Wages and benefits

[JFK_USA]

A. It takes 20 years to get tenure? Really


B. I believe in merit raises do you?


C. Why do you think it falls on the private sector to pay for the retirement benefits and health care benefits of the public employee? The private sector is expected by you and your ilk to pay for theirs and pay for yours also. How is that fair? Please explain.


D. Do you really think that conducting a war on the rich will land you in Utopia?


E. What do you propose to replace corporations with?

A. In my district, yes. Those its a pretty conservative district. Tenure was established so that Assholes like Walker can't fire teachers because he disagrees with him or superintendents that don't like teachers who disagree with their plans. Why is that so awful?

B. Of course, but everytime businesses say they are for merit pay, and a worker performs at a higher level, they don't want to pay them any higher. Merit pay in a perfect world would make sense, but as proven many times, businesses can't be trusted to do whats right.

C. I think that employers and employees should each contribute to an employee's retirement. If an employee contributes 5k, and employer should at least match that. But I think Pensions are the best option. Work it like social security, mandatory pay in now then its available to you at your average wage if you retire at the company. So lets say a worker is required to put 10% of gross wages into the pension plan from day 1. They aren't eligible for the pension unless you work 15 consecutive years with the company. Company matches 50% of all contributions that were made that year. Then it rewards a person's loyality and hard work. Whats so horrible about that?

D. It's not a war on the rich, we want our fair share. Their needs to be a working class and a upper class. Having everyone either poor or rich doesn't do the economy any good.

E. Have I suggest removal of corporations? No but I am asking they actually make an INVESTMENT IN THEIR WORKERS, not squeeze them for everything they have to give and throw them out like trash.

Nothing is horrible about that. But that's not what happened in Wisconsin. The private sector was carrying the public sector's load. They cannot afford it. Therefore either soneome gives up a little or jobs are lost. I say let the public employee pay a share of his or her health care and retirement just as the rest of us are expected to do.

Okay if they keep giving up money, if the fiscal situation gets better, will they get the chance to get a raise or will they never get that money back? See like you see with the NFL labor talks, the players give up anything, they will NEVER GET IT BACK. Same with Teachers, you give up anything, you never get the chance to get that back.

So this is about not giving up your negotiating leverage. But they even did that and still no compromise.

 

[chanel]

Some moderate Rs have asked the gov to compromise and suspend collective bargaining for 2 yrs while economy recovers. Gov said "no compromise"

 

[WillowTree]

A. In my district, yes. Those its a pretty conservative district. Tenure was established so that Assholes like Walker can't fire teachers because he disagrees with him or superintendents that don't like teachers who disagree with their plans. Why is that so awful?

B. Of course, but everytime businesses say they are for merit pay, and a worker performs at a higher level, they don't want to pay them any higher. Merit pay in a perfect world would make sense, but as proven many times, businesses can't be trusted to do whats right.

C. I think that employers and employees should each contribute to an employee's retirement. If an employee contributes 5k, and employer should at least match that. But I think Pensions are the best option. Work it like social security, mandatory pay in now then its available to you at your average wage if you retire at the company. So lets say a worker is required to put 10% of gross wages into the pension plan from day 1. They aren't eligible for the pension unless you work 15 consecutive years with the company. Company matches 50% of all contributions that were made that year. Then it rewards a person's loyality and hard work. Whats so horrible about that?

D. It's not a war on the rich, we want our fair share. Their needs to be a working class and a upper class. Having everyone either poor or rich doesn't do the economy any good.

E. Have I suggest removal of corporations? No but I am asking they actually make an INVESTMENT IN THEIR WORKERS, not squeeze them for everything they have to give and throw them out like trash.

Nothing is horrible about that. But that's not what happened in Wisconsin. The private sector was carrying the public sector's load. They cannot afford it. Therefore either soneome gives up a little or jobs are lost. I say let the public employee pay a share of his or her health care and retirement just as the rest of us are expected to do.

