Meager? speak for yourself. Sounds like you got a self confidence problem. If your life sucks, then do something about. You know most wealthy are first generation rich, right?
I don't but, you just admitted you did.
Yellow | I hate my union,although I don't have the guts to quit!
- Thread starter azzman
- Start date
I don't but, you just admitted you did.
"We can (run) around in circles all night on this, because we both are right."
No we can't run around in circles all night on this because It would be fruitless to do so......
"The point I was trying to make before was that government jobs create no profit,meaning they create no wealth."
You clearly stated "Company" not Government...
Originally Posted by Stoneythat's a common misconception, wealth doesn't come from the paycheck of the employees, it come from the profit of the company.
"Yes the employees do contribute to the economy with their pay."
True! Government employees contribute to the "wealth" of the economy just the same as employees of any Private sector Employer...so in that measure..Yes Government is generating wealth...... also...what about all those Government contracts, that mostly go to large Corporations, Don't they create wealth for those Companies and provide wages for their employees? So yes...the Government creates wealth....what about all the Roads and other infrastructure that was built by Government money? Those things had nothing to do with the ability for Business to generate wealth?....so yes...Government money does create and contribute to the wealth of this country....
"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."
That is only part of the reason Unions were formed....They also helped to create, to the degree possible, a safer work environment...a process to seek redress with their employers...i.e. the grievance procedure...also they helped insure that people were not arbitrary separated from employment on a managers whim....work rules that benefited employees....lunch breaks...and other breaks during the course of a shift.......among other things...but I'm sure you get the drift...since your a Union man...
It is those things that make public sector Unions valuable in the workplace..... If those are conflicts of interests in your mind...I wonder if things like that are somehow not in your interests...and why would you seek to take that, which you enjoy, and deny it to others? ...
The part of wages and benefits being on the taxpayer is a matter of debate....Yes I'm aware of others(and yours)viewpoints regarding that and I can't say that they don't have a somewhat legitimate point..It's not as cut and dried as you try to make it....there is a Human factor involved....Money should not be the end all to everything....and please don't toss in your pointless "Marxist argument"...it has nothing to do with that..
If Government spending was spent on the USA...and not having to being the worlds "policeman" and having Dominance in the World...and all the money that it entails there would be plenty of money to take care of our own citizens in the manner befitting a nation of wealth...and if that were to be the case, I doubt there would be any such debate on the matter....
R
Rockstar
Guest
*Yawn*
Wake me when it's over...
Wake me when it's over...
How come it's silly when it involves the wealthy or big corporations? Let's face it,your not wealthy and neither are the vast majority of folks on here. You and I have one basic disagreement,I support the working class and you support the wealthy. You believe in tax breaks to the wealthy and big corporations,I support higher wages and tax breaks for the working man. My question is why you believe they are the all high and mighty and folks who work for A living such as yourself should continue to work for wages that are stagnet?
I said company? I posted a lot, I cant remember the post you are referring, show me, and maybe I can clarify.
Do the roads generate a profit? nope! But the HYW system was a demand that needed to meant. That was proper government, becuase it involved construction over state lines, and allowed commerce to expand much more rapidly.
And Obama tried spending on infrastructure to stimulate the economy, it failed. There's your proof government doesn't create wealth.
That is only part of the reason Unions were formed....They also helped to create, to the degree possible, a safer work environment...a process to seek redress with their employers...i.e. the grievance procedure...also they helped insure that people were not arbitrary separated from employment on a managers whim....work rules that benefited employees....lunch breaks...and other breaks during the course of a shift.......among other things...but I'm sure you get the drift...since your a Union man...
It is those things that make public sector Unions valuable in the workplace..... If those are conflicts of interests in your mind...I wonder if things like that are somehow not in your interests...and why would you seek to take that, which you enjoy, and deny it to others? ...
Sure unions helped create many of the labor laws we have today. They served a valuable purpose in history. Laws that government jobs must follow. But they still shouldn't be allowed in the public sector.
