Will Wisconsin's anti-union bill pass constitutional muster? Is it a good idea?

[Skammer]

@magellan01

This is a great idea. The benefits union members get today are ridiculous. And the public is who pays for it. I’d be much more forgiving of unions if, as someone others said, the freedom worked both ways. You can demand all you want. And the employer is free to hire anyone they want at a wage and benefits the two parties agree to. But the unions will have none of that, I’m sure.

I understand that the union employees, in general, are getting benefits that are pretty extravegant compared to similar private-sector workers. Job protection, pension, lower medical costs, etc. But on the other hand, aren’t the wages substantially lower? I’d really like to see a comparison of total compensation packages before I believe that union employees are significantly overcompensated by virtue of being in a union.

[villa]

@Bricker

Agreed – as long as the two sides reach their arrangement without coercion, I think you’re right.

But wait! I hear you think. A little helpless worker negotiating with a large company needs his job much more than the company needs him; therefore the transaction is coercive from the beginning.

No. The company doesn’t owe him a job. He’s not entitled to one. But the company is entitled to negotiate with other people freely, without being impeded.

So when a company is threatened with a strike, that’s all part of the game… no problems there. When a company seeks to break the strike by hiring other workers, that, too, is all a part of the game.

But when the striking workers use illegal and unethical means to discourage or impede the strikebreakers, that crosses the line. (No pun intended).

You won’t get a lot of disagreement from me. I’m a union guy, but I find US labor law to be crazy generally. I’m originally British, and studied labor relations over there - Britain has a history (sadly eliminated now) of voluntarism in the union area. The only things unions wanted from the government traditionally was the recognition that strikes were not actions in restraint of trade. Other than that, they didn’t want requirement that owners recognized unions, or bargained with them, or did anything. I like that structure.

[Bricker]

@Diogenes_the_Cynic

Equal to what?

You said that the rich should pay their “fair” share. I’m pointing out that your definition of fair does not actually mean “equal,” – that is, you don’t demand that the wealthy persons pays an equal dollar amount, or an equal percentage, of his income in taxes than a middle class person. Your definition of “fair” actually means the wealthy person is to pay MORE dollars, MORE percentage, than a middle class person.

So “fair,” which sounds… er… fair… actually means “more.”

Right?

[villa]

@magellan01

Huh? How responsible am I for this mess we’re in? How much responsibility do I have? Should I have?

You are a conservative defender of capitalism. It was you and those like you that shat the bed of the world economic system. And the only way you see to get out of it is further fucking over the poor and the working class.

I don’t know what your individual percentage responsibility is, but I would say it could be satisfied by the confiscation of everything you own or earn.

[Bricker]

@villa

You won’t get a lot of disagreement from me. I’m a union guy, but I find US labor law to be crazy generally. I’m originally British, and studied labor relations over there - Britain has a history (sadly eliminated now) of voluntarism in the union area. The only things unions wanted from the government traditionally was the recognition that strikes were not actions in restraint of trade. Other than that, they didn’t want requirement that owners recognized unions, or bargained with them, or did anything. I like that structure.

Then I think we’ll get along fine in this area. I agree completely.

[Lobohan]

@magellan01

Yes I am.

You are aware that people throughout history have been taxed, right? Maybe you are just really, really over-sensitive?

[Whack-a-Mole]

@Shodan

And Whack-A-Mole, do you have a credible cite for the claim that union workers make less than private sector employees do? Because that part where they talk about gender, race and ethnicity makes me a little leery about accepting what they claim at face value - especially that they are really comparing apples and apples.

And don’t you think the fact that we were in recession in 2009 might affect your cite of that deeply scholarly and well-respected source, USA Today?

For the first bit here is their policy memo (PDF) where they cite their data. They claim (at the very bottom) that they got the data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. If you want to debunk their data/conclusions that is your job but barring some evidence they are pulling a fast one I accept it for now. I consider the Bureau of Labor Statistics as sufficient for this task as well (read non-partisan, just a lot of data).

As for USA Today again, do you have reason to doubt them?

How about:

Federal Tax Burdens for Most Near Their Lowest Levels in Decades

Meanwhile, taxes are at their lowest levels in 60 years, according to William Gale, co-director of the Tax Policy Center and director of the Retirement Security Project at the Brookings Institution.

Are tax rates the lowest in over 50 years?

If you only look at the rate for the federal income tax, the lowest bracket – currently applying to families earning up to $16,750 – has been 10 percent since 2002. That’s the lowest it has been in the past 50 years, with the exception of the period 1977 to 1986, when it was zero (but when there was no standard deduction, as there is today).

If you look at the top tax bracket, the rates today are also low, though – as is the case with the lowest bracket – not the lowest in 50 years. Since 2003, the top rate, which is currently levied on families earning above $373,650, has been 35 percent. The only period when it was lower was between 1988 and 1992, when the top rate ranged from 31 to 33 percent. (And it’s been far higher: As late as 1963, the top rate was 91 percent.)

Of course, Americans also pay state and local taxes. The rates vary widely by state, but the most recent available national average, for 2008, is 9.7 percent. That’s well within the historical range: Since 1977, the national average has remained within a narrow band of 9.3 percent to 10.3 percent.

