Private Sector Workers Need To Sacrifice

[kaz]

unions did not kill GM, GM management killed GM by not producing the products that consumers demand, the union workers had nothing at all to do with that....lousy GM management did....the non union bosses at the top made the bad decisions.

and as I have also said, GM management agreed to the benefits, while in negotiations....this is GM'S FAULT, not the unions for asking.

Actually it was both management and unions. It was also government. GM management did make many bad decisions including holding onto large car models too long. But when they tried to change, Unions fought them tooth and nail to prevent automatizing processes, get labor costs in line with reality, closing unproductive plants, extending hours and so forth. Right to Work States and offshore production then destroyed it as it stagnated reacting far too slowly to changing environments. I'm from Michigan and a Michigan MBA, the car companies recruited me heavily. I went to NY to work in management consulting instead.

the corporations can say NO.....they didn't, they agreed to the pension packages etc, when they were in their hay day I presume....regardless, there would be no pension plan problem IF GM HAD produced what the customers wanted.....their sales DROPPED and their pensions became a burden for them BECAUSE of bad management decisions.....

the unions do not have MORE power than the corporation and union negotiations....it is an equally shared position. Gm had no foresight on where their products should be going....and this is their downfall....

if they had produced what customers wanted, there would be no problem...

As the saying goes...."Sales... heals all wounds"....they didn't have the sales, because they did not create and produce, what the customers wanted. Period. the buck stops there...imho.

I agreed with you that GM made bad decisions. You're obviously not aware though that unions not only fought automation and plant closures but they fought GM closing existing car lines and changing to lines customers wanted because they saw it as an end around to get automation and plant closures. It was, but those were necessary for survival.

When I say I blamed both, by that I meant I blamed both. By your only blaming management, you're going down the naive, workers paradise lie that destroyed Michigan and crippled Ohio to this day. To thrive, we need economic efficiency. Unions are inefficient and destroy the industries they are in. That is a factor, but there are others. And to your point yes, GM made many bad decisions. But again to say it was just management is naive.

 

[boedicca]

B'loney. The Unionized Workers benefited at the expense of the legitimate claims of bondholders, all courtesy of government interference.

GM bondholders proposed April 30 they get a 58 percent ownership stake in the Detroit-based automaker in exchange for their $27 billion in unsecured claims. Bondholders are objecting to GM’s proposal they get a 10 percent share of GM equity while a union health fund would get $10 billion in cash and as much as a 39 percent stake for $20 billion in unsecured claims.

GM Bankruptcy Probable as Obama Shields UAW Benefits (Update2) - Bloomberg

And here's how it ended up, with the bond holders getting screwed over and the UAW owning a chunk of the company.

The "new GM," is formed from the purchase of the desirable assets of "old GM" by an entity called "NGMCO Inc." via the bankruptcy process.[63] NGMCO Inc. was renamed to "General Motors Company" upon purchase of the assets and trade name from "old GM," with the claims of former stakeholders to be handled by the "Motors Liquidation Company."[51][60] The purchase was supported by $50 billion in U.S. Treasury loans, giving the U.S. government a 60.8% stake. The Queen of Canada, in right of both Canada and Ontario, holds 11.7% and the United Auto Workers, through its health-care trust (VEBA), holds a further 17.5%. The remaining 10% is held by unsecured creditors.[64] On July 10, 2009, GM reported 88,000 U.S. employees, and announced plans to reduce its U.S. workforce to 68,000 by the end of 2009 after filing for bankruptcy.[65]

General Motors Chapter 11 reorganization - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[shintao]

unions did not kill GM, GM management killed GM by not producing the products that consumers demand, the union workers had nothing at all to do with that....lousy GM management did....the non union bosses at the top made the bad decisions.

and as I have also said, GM management agreed to the benefits, while in negotiations....this is GM'S FAULT, not the unions for asking.