Okay if they keep giving up money, if the fiscal situation gets better, will they get the chance to get a raise or will they never get that money back? See like you see with the NFL labor talks, the players give up anything, they will NEVER GET IT BACK. Same with Teachers, you give up anything, you never get the chance to get that back.

So this is about not giving up your negotiating leverage. But they even did that and still no compromise.

So, I guess your bottom line is "it's better for 2000 teachers to lose their jobs than it is to give up anything." and, "it's just fine that a private sector employee pay for the public employee." I don't see how that's at all fair but so be it.

 

[Iowa10000]

The truth of this whole operation is this. Corp need everything the govt has provided and is providing then with to do business in this country. From roads to electricty to airports to seaports, to hospitals to schools and universities. The whole country is directed towards providing what we need to have an ecconomy.
Most people in this country use little or what is needed in their daily lifes except in the process of earning a living for their families or to be able to do their jobs for their employers. They work and are paid enough to get by and maybe have a few extras in life but little chance of ever becomming rich nor do they have a drive to spend their lives doing that.
Now we have those who put a lot of effort into becomming as rich as they can using everything our country has. They make money and then they let that money make money all the time increasing what they own and have. And that is fine that they use what america has to give them.

But now comes the rub, me being one person who is just happy with living my life and not really inclined to get into the world of lets race to the top in wealth somehow do not see how those who do and use everything there is at their finger tips should not owe a lot more for what they use than the rest of us who are just happy leading our lifes.

 

[Iowa10000]

The US has the second highest corporate tax in the world. Of course the jobs went overseas. It's all about money. But you want to tax corporations even more. And finally, do you know who really pays for corporate taxes? I'll give you one guess.

The one guess I will give you is the WEALTHY will not be able to make as much as they would have, as corp profits don't go to the average guy, now do they!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


But you need to read this young man and you will see why bush had to give corp's a break. LOL

Corporations are now paying the lowest levels of taxes in the post-World War II era. In fiscal 2002 and 2003, federal corporate incomes taxes dropped to their lowest sustained level as a share of the economy since World War II. Only a single year during the early Reagan administration was lower.
In 1986, President Ronald Reagan fully abandoned his earlier policy of showering tax breaks on corporations. The Tax Reform Act of 1986 closed tens of billions of dollars in corporate loopholes, so that by 1988, the overall effective corporate tax rate for large corporations was up to 26.5 percent. That improvement occurred even though the statutory corporate tax rate was cut from 46 percent to 34 percent as part of the 1986 reforms.

In the 1990s, however, many corporations began to find ways around the 1986 reforms, abetted by tax-shelter schemes devised by major accounting firms.

Effective corporate tax rates then plummeted, thanks to Bush administration-backed tax breaks passed in 2002 and 2003, continued corporate offshore tax-sheltering, and the refusal of the Congress and White House to crack down on even the most abusive inherited corporate tax-sheltering activities.

Corporate taxes paid for more than a quarter of federal outlays in the 1950s and a fifth in the 1960s. They began to decline during the Nixon administration, yet even by the second half of the 1990s, corporate taxes still covered 11 percent of the cost of federal programs. But in fiscal years 2002 and 2003, corporate taxes paid for a mere 6 percent of federal expenses.

Billions and billions
Over the 2001-2003 period, the 275 Fortune 500 companies that were profitable each year and for which adequate information is publicly available earned almost $1.1 trillion in pretax profits in the United States. Had all of those profits been reported to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and taxed at the statutory 35 percent corporate tax rate, then the 275 companies would have paid $370 billion in income taxes over the three years. But instead, the companies reported only about half of their profits - $557 billion - to the IRS. Instead of a 35 percent tax rate, the companies as a group paid a three-year effective tax rate of only 18.4 percent.

You do see that one item in there where corp's paid 25% of the federal outlay, but today they pay as low as 6%, now who do you think picks up the difference?

 

[WillowTree]

Iowa. I can guarantee you if you tax the Heinz corporation, John Kerry is going to raise the price of your ketchup! That's a fact. And he parks his yacht in another state to avoid paying taxes, then he get on TV and talks about the "evil rich" and the "corporations" does that give you any clues?

