Revolution in Wisconsin

[RandBlade]

Not when you consider tax to wealth they don't. And then consider the marginal worth of tax to taxpayers quality of life. Your view is very narrow-minded.

Tax to wealth is a pretty stupid ratio and very narrow-minded.

Those with the highest wealth are also those who are the most mobile. Would you rather for example 50% of a million, or would you rather 60% of nothing if that person moves either himself or his wealth out of state, or overseas?

GGT, you may want to get some facts before dismissively saying they don't "bankroll the state". Since you're so certain, please tell me what proportion of a states income comes from millionaires? Also I'd be curious what proportion of expenditure is spent on millionaires.

[Being]

They often move their wealth off shore anyway so what's your point?

[RandBlade]

My point is why encourage them to do so even more? Higher tax rates don't necessarily result in higher tax takes, and it is the latter that matters more.

Decreasing expenditure has a definite impact, increasing rates does not.

It is pure narrow-minded ignorance to suggest that a 10% increase in taxation rates will result in a 10% increase in revenue with no consequences.

[Lewkowski]

Judging by the early morning news, Walker doesn't have much support from other GOP Governors for what he's trying to do (bust public unions). The teachers and prison guards have already conceded the financial concessions asked---to pay more for their health care and pensions. So why is he hanging onto the ban on public unions? His election campaign didn't mention busting unions. And he didn't make the same requirements for police or fire fighters.

Maybe some political wonks gave him bad advice, and he refuses to compromise because he keeps listening to the same wonks?

We'll see. At this point I don't see that he has much to lose. He just started his term, if he succeeds in weakening the unions this helps the tax payers of Wisconsin. It also weakens the Democratic party since the unions are one of the Democratic parties big backers. If he can't get the other side to come back and create a quorum he can always go back to the compromise that requires the unions to pay more into their pension/health insurance which still benefits the tax payers of Wisconsin.

I hope he plays chicken for awhile, once it starts costing government sector jobs it makes it more difficult for the fleeing senators to remain in hiding.

[Being]

My point is why encourage them to do so even more? Higher tax rates don't necessarily result in higher tax takes, and it is the latter that matters more.

Decreasing expenditure has a definite impact, increasing rates does not.

It is pure narrow-minded ignorance to suggest that a 10% increase in taxation will result in a 10% increase in revenue.

Right, take the money from those who can't afford to shelter it and who can least afford the burden.

[GGT]

Tax to wealth is a pretty stupid ratio and very narrow-minded.

Those with the highest wealth are also those who are the most mobile. Would you rather for example 50% of a million, or would you rather 60% of nothing if that person moves either himself or his wealth out of state, or overseas?

GGT, you may want to get some facts before dismissively saying they don't "bankroll the state". Since you're so certain, please tell me what proportion of a states income comes from millionaires? Also I'd be curious what proportion of expenditure is spent on millionaires.

You seem to have already made up your mind. I make a distinction between the wealthy individual and the wealthy corporation....

[RandBlade]

Right, take the money from those who can't afford to shelter it and who can least afford the burden.

No, give away less money that you don't have rather than futilely think that you can get more from those already giving everything you're actually already getting.

You seem to have already made up your mind. I make a distinction between the wealthy individual and the wealthy corporation....

If you have some facts, it will be good to hear them, still waiting.

[GGT]

We'll see. At this point I don't see that he has much to lose. He just started his term, if he succeeds in weakening the unions this helps the tax payers of Wisconsin. It also weakens the Democratic party since the unions are one of the Democratic parties big backers. If he can't get the other side to come back and create a quorum he can always go back to the compromise that requires the unions to pay more into their pension/health insurance which still benefits the tax payers of Wisconsin.

I hope he plays chicken for awhile, once it starts costing government sector jobs it makes it more difficult for the fleeing senators to remain in hiding.

The teachers and prison workers already conceded to the financial changes----to paying more for their pensions and health benefits, as asked.

[GGT]

No, give away less money that you don't have rather than futilely think that you can get more from those already giving everything you're actually already getting.
If you have some facts, it will be good to hear them, still waiting.

In this thread we are talking about what middle class teachers earn in Wisconsin. It's around national average, or ~$50,000. They're being asked to pay more toward their pensions and healthcare, because, you know, the US has no national health plan. Two teachers (as a couple) earning around $100,000 are being asked to pay about 20% more toward their health care, which sounds fair when compared to what private sector workers are paying. But not when you compare it to wealthy earners (making over $250,000) and the tax cuts they received.