Actually it was both management and unions. It was also government. GM management did make many bad decisions including holding onto large car models too long. But when they tried to change, Unions fought them tooth and nail to prevent automatizing processes, get labor costs in line with reality, closing unproductive plants, extending hours and so forth. Right to Work States and offshore production then destroyed it as it stagnated reacting far too slowly to changing environments. I'm from Michigan and a Michigan MBA, the car companies recruited me heavily. I went to NY to work in management consulting instead.

Hmm, I don't find that to be the case. The automation required new job descriptions, more workers, and higher pay for technological work. That is what was negotiated for, and the corporations didn't want to go along with these changes they created, which eventually led to several other departments as automation spread through the plants. When you pay for a labor to dig you hole, don't expect to get him at the same rate an engineer gets to run a back-hoe. You have to step and pay your way. That was the problem, the corporations didn't want to pay for what they wanted. They eventually did.

 

[Care4all]

B'loney. The Unionized Workers benefited at the expense of the legitimate claims of bondholders, all courtesy of government interference.

GM bondholders proposed April 30 they get a 58 percent ownership stake in the Detroit-based automaker in exchange for their $27 billion in unsecured claims. Bondholders are objecting to GM’s proposal they get a 10 percent share of GM equity while a union health fund would get $10 billion in cash and as much as a 39 percent stake for $20 billion in unsecured claims.

GM Bankruptcy Probable as Obama Shields UAW Benefits (Update2) - Bloomberg

And here's how it ended up, with the bond holders getting screwed over and the UAW owning a chunk of the company.

The "new GM," is formed from the purchase of the desirable assets of "old GM" by an entity called "NGMCO Inc." via the bankruptcy process.[63] NGMCO Inc. was renamed to "General Motors Company" upon purchase of the assets and trade name from "old GM," with the claims of former stakeholders to be handled by the "Motors Liquidation Company."[51][60] The purchase was supported by $50 billion in U.S. Treasury loans, giving the U.S. government a 60.8% stake. The Queen of Canada, in right of both Canada and Ontario, holds 11.7% and the United Auto Workers, through its health-care trust (VEBA), holds a further 17.5%. The remaining 10% is held by unsecured creditors.[64] On July 10, 2009, GM reported 88,000 U.S. employees, and announced plans to reduce its U.S. workforce to 68,000 by the end of 2009 after filing for bankruptcy.[65]

General Motors Chapter 11 reorganization - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

the bond holder claims WERE UNSECURED CLAIMS, they knew this when they bought them, no? they took this risk, knowing the risk....no?

UNSECURED claims is exactly that, unsecured.

 

[kaz]

unions did not kill GM, GM management killed GM by not producing the products that consumers demand, the union workers had nothing at all to do with that....lousy GM management did....the non union bosses at the top made the bad decisions.

and as I have also said, GM management agreed to the benefits, while in negotiations....this is GM'S FAULT, not the unions for asking.

Actually it was both management and unions. It was also government. GM management did make many bad decisions including holding onto large car models too long. But when they tried to change, Unions fought them tooth and nail to prevent automatizing processes, get labor costs in line with reality, closing unproductive plants, extending hours and so forth. Right to Work States and offshore production then destroyed it as it stagnated reacting far too slowly to changing environments. I'm from Michigan and a Michigan MBA, the car companies recruited me heavily. I went to NY to work in management consulting instead.

Hmm, I don't find that to be the case. The automation required new job descriptions, more workers, and higher pay for technological work. That is what was negotiated for, and the corporations didn't want to go along with these changes they created, which eventually led to several other departments as automation spread through the plants. When you pay for a labor to dig you hole, don't expect to get him at the same rate an engineer gets to run a back-hoe. You have to step and pay your way. That was the problem, the corporations didn't want to pay for what they wanted. They eventually did.

Sure. Got it. Unions were OK with letting go high hourly rate low educated workers and hiring fewer, higher paid engineers, but companies wouldn't pay the engineers. That's what happened. You are a hoot, my friend.