The conflict of interest arises in negotiations, and the wages and benefits, not work environment. See politicians see the tax pay as having unlimited funds. And are all to willing to sell the tax payer down the river to giver the unions what ever they want, because they know if they do, they will receive union votes and union money. So the negotiations are way to one sided.
A private business negotiates a bad contract, the business goes out of business. The government negotiates a bad contract, they just raise taxes on the private sector. Which hurts the private sector.
If Government spending was spent on the USA...and not having to being the worlds "policeman" and having Dominance in the World...and all the money that it entails there would be plenty of money to take care of our own citizens in the manner befitting a nation of wealth...and if that were to be the case, I doubt there would be any such debate on the matter...
It's sad that we must police the world sort of speak, but if we don't, days like 9/11 would be much more common. BTW, National Security is the Federal governments number job. We should never trade the money we spend on national security for spending on the people.
Last edited by a moderator:
If your so happy,then why you applying at wally world? My life does'nt suck but yours must,your on here almost every hour of every day. What do you consider rich?
Ya, so? Just more crybabies who don't what a subsidy is. And are pissed off that high speed rail isn't getting any money.
Because I don't care what they do with their jets and such. Unless its illegal, I don't care. And your a lying again, another baseless claims."I support the working class and you support the wealthy" "You believe in tax breaks to the wealthy and big corporations". Do you read anything I type? Where do you get this crap from? I support the working class too, I just believe in low to no taxes is what helps the working class the best. You put that "SUPPORT THE WEALTHY" stuff. Again, I know corporations pass the tax on to the consumer, so why tax em?
I also know that after every major tax cut, revenue to the federal government went up. Why? Because more jobs were created.
The stagnate wages. Well that goes back to government spending and inflation. Reduce spending and borrowing by the Feds, reduce taxes and some regulations and watch wages go up. Right now the supply and demand is on the side of employers, so they can and should pay a lower wage. Get the economy rolling again, and the supply and demand switches to the employees favor again.
Question do you support raising the minimum wage?
I already told you, go back and read you idiot! Yes I just insulted you, because I already stated the reason. Pilot asked that question of me, I answered him. You saw the question because you "LIKED" the post.
You life must suck, because you call it a meager existence. Changing your tune again?
What do I consider rich? If your happy with your life. Its all about the $$$$$ with you.
Why would I care? Is it not their jet, their credit card, or their car? They would pay tax like you on their own purchases.
Is your EVERY thought jealousy??????? It certainly appears so.
This is about the sixth time youve redefined your own post???? YOU compared bargaining rights to free speech and gun ownership; no one else. YOU inferred they were the same rights, which are Constitutional.
Why keep bringing it up, Charlie Sheen? (WINNING!!!!!)
Joe the plumber
TB Veteran
- Credits
- 0
Some how some way I'm gonna find you! Some how some way I'm gonna getch you! getch you! getch you! Some how some way I'm gonna turn your lights out!
I am not high and mighty. I try to provide the best I can with the skills God gave me. I've owned my own companies, I've driven trucks, I've managed companies, I've worked union jobs, and non-uinion jobs. We all work for the wage and working conditions that we voluntarily agreed to, or we leave and move on. When Yellow laid me off/ Roadway called me back to a merger under wage concessions, I resigned and moved on. I believed that I could do better. I do nothing out of jealousy, only Faith that God will lead me to HIS Plan for me.
If things are so bad for YOU, why do you stay and complain? Why don't you go make your own future better??????
Some how some way I'm gonna find you! Some how some way I'm gonna getch you! getch you! getch you! Some how some way I'm gonna turn your lights out!ka-pow!!
Am I the only one that doesn't get it?
Who IS Johnny, anyway?????
I do think regulating companies is bad! I'm a competitive guy. I like lower prices.
Hoffa (Sr) was in the 50s-70s. Prior to 1980, Congress regulated Trucking, making it virtually impossible to lose money (although Yellow Freight managed to do so, even then.)