As I said earlier, the "pain" was supposed to be a shared sacrifice. Not something the middle class was to bear on their own.

[RandBlade]

Always amused that taking less from someone (or sometimes not taking more) is regarded by some as giving, while giving less (or sometimes even not giving more) is viewed as taking. No, the state takes from some and gives to others, the vast majority of a states income is taken from the wealthy, not the poor. While here at least the vast majority of the expenditure is given to the poor.

At least here we're talking about people who're working, though its not as if people in the private sector have had it easy. In my particular company there has been a pay-freeze on senior managers pay rates for three years, which is what I was getting until last year, while my job rank (I'm at the second-most senior level) has actually taken a voluntary 25% pay cut. That is because we've been operating in tough conditions and its better to do that than have people lose jobs.

So I'm not just talking through my arse either as I've agreed to all the freezes and the 25% cut, while the state has just been taking more and more every year.

EDIT: A continuation of a cut a decade old is a freeze, not a cut and the state is still taking a large amount of money from them, not giving it to them.

[GGT]

Your workers also don't have to pay about 20% of their income toward health insurance, on top of taxes. Do they.

[RandBlade]

No, but so what? So people are having to pay a fraction for something they receive? Oh boo hoo. They're not being asked to pay for someone else's unlike the wealthy who already are

[GGT]

No, but so what? So people are having to pay a fraction for something they receive? Oh boo hoo. They're not being asked to pay for someone else's unlike the wealthy who already are

You are totally missing the point of what's going on in the US.

With our employer-based contributions for health care, plus what employees pay.....

[RandBlade]

No I'm not missing the point. Are they being asked to pay for:

A: Some of their own costs, while their employer (the state) pays for some
B: All of their own costs, with no contributions at all from their employer (the state)
C: More than their own costs with no contributions at all from their employer (the state)

[GGT]

No I'm not missing the point. Are they being asked to pay for:

A: Some of their own costs, while their employer (the state) pays for some
B: All of their own costs, with no contributions at all from their employer (the state)
C: More than their own costs with no contributions at all from their employer (the state)

In Wisconsin? They've agreed to paying more toward health insurance and pensions, yes. The state, as their employer, also contributes. Just as most other employers do in the private sector. Even private contractors that work for the state can claim a small subsidy to pay for these things.

We do not have a National Health System like the UK.

[RandBlade]

I'm sorry, was that:

A: Some of their own costs, while their employer (the state) pays for some
B: All of their own costs, with no contributions at all from their employer (the state)
C: More than their own costs with no contributions at all from their employer (the state)

[GGT]

A. And A has increased about 20%. The workers are not disputing that. They are only disputing the part of the bill that removes their ability to form a union and have collective bargaining.

[Being]

At least here we're talking about people who're working, though its not as if people in the private sector have had it easy. In my particular company there has been a pay-freeze on senior managers pay rates for three years, which is what I was getting until last year, while my job rank (I'm at the second-most senior level) has actually taken a voluntary 25% pay cut. That is because we've been operating in tough conditions and its better to do that than have people lose jobs.

You are totally contradicting previous posts you made about how your company has been steadily increasing jobs. I'm not going to go dig up those posts but you know which ones I'm talking about. So which is it? Is your company creating new jobs or saving existing jobs through pay cuts?

[GGT]

You are totally contradicting previous posts you made about how your company has been steadily increasing jobs. I'm not going to go dig up those posts but you know which ones I'm talking about. So which is it? Is your company creating new jobs or saving existing jobs through pay cuts?

In reality it may not matter, for the UK employer of employee. Their NHS is figured into all of that, and no one has to use the extra 20-30% of their income to purchase healthcare.

[GGT]

Correct me if I'm wrong here, Rand. Doesn't the UK employer and employee give a certain amount (in taxes) to feed the NHS? And neither the employer nor the employee has to deduct another 20-30% of profit/income to buy health insurance?

[RandBlade]

A. And A has increased about 20%. The workers are not disputing that. They are only disputing the part of the bill that removes their ability to form a union and have collective bargaining.

So they are takers, not givers, they're just taking less.

In the current economic climate in the private sector benefits have been getting cut and pay freezes etc or cuts have happened. Why should the same not happen in the public sector? That is "we're all in it together" even if the only people the cut happen to directly from the state is the public sector.

Why should someone who's already suffered cuts in the private sector be taxed more on top of that, to save the public sector employees undergoing what their fellow citizens in the private sector have already gone through?