 

[shintao]

B'loney. The Unionized Workers benefited at the expense of the legitimate claims of bondholders, all courtesy of government interference.

You buy bonds, you take risks.
You bank worker benefits, you get paid back first.

GM bondholders proposed April 30 they get a 58 percent ownership stake in the Detroit-based automaker in exchange for their $27 billion in unsecured claims. Bondholders are objecting to GM’s proposal they get a 10 percent share of GM equity while a union health fund would get $10 billion in cash and as much as a 39 percent stake for $20 billion in unsecured claims.

GM Bankruptcy Probable as Obama Shields UAW Benefits (Update2) - Bloomberg

And here's how it ended up, with the bond holders getting screwed over and the UAW owning a chunk of the company.

The "new GM," is formed from the purchase of the desirable assets of "old GM" by an entity called "NGMCO Inc." via the bankruptcy process.[63] NGMCO Inc. was renamed to "General Motors Company" upon purchase of the assets and trade name from "old GM," with the claims of former stakeholders to be handled by the "Motors Liquidation Company."[51][60] The purchase was supported by $50 billion in U.S. Treasury loans, giving the U.S. government a 60.8% stake. The Queen of Canada, in right of both Canada and Ontario, holds 11.7% and the United Auto Workers, through its health-care trust (VEBA), holds a further 17.5%. The remaining 10% is held by unsecured creditors.[64] On July 10, 2009, GM reported 88,000 U.S. employees, and announced plans to reduce its U.S. workforce to 68,000 by the end of 2009 after filing for bankruptcy.[65]

General Motors Chapter 11 reorganization - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Once again, the bail out and the bankruptcy are both bullshit. GM had the assets for all of this tied up in foreign auto companies they own, and could have sold off to pay their debts.


About General Motors – General Motors, one of the world’s largest automakers, traces its roots back to 1908. With its global headquarters in Detroit, GM employs 209,000 people in every major region of the world and does business in more than 120 countries. GM and its strategic partners produce cars and trucks in 31 countries, and sell and service these vehicles through the following brands: Buick, Cadillac, Chevrolet, GMC, Daewoo, Holden, Isuzu, Jiefang, Opel, Vauxhall, and Wuling. GM’s largest national market is China, followed by the United States, Brazil, the United Kingdom, Germany, Canada, and Russia. GM’s OnStar subsidiary is the industry leader in vehicle safety, security and information services. General Motors acquired operations from General Motors Corporation on July 10, 2009, and references to prior periods in this and other press materials refer to operations of the old General Motors Corporation. More information on the new General Motors can be found at General Motors | GM.com.

Fostering Global Partnerships and Consumer Relationships
GM is the majority shareholder in GM Daewoo Auto & Technology Co. of South Korea, and has product, powertrain and purchasing collaborations with Suzuki Motor Corp. and Isuzu Motors Ltd. of Japan. GM also has advanced technology collaborations with Chrysler LLC, Daimler AG, BMW AG and Toyota Motor Corp. and vehicle manufacturing ventures with several automakers around the world, including Toyota, Suzuki, Shanghai Automotive Industry Corp. of China, AVTOVAZ of Russia and Renault SA of France.


The Global Reach of GM Parts and Accessories
Genuine GM Parts and accessories are sold under the GM, GM Performance Parts, GM Goodwrench and ACDelco brands through GM Service and Parts Operations, which supplies GM dealerships and distributors worldwide. GM engines and transmissions are marketed through GM Powertrain.

GM Worldwide
North America
South America
Europe
Africa
Asia/Middle East
Australia/Oceania
Canada
Mexico
United States
New Zealand

 

[kaz]

Once again, the bail out and the bankruptcy are both bullshit. GM had the assets for all of this tied up in foreign auto companies they own, and could have sold off to pay their debts

This is almost true, except you don't tell the rest of the story. Companies don't repatriate their money because government would take 35% of it. They can keep all of it overseas, or they can bring it back and pay over 1/3 of it in taxes. That is continuing today. Bush reduced the rate to 5% for one year and government got more money in taxes from repatriation of money then they ever get at the 35% rate. So, if GM had brought the money home, government would have taken a big chunk of it and it wouldn't have been enough. Don't you love it, and you're the liberal?