 

[Iowa10000]

So, I guess your bottom line is "it's better for 2000 teachers to lose their jobs than it is to give up anything." and, "it's just fine that a private sector employee pay for the public employee." I don't see how that's at all fair but so be it.

What stupidity at our best is this. Of course the private sector is going to have to pay for what public sector does for them. Can you explain how that wouldn't happen? They are providing you with a service are they not? They are providing you things like Police and fire protection, and teaching your kids and when if they get sick at school they even have a nurse to look after your kids, and to make sure they get to school and back they even have people to fix the roads and clean the snow off when needed.

Now if we don't need these people then just lay them off, end of the story and well see how long and well life goes on for you.

 

[Iowa10000]

I won't buy his product. The truth is he price his product to compete with others, and if he makes 100 million and has to pay 6 million in taxes so be it. What you want him to do is make the 100 million, keep the six and pay a div to shareholders who for all pratical purpose are the rich.

They paid 25% of the budget in corp taxes at one time, now they pay about 6%, so how are they getting screwed and teachers are having a hayday. LOL

 

[Iowa10000]

enough of talking to dummy's, I am going to watch BB as cry about the 20,000 I lost today in the market.

 

[Avatar4321]

20K a year for everybody. You aren't part of the top 2% so you deserve nothing according to Republicans.

Maybe you should lay off the MJ and actually participate in the discussions. Then you wouldn't make such ridiculous assertions.

 

[JFK_USA]

The truthy is when somebody on the left says that millionairs and billionairs don't need breaks, and they should be made to pay more you guys all jump on them about how they are playing class warfare, but when ordinary people make more than you then it's OK to say they aren't worth what they are getting, that they should give up some of what they have.

And I can tell you right now, that most of the problems in this country have come from the lack of money. We now have two people working in a family where we used to have one, and there isn't anyone at home to make sure that kids are doing what needs to get done. Teachers can only put the work on the students and grade their progress and report to the parents what that is.

The truth also is that about 30% of kids are just passed on because the parents of kids who consider thier childern as better shouldn't be held back by kids who can't or don't learn as fast.

There isn't a place anymore for kids who just aren't very good at learning once they are shipped out.
They used to be able to get jobs in factories and warehouses but those jobs have now been sent over seas as a way to increase profits for those who share in profits. and the american unskilled worker is now left out in the cold with no place to improve their lifes, but still in the need of things like food and housing and medical, but are told to sad to bad your dad, get lost.

The US has the second highest corporate tax in the world. Of course the jobs went overseas. It's all about money. But you want to tax corporations even more. And finally, do you know who really pays for corporate taxes? I'll give you one guess.

US right? Why do you think the rich say oh you can raise our corporate tax rates, knowing full well they will pass on the cost to the consumer. Even if they overproject how much they pay in taxes but won't lower the prices because that lowers profitability.

Why do you think we hate tax cuts for the top 2%, because they don't pay their fair share. You add in sales tax, earning taxs, and the taxes we pay thats included in our taxes. And you will find the bottom 50% pay more than the rich according to percentage of incomes. Its ridiculous.

Companies want more money. But guess what? You think they will leave the potential billions of dollars they can be made off of 330 million people in the US because of taxes? They aren't going to stop making millions and instead make 50K because of taxes, thats crazy talk.

 

[Avatar4321]

enough of talking to dummy's, I am going to watch BB as cry about the 20,000 I lost today in the market.

You lost 20,000 in the market in one day and you are calling other people dummies?

 

[midcan5]

If those on the 'right' were being honest they'd tell you Walmart wages for 32 hours so no benefits need to be paid. Or they'd tell you minimum wage is overpay. But the right is not honest. In IT people who worked with me and for me these last few years salaries depended a lot on location in the country and if the area was Union or had been union. The South was 45 to 50 given the information you provided. In the North 60 to 90k. These are general figures and I do not buy the fact that an education in some area means you can only work in that area. Some of my best people only had HS, but they had smarts and tech ability. High level managers and directors make lots more. Twenty years of experience may not help though unless it is a salable item. One nephew just started at 55 in Wash area, another niece started at 60 in NY, both out of college, one with a Masters.