You are totally contradicting previous posts you made about how your company has been steadily increasing jobs. I'm not going to go dig up those posts but you know which ones I'm talking about. So which is it? Is your company creating new jobs or saving existing jobs through pay cuts?

No need to dig it up: Both.

5 years ago we had 40 employees, 20 of whom worked for me. Now I am responsible for over 300 employees. In that time while we've expanded rapidly and increased the numbers of senior managers, increased the pay of the lowest ranked, we've had three pay-freezes for senior management and when I took over the job of my predecessor (top of the tree operationally), I agreed to be paid 25% less than he'd been paid. It is all consistent.

[Being]

In reality it may not matter, for the UK employer of employee. Their NHS is figured into all of that, and no one has to use the extra 20-30% of their income to purchase healthcare.

Maybe they'll be required to spend it on dental care.

[RandBlade]

Correct me if I'm wrong here, Rand. Doesn't the UK employer and employee give a certain amount (in taxes) to feed the NHS? And neither the employer nor the employee has to deduct another 20-30% of profit/income to buy health insurance?

I don't get what your point is. So the US citizens pay less in tax then choose which insurer to get? Don't see any significant difference.

[Being]

No need to dig it up: Both.

5 years ago we had 40 employees, 20 of whom worked for me. Now I am responsible for over 300 employees. In that time while we've expanded rapidly and increased the numbers of senior managers, increased the pay of the lowest ranked, we've had three pay-freezes for senior management and when I took over the job of my predecessor (top of the tree operationally), I agreed to be paid 25% less than he'd been paid. It is all consistent.

Hey, that might work to create jobs in the U.S. too, if the top payed employees give up 25% of their pay the companies can afford to hire more people. (I'm not laughing at you, I'm laughing at the idea gaining any traction here.)

[GGT]

So they are takers, not givers, they're just taking less.

Some would tell you that public workers agreed to take less in salary, in exchange for perks in health insurance and pension plans. That the "mediators" made promises and are now reneging.

In the current economic climate in the private sector benefits have been getting cut and pay freezes etc or cuts have happened. Why should the same not happen in the public sector? That is "we're all in it together" even if the only people the cut happen to directly from the state is the public sector.

True, but that's more like blaming those who trusted contracts, exchanging current salary for future benefits. And when the future arrives.....those same negotiators say oops, sorry, we were wrong! Now we won't give you compensation in arrears. Looks like you lose either way. Who's the sucker?

Why should someone who's already suffered cuts in the private sector be taxed more on top of that, to save the public sector employees undergoing what their fellow citizens in the private sector have already gone through.

Even though tax payers are stretched thin, we know when workers are being screwed. Almost every state is broke or bankrupt, from too many bogus promises made during a boom and not considering a bust. Go go USA #1!

However, most of us want to pay our teachers, fire fighters and police well. Very well. We just have a screwy system based on property values and property taxes that took huge hits the last 3 years when the housing bubble burst. Tax Revenue is way down, but we realize that is NOT the fault of the teachers, fire fighters or police. Or their unions.

As in the auto industry concessions, the workers have agreed to pay more toward their health care and pensions. They realize their jobs are only as good as the tax payers can pay!

But that's no reason to legislate away collective bargaining or unions in general. That's not a fiscal issue but a power struggle.

[GGT]

Maybe they'll be required to spend it on dental care.

oh, that's baaad.

I don't get what your point is. So the US citizens pay less in tax then choose which insurer to get? Don't see any significant difference.

Don't pretend to be coy. You know exactly what I mean. Would you want to pay 20-30% of your current income toward healthcare? Could your employees afford to pay 20-30% of their current income buying healthcare?


Edit:

I'd rather pay great teachers $100,000/year and have them figure out their retirement like most every other American has to. I'd like to be able to fire bad teachers post haste. I'd like to pay fire fighters and police at least the same, but not sure what the top salary should be, even for managers or administrators. I think we all know that retiring at 50 is something fire fighters or police might need, but teachers may not.

Most people know "retirement benefits" for our public sector workers are a cushion, so they can retire when they're "done or spent" and still live comfortably. Not to have $50,000 or $100,000/year for another 30 years, while they may also have another job and income for those 30 years.

Some of this really is common sense. A teacher can work much longer than a cop, simply because our bodies wear out faster than our minds. Hopefully.

As a tax payer I want these things to make more sense. After all, our taxes can only go so high before the whole house of cards falls down onto itself. That's surely one thing we can all agree on......right?