So tax rates today are fairly low, but not at absolute record lows for the past 50 years.

<snip>

Other measures confirm the general trendline. The Tax Foundation, an independent tax-research group in Washington, has found that the average taxpayer’s combined tax burden accounted for 26.6 percent of income in 2009 and 26.9 percent in 2010, the lowest since 1965. And according to the White House’s Office of Management and Budget, total federal tax receipts were 14.8 percent of gross domestic product in 2009, the lowest percentage since 1950.

SOURCE: PolitiFact | Critz touts Democratic role in low taxes, job creation

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@Bricker

You said that the rich should pay their “fair” share. I’m pointing out that your definition of fair does not actually mean “equal,” – that is, you don’t demand that the wealthy persons pays an equal dollar amount, or an equal percentage, of his income in taxes than a middle class person.

Of course not, in order for it to be fair, the rich have to pay a lot more.

[Bricker]

@Diogenes_the_Cynic

Of course not, in order for it to be fair, the rich have to pay a lot more.

When my brother and I fought over who would get which slice of cake, I assure you that neither he nor I would have been happy with a definition of “fair” that meant “a lot more.”

[Evil_Captor]

@villa

Such as what?

Oh, you know, collective bargaining. Stuff like that! Mostly not being at the absolute whim of employers like good slaves should be.

[Lobohan]

@Bricker

When my brother and I fought over who would get which slice of cake, I assure you that neither he nor I would have been happy with a definition of “fair” that meant “a lot more.”

Are you against a progressive income tax? Do you think that the concept of trying to achieve equal pain for all taxed people is laudable?

I thought I’d mention it again, because your example strongly suggests you don’t understand why we have a progressive income tax.

[Whack-a-Mole]

@Bricker

But when the striking workers use illegal and unethical means to discourage or impede the strikebreakers, that crosses the line. (No pun intended).

Then to be fair you need to include the flip side such as numerous occasions in our history where employers had striking workers shot (literally).

[Whack-a-Mole]

@Bricker

You said that the rich should pay their “fair” share. I’m pointing out that your definition of fair does not actually mean “equal,” – that is, you don’t demand that the wealthy persons pays an equal dollar amount, or an equal percentage, of his income in taxes than a middle class person. Your definition of “fair” actually means the wealthy person is to pay MORE dollars, MORE percentage, than a middle class person.

Know who thought that state of affairs was proper?

Adam Smith. The Father of Capitalism.

“It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more in proportion.” ~Adam Smith (thought he was a hero of conservatives everywhere)

[Bricker]

@Lobohan

Are you against a progressive income tax? Do you think that the concept of trying to achieve equal pain for all taxed people is laudable?

I thought I’d mention it again, because your example strongly suggests you don’t understand why we have a progressive income tax.

Dollars are numbers. When we speak of “equal dollars,” we can easily assure anyone that two figures are equal.

Percentages are numbers. When we speak of “equal percentages,” we can easily assure anyone that two figures are equal.

BUt when we begin to speak of “equal pain,” we enter an area of subjective assessment. I’m not prepared to accept your calculations on how much “pain” is equal to how much other “pain.”

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@Bricker

When my brother and I fought over who would get which slice of cake, I assure you that neither he nor I would have been happy with a definition of “fair” that meant “a lot more.”

The rich are starting off with a lot more. They have 90% of the cake, they should foot 90% of the bill.

[Bricker]

@Whack-a-Mole

Then to be fair you need to include the flip side such as numerous occasions in our history where employers had striking workers shot (literally).

Absolutely. Those are just as destructive to free bargaining, and should be just as prohibited. (As well as, of course, being criminally prosecutable as murder or assault…)

[magellan01]

@villa

You are a conservative defender of capitalism. It was you and those like you that shat the bed of the world economic system. And the only way you see to get out of it is further fucking over the poor and the working class.

I don’t know what your individual percentage responsibility is, but I would say it could be satisfied by the confiscation of everything you own or earn.

Well, at least we know you’re way past a line where things offered should make sense.

Rock on with your bad self.

[Lobohan]

@Bricker

Dollars are numbers. When we speak of “equal dollars,” we can easily assure anyone that two figures are equal.

Percentages are numbers. When we speak of “equal percentages,” we can easily assure anyone that two figures are equal.

BUt when we begin to speak of “equal pain,” we enter an area of subjective assessment. I’m not prepared to accept your calculations on how much “pain” is equal to how much other “pain.”

If I make $10,000 a year and need $9,000 to survive a tax bill of $1,000 hurts me greatly.

If I make $100,000 a year and need $9,000 to survive a tax bill of $10,000 is trivial.

Isn’t it reasonable that the burden should be somewhere between “hurts me greatly” and “trivial” for all concerned? As for the number being subjective, well, welcome to reality. Subjective choices are made all the time. Age of consent laws for instance.

[magellan01]

@Lobohan

You are aware that people throughout history have been taxed, right? Maybe you are just really, really over-sensitive?

Why. I don’t mind paying taxes. Just what I perceive as being 1) too much and 2) too much compared to the millions and millions of citizens who don’t pay any.

[magellan01]

@Diogenes_the_Cynic

Of course not, in order for it to be fair, the rich have to pay a lot more.

They do. Even if you had a flat tax they’d be paying a lot more.