 

[WillowTree]

So, I guess your bottom line is "it's better for 2000 teachers to lose their jobs than it is to give up anything." and, "it's just fine that a private sector employee pay for the public employee." I don't see how that's at all fair but so be it.

What stupidity at our best is this. Of course the private sector is going to have to pay for what public sector does for them. Can you explain how that wouldn't happen? They are providing you with a service are they not? They are providing you things like Police and fire protection, and teaching your kids and when if they get sick at school they even have a nurse to look after your kids, and to make sure they get to school and back they even have people to fix the roads and clean the snow off when needed.

Now if we don't need these people then just lay them off, end of the story and well see how long and well life goes on for you.

We should pay them a salary. Not cradle to grave entitlements.. donchyathink?

 

[WillowTree]

enough of talking to dummy's, I am going to watch BB as cry about the 20,000 I lost today in the market.

You lost 20,000 in the market in one day and you are calling other people dummies?

that's cause he believe in money trees.

 

[WillowTree]

The truthy is when somebody on the left says that millionairs and billionairs don't need breaks, and they should be made to pay more you guys all jump on them about how they are playing class warfare, but when ordinary people make more than you then it's OK to say they aren't worth what they are getting, that they should give up some of what they have.

And I can tell you right now, that most of the problems in this country have come from the lack of money. We now have two people working in a family where we used to have one, and there isn't anyone at home to make sure that kids are doing what needs to get done. Teachers can only put the work on the students and grade their progress and report to the parents what that is.

The truth also is that about 30% of kids are just passed on because the parents of kids who consider thier childern as better shouldn't be held back by kids who can't or don't learn as fast.

There isn't a place anymore for kids who just aren't very good at learning once they are shipped out.
They used to be able to get jobs in factories and warehouses but those jobs have now been sent over seas as a way to increase profits for those who share in profits. and the american unskilled worker is now left out in the cold with no place to improve their lifes, but still in the need of things like food and housing and medical, but are told to sad to bad your dad, get lost.

The US has the second highest corporate tax in the world. Of course the jobs went overseas. It's all about money. But you want to tax corporations even more. And finally, do you know who really pays for corporate taxes? I'll give you one guess.

US right? Why do you think the rich say oh you can raise our corporate tax rates, knowing full well they will pass on the cost to the consumer. Even if they overproject how much they pay in taxes but won't lower the prices because that lowers profitability.

Why do you think we hate tax cuts for the top 2%, because they don't pay their fair share. You add in sales tax, earning taxs, and the taxes we pay thats included in our taxes. And you will find the bottom 50% pay more than the rich according to percentage of incomes. Its ridiculous.

Companies want more money. But guess what? You think they will leave the potential billions of dollars they can be made off of 330 million people in the US because of taxes? They aren't going to stop making millions and instead make 50K because of taxes, thats crazy talk.

How much of the total income tax do the rich pay? Give me a number? What percentage of the total pie do they pay?

 

[Avatar4321]

If those on the 'right' were being honest they'd tell you Walmart wages for 32 hours so no benefits need to be paid. Or they'd tell you minimum wage is overpay. But the right is not honest. In IT people who worked with me and for me these last few years salaries depended a lot on location in the country and if the area was Union or had been union. The South was 45 to 50 given the information you provided. In the North 60 to 90k. These are general figures and I do not buy the fact that an education in some area means you can only work in that area. Some of my best people only had HS, but they had smarts and tech ability. High level managers and directors make lots more. Twenty years of experience may not help though unless it is a salable item. One nephew just started at 55 in Wash area, another niece started at 60 in NY, both out of college, one with a Masters.

Why would we need to be honest about something completely irrelevant to this thread?