[GGT]

Double post to share an anecdotal story [I've had way too much coffee and then some rum in the last few hours]

One of my son's favorite elementary teachers lives a few door down. She accepted early retirement several years ago, because she has a club foot and associated hip problems. The district decided her health care was more expensive than paying her to teach, and it was better to have her retire. It was really fucked up. She had her hip replacement, and had to have a replacement of the replacement because the device was defective. Another big fuck up.

So here's this great teacher in her early 60s, retired and doing things for childrens' charity. Charity is great, but she's needed in our public schools! She was a GREAT teacher that kids and parents loved, but the district (and I suppose her union?) decided she should be put out to pasture. That's fucked up.

[Nessus]

What a load of claptrap OG.

It is millionaires who single-handedly almost bankroll the state. But continue closing your eyes to reality and try and strangle the goose that lays the golden eggs, that will show them.

It's only "strangling" in the eyes of hoo-haws who've bought into the Teaper/Randroid kool-aid.

[Nessus]

Also a bit more on topic,

Walker: Hi; this is Scott Walker.

Koch: Scott! David Koch. How are you?

Walker: Hey, David! I’m good. And yourself?

Koch: I’m very well. I’m a little disheartened by the situation there, but, uh, what’s the latest?

Walker: Well, we’re actually hanging pretty tough. I mean—you know, amazingly there’s a much smaller group of protesters—almost all of whom are in from other states today. The State Assembly is taking the bill up—getting it all the way to the last point it can be at where it’s unamendable. But they’re waiting to pass it until the Senate’s—the Senate Democrats, excuse me, the assembly Democrats have about a hundred amendments they’re going through. The state Senate still has the 14 members missing but what they’re doing today is bringing up all sorts of other non-fiscal items, many of which are things members in the Democratic side care about. And each day we’re going to ratchet it up a little bit…. The Senate majority leader had a great plan he told about this morning—he told the Senate Democrats about and he’s going to announce it later today, and that is: The Senate organization committee is going to meet and pass a rule that says if you don’t show up for two consecutive days on a session day—in the state Senate, the Senate chief clerk—it’s a little procedural thing here, but—can actually have your payroll stopped from being automatically deducted—

Koch: Beautiful.

Walker: —into your checking account and instead—you still get a check, but the check has to be personally picked up and he’s instructing them—which we just loved—to lock them in their desk on the floor of the state Senate.

Koch: Now you’re not talking to any of these Democrat bastards, are you?

Walker: Ah, I—there’s one guy that’s actually voted with me on a bunch of things I called on Saturday for about 45 minutes, mainly to tell him that while I appreciate his friendship and he’s worked with us on other things, to tell him I wasn’t going to budge.

Koch: Goddamn right!

Walker: …his name is Tim Cullen—

Koch: All right, I’ll have to give that man a call.

Walker: Well, actually, in his case I wouldn’t call him and I’ll tell you why: he’s pretty reasonable but he’s not one of us…

Koch: Now who can we get to budge on this collective bargaining?

Walker: …I think the paycheck will have an impact…secondly, one of the things we’re looking at next…we’re still waiting on an opinion to see if the unions have been paying to put these guys up out of state. We think there’s at minimum an ethics violation if not an outright felony.

Koch: Well, they’re probably putting hobos in suits.

Walker: Yeah.

Koch: That’s what we do. Sometimes.

Walker: I mean paying for the senators to be put up. I know they’re paying for these guy—I mean, people can pay for protesters to come in and that’s not an ethics code, but, I mean, literally if the unions are paying the 14 senators—their food, their lodging, anything like that…[*** Important regarding his later acceptance of a Koch offer to “show him a good time.” ***]

[I was stunned. I am stunned. In the interest of expediting the release of this story, here are the juiciest bits:]

Walker: …I’ve got layoff notices ready…

Koch: Beautiful; beautiful. Gotta crush that union.

Walker: [bragging about how he doesn't budge]…I would be willing to sit down and talk to him, the assembly Democrat leader, plus the other two Republican leaders—talk, not negotiate and listen to what they have to say if they will in turn—but I’ll only do it if all 14 of them will come back and sit down in the state assembly…legally, we believe, once they’ve gone into session, they don’t physically have to be there. If they’re actually in session for that day, and they take a recess, the 19 Senate Republicans could then go into action and they’d have quorum…so we’re double checking that. If you heard I was going to talk to them that’s the only reason why. We’d only do it if they came back to the capital with all 14 of them…

Koch: Bring a baseball bat. That’s what I’d do.