The US is btw the ONLY country in the world that taxes the repatriation of money. It is the most butt stupid thing we can do to our companies. We want the money home, so we put up a hurdle and prevent them from doing it. Today the libs are running around saying how much cash companies are sitting on and blaming them for the economy becuase they won't spend it. What they don't tell you is the majority of it is overseas and politicians are blocking them from bringing it home. The same ones who are criticizing them for not spending it. And now you know....the rest of the story...

 

[shintao]

Actually it was both management and unions. It was also government. GM management did make many bad decisions including holding onto large car models too long. But when they tried to change, Unions fought them tooth and nail to prevent automatizing processes, get labor costs in line with reality, closing unproductive plants, extending hours and so forth. Right to Work States and offshore production then destroyed it as it stagnated reacting far too slowly to changing environments. I'm from Michigan and a Michigan MBA, the car companies recruited me heavily. I went to NY to work in management consulting instead.

Hmm, I don't find that to be the case. The automation required new job descriptions, more workers, and higher pay for technological work. That is what was negotiated for, and the corporations didn't want to go along with these changes they created, which eventually led to several other departments as automation spread through the plants. When you pay for a labor to dig you hole, don't expect to get him at the same rate an engineer gets to run a back-hoe. You have to step and pay your way. That was the problem, the corporations didn't want to pay for what they wanted. They eventually did.

Sure. Got it. Unions were OK with letting go high hourly rate low educated workers and hiring fewer, higher paid engineers, but companies wouldn't pay the engineers. That's what happened. You are a hoot, my friend.

Lower paid workers were turned into chasers, workers who scrambled about to back up the higher paid automation man with tools or whatever he needed. And you have me laughing at someone so gullible as you are, but of course what you think of me, or I of you, doesn't change the facts, does it? It just lowers your credibility.

A worker is assigned a job to do for x-Amount of hours consistently. Any other other problems from design to sales, are not his problem as long as he does what he has been instructed to do by the corporation. 8 hours = 8 hours pay. All your other problems are management & corporate heads, so laugh that off..........

 

[kaz]

Sure. Got it. Unions were OK with letting go high hourly rate low educated workers and hiring fewer, higher paid engineers, but companies wouldn't pay the engineers. That's what happened. You are a hoot, my friend.

Lower paid workers were turned into chasers, workers who scrambled about to back up the higher paid automation man with tools or whatever he needed

This is true, but there are fewer of them then it took to run the plan before the automation. It was that reduction the unions objected to.

And you have laughing at someone so gullible as you are, but of course what you think of me, or I of you, doesn't change the facts, does it? It just lowers your credibility.

The Unions blocked the changes. That is the fact. That you think they were wrong and don't think they should is fine, but you're arguing your opinion of what they should have thought is relevant and what they actually did is not relevant, and you say it lowers my credibility to focus on what happened instead of what you think? You have delusions of grandeur. How do you get your head through doorways?

A worker is assigned a job to do for x-Amount of hours consistently. Any other other problems from design to sales, are not his problem as long as he does what he has been instructed to do by the corporation. 8 hours = 8 hours pay. All your other problems are management & corporate heads, so laugh that off..........

The issue was staff reductions. Car companies couldn't spend billions on automating plants and then keep staffing levels the same and they didn't need as many people to do the work. So automating and then letting the workers watch TV and get paid would not have saved the car companies. Sorry.

 

[Care4all]

not all of the money overseas is from the overseas operations of the corporations....due to loop holes, some of that money overseas is money that came from the us operations...to avoid any taxes.

35% is the marginal rate on corp taxes, but not in any way the rate they pay in taxes...this is the effective rate which is a good 15% lower than the marginal rate, on average....