There were union trucking companies on every street corner. If you got fired one place, you could walk half a block and get hired by another Teamster Company the same day. But it was unrealistic for pricing. Unions wanted a raise- no problem; all the Union Outfits simply raised prices and the customer had no choice but to pay it. There wasn't as much competition. Just like going to buy a car and you had to pay whatever the dealer demanded, no haggling, no deals. Every car on all the city's lots cost the same, and you Had to pay it......
Today, companies struggle just to survive. We have to compete, and adjust, or the Teamsters will go the way of the dinosaur.
First- it's the US Tax Code. The Corporations do NOT 'owe more'., nor would there necessarily be 'more revenue coming to the government' except for the writeoffs. Companies (and Individuals) live their lives according to the best advantage of the laws. Tax codes are Not for revenue- they are designed for Social Engineering so we will do more of an activity that our leftist-Leaning Government desires so they put in writeoffs to get that activity. If we ended Social engineering and concentrated on Revenue, the Tax code wouldn't be 25,000 pages- it would be one.
Second- only in Washington can paying taxes be a subsidy or a cut. it's Carter's and Tip Oneil's fault. We used to always have a Real Budget. A one dollar increase from zero was a 100% increase in spending. Congress had to work to make a real budget. Since Carter, the Budget is Baselined, counting on a 7% increase each year. How is that possible, when today we have a 1/2 of 1% growth rate? Only in Washington then are tax Increases in revenue called cuts (because they 'only' increased 4%, and the budget assumed 7%!). We haven't changed our tax rates for 10-12 years, yet Congress considers this all cuts and deficits!?!?! Obama's $800 Billion Stimulis and Bush's $800 TARP have worked their way into the Baseline. They were supposed to be one-time, but now they are always there, and assumed 7% larger!!!???!!! Only in Washington! Goahead- end the 'subsidy' (which isn't special, but for every company that files taxes, same as you or me)- and they will simply cut out another activity that equals that same amount. There still will not be an increase in revenue. It's THEIR money, not ours- and their accountants get paid well to find a way to Keep it!
Third- the 17th Amendment. Yes, appointing Senators was cumbersome, and often held things up. That was the genius of the Founders! It blocked Obamacare-type bills from being law and imposing undue mandates upon the states. Now Senators run popularity races. Duplicating the House of Reps. So groups of Liberal Senators can impose laws/mandates on small states that can't afford them. Which is back to Marxism- Central Planning, instead of Individual States looking out for their citizens' welfare. Now laws that California wants are imposed on Indiana, Wyoming, and Delaware. Against the Founder's Genius to protect us from ourselves.....
Pilot, you say you see no links between the USA and Marxism. Here is a link I grabbed (not particular to this one, i just grabbed one of MANY)
comparing the Ten Planks of Communism to the USA. The author in the site asks people to copy it and pass it around...
Ten *Planks of Communism
Posted below is a comparison of the original ten planks of the Communist Manifesto written by Karl Marx in 1848, along with the American adopted counterpart of each of the planks, The American people have truly been "buried in Communism" by their own politicians of both the Republican and Democratic parties. One other thing to remember, Karl Marx was stating in the Communist Manifesto that these planks will test whether a country has become commmunist or not. If they are all in effect and in force the country IS communist. Communism, but by any other name...??
(Sorry- have to click on it or I'll be in violation of Jeff's one paragraph rule)
comparing the Ten Planks of Communism to the USA. The author in the site asks people to copy it and pass it around...
Ten *Planks of Communism
Posted below is a comparison of the original ten planks of the Communist Manifesto written by Karl Marx in 1848, along with the American adopted counterpart of each of the planks, The American people have truly been "buried in Communism" by their own politicians of both the Republican and Democratic parties. One other thing to remember, Karl Marx was stating in the Communist Manifesto that these planks will test whether a country has become commmunist or not. If they are all in effect and in force the country IS communist. Communism, but by any other name...??
(Sorry- have to click on it or I'll be in violation of Jeff's one paragraph rule)
" Tax codes are Not for revenue- they are designed for Social Engineering so we will do more of an activity that our leftist-Leaning Government desires so they put in writeoffs to get that activity. If we ended Social engineering and concentrated on Revenue, the Tax code wouldn't be 25,000 pages- it would be one."