Walker: I have one in my office; you’d be happy with that. I have a slugger with my name on it.

Koch: Beautiful.

Walker: [union-bashing...]

Koch: Beautiful.

Walker: So this is ground zero, there’s no doubt about it. [Talks about a “great” NYT piece of “objective journalism.” Talks about how most private blue-collar workers have turned against public, unionized workers.]…So I went through and called a handful, a dozen or so lawmakers I worry about each day and said, “Everyone, we should get that story printed out and send it to anyone giving you grief.”

Koch: Goddamn right! We, uh, we sent, uh, Andrew Breitbart down there.

Walker:Yeah.

Koch: Yeah.

Walker: Good stuff.

Koch: He’s our man, you know.

Walker: [blah about his press conferences, attacking Obama, and all the great press he's getting.] Brian [Sadoval], the new Governor of Nevada, called me the last night he said—he was out in the Lincoln Day Circuit in the last two weekends and he was kidding me, he said, “Scott, don’t come to Nevada because I’d be afraid you beat me running for governor.” That’s all they want to talk about is what are you doing to help the governor of Wisconsin. I talk to Kasich every day—John’s gotta stand firm in Ohio. I think we could do the same thing with Vic Scott in Florida. I think, uh, Snyder—if he got a little more support—probably could do that in Michigan. You start going down the list there’s a lot of us new governors that got elected to do something big.

Koch: You’re the first domino.

Walker: Yep. This is our moment.

Koch: Now what else could we do for you down there?

Walker: Well the biggest thing would be—and your guy on the ground [Americans For Prosperity president Tim Phillips] is probably seeing this [stuff about all the people protesting, and some of them flip him off].

[Abrupt end of first recording, and start of second.]

Walker: [Bullshit about doing the right thing and getting flipped off by “union bulls,” and the decreasing number of protesters. Or some such.]

Koch: We’ll back you any way we can. What we were thinking about the crowd was, uh, was planting some troublemakers.

Walker: You know, well, the only problem with that —because we thought about that. The problem—the, my only gut reaction to that is right now the lawmakers I’ve talked to have just completely had it with them, the public is not really fond of this…[explains that planting troublemakers may not work.] My only fear would be if there’s a ruckus caused is that maybe the governor has to settle to solve all these problems…[something about '60s liberals.]…Let ‘em protest all they want…Sooner or later the media stops finding it interesting.

Koch: Well, not the liberal bastards on MSNBC.

Walker: Oh yeah, but who watches that? I went on “Morning Joe” this morning. I like it because I just like being combative with those guys, but, uh. You know they’re off the deep end.

Koch: Joe—Joe’s a good guy. He’s one of us.

Walker: Yeah, he’s all right. He was fair to me…[bashes NY Senator Chuck Schumer, who was also on the program.]

Koch: Beautiful; beautiful. You gotta love that Mika Brzezinski; she’s a real piece of ass.

Walker: Oh yeah. [story about when he hung out with human pig Jim Sensenbrenner at some D.C. function and he was sitting next to Brzezinski and her father, and their guest was David Axelrod. He introduced himself.]

Koch: That son of a bitch!

Walker: Yeah no kidding huh?…

Koch: Well, good; good. Good catching up with ya’.

Walker: This is an exciting time [blah, blah, blah, Super Bowl reference followed by an odd story of pulling out a picture of Ronald Reagan and explaining to his staff the plan to crush the union the same way Reagan fired the air traffic controllers]…that was the first crack in the Berlin Wall because the Communists then knew Reagan wasn’t a pushover. [Blah, blah, blah. He's exactly like Reagan. Won't shut up about how awesome he is.]

Koch: [Laughs] Well, I tell you what, Scott: once you crush these bastards I’ll fly you out to Cali and really show you a good time.

Walker: All right, that would be outstanding. [*** Ethical violation much? ***] Thanks for all the support…it’s all about getting our freedoms back…

Koch: Absolutely. And, you know, we have a little bit of a vested interest as well. [Laughs]

Walker: [Blah] Thanks a million!

Koch: Bye-bye!

Walker: Bye.

[Ominous Gamer]

The audio for that is on youtube as well.

Our nation currently has 5 states that have outlawed collective bargaining for teachers. Those states currently rank 50th, 49th, 48th, 47th, & 44th when it comes to test scores.
This isn't NCBLA test scores either, these are ACT/SAT test scores.
Being warned of this in reply 80.