 

[shintao]

Once again, the bail out and the bankruptcy are both bullshit. GM had the assets for all of this tied up in foreign auto companies they own, and could have sold off to pay their debts

This is almost true, except you don't tell the rest of the story. Companies don't repatriate their money because government would take 35% of it. They can keep all of it overseas, or they can bring it back and pay over 1/3 of it in taxes. That is continuing today. Bush reduced the rate to 5% for one year and government got more money in taxes from repatriation of money then they ever get at the 35% rate. So, if GM had brought the money home, government would have taken a big chunk of it and it wouldn't have been enough. Don't you love it, and you're the liberal?

The US is btw the ONLY country in the world that taxes the repatriation of money. It is the most butt stupid thing we can do to our companies. We want the money home, so we put up a hurdle and prevent them from doing it. Today the libs are running around saying how much cash companies are sitting on and blaming them for the economy becuase they won't spend it. What they don't tell you is the majority of it is overseas and politicians are blocking them from bringing it home. The same ones who are criticizing them for not spending it. And now you know....the rest of the story...

I don't doubt that as being close to the truth, but that isn't America's problem or mine on how they manage their money. Corporations have responsibilitys & obligations, and should have been forced to bail themselves out for their own choices. Those cars made in other plants could have been made in America & exported. They went for foreign wages and foreign materials, and that is their choice.

 

[Big Fitz]

The private sector workers need to take a 20% cut in pay and benefits to help corporations to stimulate the economy and be able to hire more workers to boost the GDP, and lower unemployment costs and associated taxes. It is no secret we are falling behind, and everybody ought to be able to give a little to help America. The only other way to do this is raise taxes and give corporations subsidies to hire workers, which will cost more to manage through the government.

A recent study by the Economic Policy Institute (pdf) concluded that private workers are making more than public workers. According to the executive summary of the study, "Comparisons controlling for education, experience, organizational size, gender, race, ethnicity, citizenship, and disability reveal that public employees of state and local governments earn less than comparable private sector employees. On an annual basis, full-time state and local employee government employees in Michigan are undercompensated by approximately 5.3% compared with similar private sector workers."

Meanwhile, the group Citizens for Accountability in Reform notes on its site that the study is the fourth in the last three years to challenge the perception that public workers are somehow over-compensated.


http://accountabilityinreform.files.wordpress.com/2011/02/epicompstudyfinal.pdf

[sniff]
The court can't support itself in such meager settings. A tax on the peasants is required to support us in the manner in which we are accustomed and desire. We do not believe they are suffering the degree of pain we are here in rulership, as well as preferring a lower standard of living. Otherwise, they would be in government like we.
[/sniff]

Fucking collectivist neo-nobility elitist shitheads. Privatize their asses and force them to live on their merits.

 

[kaz]

not all of the money overseas is from the overseas operations of the corporations....due to loop holes, some of that money overseas is money that came from the us operations...to avoid any taxes

Excellent. Evading taxes is patriotic.

35% is the marginal rate on corp taxes, but not in any way the rate they pay in taxes...this is the effective rate which is a good 15% lower than the marginal rate, on average....

I'm not referring to the corporate tax rate, the 35% is a tax just to repatriate the money. You have to think about that and think it's idiotic to tax companies for bringing money back overseas into the US, which would clearly benefit our economy. And again, we are the ONLY country that does that. We have in ways started to out socialist the euroweenies. Our corporate tax rate isn't #1 in the western world, but it's near the top.

You can argue "fairness" in taxing corporations and I'll disagree with you. But unless there is a universally accepted definition of fair it's your right. But you cannot argue that corporate taxes are not job killers, because that's just fact.

 

[kaz]

I don't doubt that as being close to the truth, but that isn't America's problem or mine on how they manage their money. Corporations have responsibilitys & obligations, and should have been forced to bail themselves out for their own choices. Those cars made in other plants could have been made in America & exported. They went for foreign wages and foreign materials, and that is their choice.