Virtually all law and governance has the effect of seeking to change behavior and could be considered "social engineering" to some extent. Prohibitions on muder, ****, ******* and littering are all policies aimed at discouraging undesirable behaviors. Many Governments rely on more sustained social engineering campaigns that create more gradual, but ultimately far-reaching, change. Examples include the "war on Drugs" we have going on... the increasing reach of intellectual property rights and copyrights, and the promotion of elections as a political tool. The campaign for promoting elections, which is by far the most successful of the three examples, has been in place for over two centuries.... This is is what Social engineering is. A case can be made that Governments also influence behavior more subtly through incentives and disincentives built into economic and tax policy, for instance, and have done so for centuries..Note I said built into tax policy...not a tax policy created as a sole means to manipulate.Taxes and hence the Tax code, was put into place because it became clear, not only to accountants at that time, but to everyone that the solvency of the nation was in jeopardy, similarly as it is today. We are always barraged by Politicians saying that we have to much spending and not enough coming in....Where does that money that is "coming in" come from if not through Tax revenue? Yes...Corporations and individuals have an obligation to pay taxes...Tax codes set the parameters regarding the percentages and all of the other fine details that encompass all those pages you site.. The current tax system is in desperate need of an overhaul to be sure...there is no disagreement on that....Tax overhaul is a possibility at some point......However social engineering is never going to stop.....and I think that we can agree on that as well.....
"only in Washington can paying taxes be a subsidy or a cut. it's Carter's and Tip Oneil's fault. We used to always have a Real Budget. A one dollar increase from zero was a 100% increase in spending. Congress had to work to make a real budget. Since Carter, the Budget is Baselined, counting on a 7% increase each year. How is that possible, when today we have a 1/2 of 1% growth rate? Only in Washington then are tax Increases in revenue called cuts (because they 'only' increased 4%, and the budget assumed 7%!). We haven't changed our tax rates for 10-12 years, yet Congress considers this all cuts and deficits!?!?! Obama's $800 Billion Stimulis and Bush's $800 TARP have worked their way into the Baseline. They were supposed to be one-time, but now they are always there, and assumed 7% larger!!!???!!! Only in Washington! Goahead- end the 'subsidy' (which isn't special, but for every company that files taxes, same as you or me)- and they will simply cut out another activity that equals that same amount. There still will not be an increase in revenue. It's THEIR money, not ours- and their accountants get paid well to find a way to Keep it!"
Paying taxes is not a cut or subsidy.....NOT paying taxes is more of an accurate statement of a cut or subsidy...and it's not just in Washington either...In your "analysis" you could almost substitute the word "profit" in place of "tax" and you'd find that same sort of accounting "trickery" occurs in the Corporate world of finance to....So not just in Washington...
" Now Senators run popularity races. Duplicating the House of Reps. So groups of Liberal Senators can impose laws/mandates on small states that can't afford them. Which is back to Marxism- Central Planning, instead of Individual States looking out for their citizens' welfare. Now laws that California wants are imposed on Indiana, Wyoming, and Delaware. Against the Founder's Genius to protect us from ourselves....."
I suppose if they were "groups of conservative Senators" then you wouldn't have an issue with that....If you believe that Individuals states should look out for their own citizens then why do we even have the "United States"? You used the word "citizens" as opposed to "residents to describe people living in whchever state...That tells me something..... "Citizen" means a person Born or naturalized in the "United States"... not a particular state...
There were Senators prior to the 17th amendment...Selected.... The 17th amendment did away with the cumbersome, obstructionist process, with a simple premise, the Senators would be elected by the people, just as Representatives were at the time....Senators now had to cater to hundreds of thousands, or millions, of people instead of just a few. That to me seems to make them more accountable to the people and served to Decentralize power by giving more voice to the people...Electing senators didn't duplicate the House anymore than it did by appointing them...and it actually made it a more effective system checks and balances.... But I guess if you think it comes back to "Marxism" that's your prerogative... and on that point I guess we will just have to agree to disagree....
