with the ratification of the 16th Amendment, any doubt was removed. The text of the Amendment makes it clear that though the categories of direct and indirect taxation still exist, any determination that income tax is a direct tax will be irrelevant, because taxes on incomes, from salary or from real estate, are explicitly to be treated as indirect. The Congress passed the Amendment on July 12, 1909, and it was ratified on February 3, 1913..
And the 17th amendment..One of the most common critiques of the Framers is that the government that they created was, in many ways, undemocratic. There is little doubt of this, and it is so by design. The Electoral College, by which we choose our President, is one example. The appointment of judges is another. And the selection of Senators not by the people but by the state legislatures, is yet another. The Senatorial selection system eventually became fraught with problems, with consecutive state legislatures sending different Senators to Congress, forcing the Senate to work out who was the qualified candidate, or with the selection system being corrupted by bribery and corruption. In several states, the selection of Senators was left up to the people in referendum, where the legislature approved the people's choice and sent him or her to the Senate. Articles written by early 20th-century muckrakers also provided grist for the popular-election mill. The 17th Amendment did away with all the ambiguity with a simple premise — the Senators would be chosen by the people, just as Representatives are. Of course, since the candidates now had to cater to hundreds of thousands, or millions, of people instead of just a few hundred, other issues, such as campaign finances, were introduced. The 17th is not a panacea, but it brings government closer to the people. ... I don't see Marxism in either..It would rather appear that the 17th amendment made us more of a Representative Republic...not less so.....And we are currently not a Democratic socialist Government.....We are actually closer to a state of Marxism. which has been described as government representation through a corporatist system....the merging of Government and Corporations...and with the Money that is funneled into both major parties to "buy" politicians to advance their agenda can be seen happening at all levels of Government..
The whole thing about Taxing and budgeting is another topic...but I think most can agree on the fact that The current tax system is broken and needs some fixing....I'm quite sure there are options available to change existing tax codes...but it is clear that NEITHER party is going to do much about that.....
.I'm sure you'll disagree with this...but that is what makes things interesting.....I apologize for the long post....I'll try and keep it less wordy...or windy as some may see it...in the future...
Joe the plumber
TB Veteran
- Credits
- 0
Bakers union employees don't hate their union..why should you hate your union
" Hoffa Senior is no longer fighting companies that Were regulated By Law, thus always profitable."
Do I understand this correctly....? Are you saying that Companies that are regulated by law are always profitable?.... But on the other side of the equation you say that regulating Companies are bad..... I'm sure you'll have a "logical" explanation....
"I live in the Real World. When Yellow and Roadway merged I went from #173 (local city/dock) to #365 on a 400plus board. YRC Indy works 150 people. Prior to the merge I easily held one of Yellows 70 city driving bids. Roadway had similar. Now, combined, they have 27... That's an extremely Old Board- most are in their sixties. Your scenario of not accepting concessions/ close companies puts those guys straight to the quickly diminishing Central States Pension (already down 4 billion in the last 4 years to 17 billion) - draining it before half the Teamsters that have 20 years but aren't old enough to draw can ever touch what they've earned. "
I can understand this....While I have empathy for those that are working and are continually under pressure for concessions...and more concessions...and I do understand that there must be a line drawn at some point.....however I have empathy for those that are waiting for their earned pensions and are hoping that the funds will survive for them....it's a delicate situation to be sure.....especially in these economic times we face today....You both make cogent points from different views of the matter......One thing is for certain..."this isn't 1959 anymore." But as far as buying a new T.V.... not me.... Would never watch it enough to justify the cost......I rarely watch it....maybe sometimes I'll watch Univision to watch some of the News documentary's there to get a broader view of whats happening in the Latin American Countries..but that's about it...But I digress.....That's just me... BTW Jimmy g ..I hope that the funds last so you can get what you earned... your entitled to it.....as well as all the rest that have earned it and are waiting on it also....
And where does the Profit of the Company come from? .... If you had a Business and no one spent their money at your business..where would you get your profit?
You ccompared it! Stop tring to sqirm your way out of it. Now who's playing word games?
But okay if you're not talking about constitutional rights, then what rights are you talking about?
Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk 2[/QUOTE]you don't like it when somebody else plays your trivial word games do you.
according to you it's from the wealthy who provide us our meager existance.
We can around in circles all night on this, because we both are right.
The point I was trying to make before was that government jobs create no profit,meaning they create no wealth. Yes the employees do contribute to the economy with their pay.
And unions were originally formed to get more of the profits of a company.
Unions do not belong in the public sector because their is a conflict of interest.
Unfunded liabilites...yes thats a problem.....What is part of the problem as to why they're unfunded? Many states, and I think Illinois is one,...did not make contributions to the fund in a timely fashion....and now the unfunded amount is very large indeed....perhaps if they had made the contributions as they were supposed to they wouldn't be looking at such a large debt....but it does make the Unions appear they are the Evil in all this....totally at fault.....It would be an impossibly thin board that didn't have two sides.....So of course the "logical" thing to do is make the workers pay for it....through reductions ..through age adjustments to qualify....
"More likely is that the politicians keep abdicating and then hit up President Obama for a federal bailout."
Hardly seems likely..Do you think it would ever pass the House? probably not the Senate either..... but IF, say for example, a federal bailout of the Teamster Pension funds were on the table...I'd think that you'd have a different perspective....maybe not admit it...but when things "hit close to home" as they say, Sometimes people change their points of view......
"warning: fear federal government power under a president who routinely ignores, and pees on, the Constitution".
author unknown
Are you sure you don't know who the author of this "quote" is?
What happens when all those bigwigs decide to use the coporate jet? Or the corporate credit card or the corporate car for their own personal use? End the corporate tax? It's like giving the key to the hen house to the wolf!
Exploit tax loopholes? So a tax code put in place by federal and states government shouldn't be followed? Do you own a home? Do you EXPLOIT the home mortgage deduction?
And what is this 4 billion in so called subsidies? Did the government WRITE A CHECK for 4 billion to Exxon? Nope, as you said it was tax writes offs and deductions. So no subsidy. Thats a MARXIST belief. Money earned is private property. And when you use terms like "SUBSIDY" in reference to tax cuts, you are saying all money earned belongs to the government and they subsidize us with our money.
Actually I think all corporations should pay zero taxes. Yes a 0% rate. that .04% is still too much. Why? Not because I worry about them, or think they can't afford it. But because it would be great fr our economy. It will create new wealth which leads to jobs. And I know all taxes paid by corporations are really paid by the consumer. And don't care about "FAIR SHARE". I on;t care about having a tax policy that works to create a stronger economy, and keeps us free from the government control. Now I know your going to ask about the loss revenue if corporations don't pay taxes. In reality, there won't be. That loss revenue will be made up with the new jobs created, broadening the tax if you will.
And I don't expect any CEO to advocate for me, that's not their job. Their job is to make as much profit as possible. Which is perfectly fine with me, since like you and most of America, I'm a share holder with them.
Oh lord, you come up the silliest of stuff. "What happens when all those bigwigs decide to use the coporate jet? Or the corporate credit card or the corporate car for their own personal use?"...my answer, so what?