I am with you in 100% opposing the bailouts

 

[Charles_Main]

The private sector workers need to take a 20% cut in pay and benefits to help corporations to stimulate the economy and be able to hire more workers to boost the GDP, and lower unemployment costs and associated taxes. It is no secret we are falling behind, and everybody ought to be able to give a little to help America. The only other way to do this is raise taxes and give corporations subsidies to hire workers, which will cost more to manage through the government.

A recent study by the Economic Policy Institute (pdf) concluded that private workers are making more than public workers. According to the executive summary of the study, "Comparisons controlling for education, experience, organizational size, gender, race, ethnicity, citizenship, and disability reveal that public employees of state and local governments earn less than comparable private sector employees. On an annual basis, full-time state and local employee government employees in Michigan are undercompensated by approximately 5.3% compared with similar private sector workers."

Meanwhile, the group Citizens for Accountability in Reform notes on its site that the study is the fourth in the last three years to challenge the perception that public workers are somehow over-compensated.


http://accountabilityinreform.files.wordpress.com/2011/02/epicompstudyfinal.pdf

Yep private sector Workers need to sacrifice so Public Sector Union Employees can keep their Awesome Contracts.

 

[shintao]

Sure. Got it. Unions were OK with letting go high hourly rate low educated workers and hiring fewer, higher paid engineers, but companies wouldn't pay the engineers. That's what happened. You are a hoot, my friend.

Lower paid workers were turned into chasers, workers who scrambled about to back up the higher paid automation man with tools or whatever he needed

This is true, but there are fewer of them then it took to run the plan before the automation. It was that reduction the unions objected to.

And you have laughing at someone so gullible as you are, but of course what you think of me, or I of you, doesn't change the facts, does it? It just lowers your credibility.

The Unions blocked the changes. That is the fact. That you think they were wrong and don't think they should is fine, but you're arguing your opinion of what they should have thought is relevant and what they actually did is not relevant, and you say it lowers my credibility to focus on what happened instead of what you think? You have delusions of grandeur. How do you get your head through doorways?

Negotiating is not blocking, it is seeking a compromise. Was there a strike? That would be blocking.

I take the time to investigate the issue. Read: “An Economic‘Frankenstein’”: Worker Absenteeism and Grievances

And you must be losing this debate if you still are turning to attack mode of the messenger. Sad for you.

A worker is assigned a job to do for x-Amount of hours consistently. Any other other problems from design to sales, are not his problem as long as he does what he has been instructed to do by the corporation. 8 hours = 8 hours pay. All your other problems are management & corporate heads, so laugh that off..........

The issue was staff reductions. Car companies couldn't spend billions on automating plants and then keep staffing levels the same and they didn't need as many people to do the work. So automating and then letting the workers watch TV and get paid would not have saved the car companies. Sorry.

I understand they needed less employees, that is why the corporation went along with paying higher wages to technical workers. I get that.

 

[boedicca]

not all of the money overseas is from the overseas operations of the corporations....due to loop holes, some of that money overseas is money that came from the us operations...to avoid any taxes

Excellent. Evading taxes is patriotic.

35% is the marginal rate on corp taxes, but not in any way the rate they pay in taxes...this is the effective rate which is a good 15% lower than the marginal rate, on average....

I'm not referring to the corporate tax rate, the 35% is a tax just to repatriate the money. You have to think about that and think it's idiotic to tax companies for bringing money back overseas into the US, which would clearly benefit our economy. And again, we are the ONLY country that does that. We have in ways started to out socialist the euroweenies. Our corporate tax rate isn't #1 in the western world, but it's near the top.

You can argue "fairness" in taxing corporations and I'll disagree with you. But unless there is a universally accepted definition of fair it's your right. But you cannot argue that corporate taxes are not job killers, because that's just fact.

The corporate tax rate isn't helping the economy. The U.S. has an effective tax rate that is more nearly double the average for OECD countries.

This bulletin presents estimates of effective corporate tax rates on new capital investment for 83 countries. “Effective” tax rates take into account statutory rates plus tax-base items that affect taxes paid on new investment, such as depreciation deductions, inventory allowances, and interest deductions. Our calculations also account for other taxes that affect investment, such as retail sales taxes on capital purchases and asset-based taxes.

We find that the U.S. effective corporate tax rate on new investment was 34.6% in 2010, which was the highest rate in the OECD and the fifth-highest rate among 83 countries. The average OECD rate was 18.6%, and the average rate for 83 countries was 17.7%.

TaxProf Blog: U.S. Effective Corporate Tax Rate Among Highest in World

 

[Care4all]

i think 35% flat rate on repatriation of money is outrageous! but I am uncertain 35% is the effective rate, even on repatriation.

I don't see avoiding taxes through loopholes as patriotic...I see it putting the burden of taxes on all of us left in the usa paying our taxes, who can not just pick up and move ourselves or redesignate ourselves to a PO box in bermuda.

 

[Care4all]

not all of the money overseas is from the overseas operations of the corporations....due to loop holes, some of that money overseas is money that came from the us operations...to avoid any taxes

Excellent. Evading taxes is patriotic.

35% is the marginal rate on corp taxes, but not in any way the rate they pay in taxes...this is the effective rate which is a good 15% lower than the marginal rate, on average....

I'm not referring to the corporate tax rate, the 35% is a tax just to repatriate the money. You have to think about that and think it's idiotic to tax companies for bringing money back overseas into the US, which would clearly benefit our economy. And again, we are the ONLY country that does that. We have in ways started to out socialist the euroweenies. Our corporate tax rate isn't #1 in the western world, but it's near the top.

You can argue "fairness" in taxing corporations and I'll disagree with you. But unless there is a universally accepted definition of fair it's your right. But you cannot argue that corporate taxes are not job killers, because that's just fact.

The corporate tax rate isn't helping the economy. The U.S. has an effective tax rate that is more nearly double the average for OECD countries.

This bulletin presents estimates of effective corporate tax rates on new capital investment for 83 countries. “Effective” tax rates take into account statutory rates plus tax-base items that affect taxes paid on new investment, such as depreciation deductions, inventory allowances, and interest deductions. Our calculations also account for other taxes that affect investment, such as retail sales taxes on capital purchases and asset-based taxes.

We find that the U.S. effective corporate tax rate on new investment was 34.6% in 2010, which was the highest rate in the OECD and the fifth-highest rate among 83 countries. The average OECD rate was 18.6%, and the average rate for 83 countries was 17.7%.

TaxProf Blog: U.S. Effective Corporate Tax Rate Among Highest in World

What was exxonmobile's federal effective tax rate? What was GM's federal effective tax rate, what was Walmart's? I would BET 10 bucks that none of the above came even close to the 35% federal effective rate.....

we are talking Federal corporate taxes are we not?

 

[Momanohedhunter]

they negotiated it as a benefit with their private employer...if their employer agreed, then we should have no say, what so ever in it....it's up to the employee, union and employer...

it's none or your beeswax....basically.

and no tax dollars go to private union ? they get no kick backs from the government ? And a privilege few benefit from thees deals. Take GM, an already inferior union product . they assemble there product in Mexico. They are responsible for jobs going over seas to Chinese prisoners whose only motivation is a gun in there ear. Go Union. They are destroying the country I live in so it is my bees wax.

unions did not kill GM, GM management killed GM by not producing the products that consumers demand, the union workers had nothing at all to do with that....lousy GM management did....the non union bosses at the top made the bad decisions.

and as I have also said, GM management agreed to the benefits, while in negotiations....this is GM'S FAULT, not the unions for asking.

Low quality worker manufacturing low quality parts and assembled by cheap labor in Mexico equals a shitty product and a government bailout . And a good deal of the bail out went to union slobs. Your tax dollars hard at work.



That is your typical union member. If that happened at a non union job there asses would have been fired at the door when they came back. Wonder what happened to them?