No, only that our government allow those of us who must buy healthcare, etc.. on the open market to keep enough to provide these benefits to our families before forcing us to pay for others. This is besides the point but we cannot even claim healthcare insurance as a deduction on our income taxes except on the amount that exceeds something like 6-7% of our income unlike employer and government furnished insurance which is totally tax free to the employees.

Getting way off course here, particularly given that the public sector unions in WI have agreed to pay higher share of health costs in addition to higher share of pensions.

I agree it is beside the point, but now evidently, your complaint goes to all employees, public and private who receive employer-based health insurance.

Your concern is addressed in the new health care reform law that will subsidize those currently w/o health insurance or purchasing health insurance on the open market (those w/up to incomes = 4x poverty level or $88,000) AND will tax large employer high end health plans.

No. What I'm saying is that it fixes the current budget problems, and it fixes the problem if/when the economy recovers of the unions holding the state hostage then by saying we gave up xxx in 2011, we deserve xxx + yyy now.

the budget problem is directly caused by the tax cuts for the wealthy that Walker just passed.

Public subsidies for employer provided health insurance takes up a higher proportion of the budget than public pensions. So unless you are completely against the very existence of public servants there is no way to make this argument work.

But the unions have already agreed to the current cuts, so the bill as it stands does nothing for the current budget crisis. As such, the only reason for the existence of the current bill in its unadulterated form is to prevent mobilizing by a key democratic constituency in the future.

I think it does. None of the taxes we pay should be used to provide healthcare insurance to public employees until we have sufficient income to provide it for ourselves. It seems only fair. Private employers can provide whatever wages and benefits they want as long as we are not forced to buy their higher priced products and services. Also, if I have to buy healthcare insurance with after tax dollars then all employer provided insurance should be taxed as income to public and private employees as well. This too seems only fair.

I realize this thread is about union busting but whether public employees have a union or not the above conditions should be followed in my opinion.

SO what you are saying is that public employees should be the least paid members of society regardless of occupation?

There is no reason to go to extremes here. I don't see why allowing people to keep enough of their money to buy their own healthcare and pensions before taxing them to pay for others should cause public employees to be the least paid members of society?

Well, if everyone else should have healthcare and benefits first, wouldn't that make them the last ones to ever get it?

This is a perfect example of the sad state of affairs of American politics. That in a situation where some have a hard time making ends meet, the reaction is not to propose a more progressive tax system (or to even react to a proposal that makes the tax system less progressive), or discuss public alternatives to health care. It is to demand that people who make as little as 25k a year go with even less. It's the public fighting the teachers while the same bill has a bunch of gifts for the wealthy.

I can't quite wrap my ahead around why billionaires are entitled to tax cuts but teachers and firefighters aren't entitled to pensions.

The way I think about it is, they work for us. And I am quite content to pay what is an insignificant amount of my own money in order to be a fair and ethical employer.

And if you don't like it, then find yourself a government job. That's the American way isn't it, after all? You don't like your job, you can go out and find the one you do want?

I'm not so concerned about what the billionaire's problems are, they can take care of themselves. But if it's not fair to raise my taxes, then I don't consider it fair to raise the taxes on the billionaires either. Raise their taxes high enough and they will take their investments elsewhere, as with the UK back in the 60's timeframe with their 95% tax rate on highest incomes.

When my total tax bill, federal, state and local, approaches 40% of my income, that's way too high.

When my town tried to raise school taxes by 12% last year (and inflation somewhere in the 2-3% range) that got voted down. Then the town came back with an 'austerity' budget with an increase only a couple percent lower, instead of a 2-3% increase that would really be an austerity budget, that's too much.

If public employee's pensions and other benefits were more in line with what private sector employees get, maybe it wouldn't be a big deal. But when I read about public employees who game the system with overtime, etc in their last years of employment so they get pensions that are a very large percentage of their final year's salary, that's outrageous.

I'm in favor of the unions getting their wings clipped, severely.

I'm sure the government is quite willing to accommodate people who think their taxes are too low. The federal government even has a mailing address where people can send their surplus cash.

When the wealthy liberals like Michael Moore, etc contribute the bulk of their wealth to benefit the poor, then they will have a valid point. Until then they have less credibility than Fox News.

Finally, you're right. If you don't like your job, you can find a better one. I've done that four times since I started working full time.

I guess I'd prefer that we all pay a little bit more in taxes so that we don't become a rotting shithole full of unwashed and undereducated menial laborers. That's just me. Good countries are expensive, and you can't have a good country if you aren't willing to pay for it.

This is easier said than done especially if you are in your mid fifties and the company you worked at for over 20 years is sold and you are downsized. There are not enough jobs with good benefits in the private and public sectors to go around even for the younger workers. The company I worked for also eliminated their pension and dental plans as well as doubling employee healthcare contributions for those who are left. Your comment seems almost like "Let them eat cake".

---------- Post added at 10:28 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:21 AM ----------

If you have to tax people who cannot afford their own healthcare and benefits in order to provide these benefits to others than they should be the last ones to get it.

Being mad at union workers for getting benefits from tax dollars seems like wildly misplaced anger. Why aren't you raving about CEO's getting millions in bonuses w/ tax payer bailout money?

OK, but this thread is about public unions and I was just pointing out what I thought was unfair about the present system in regards to healthcare and pension financing. I didn't mean to write as though I was angry or raving.

my comment was meant to be facetious. You deserve a pension and so do I.

I was parroting conservative platitudes that have been used for decades to give working class people the false assurance that they have control over their livelihoods. 'In the capitalist system, you can be whoever you want to be!' Which any working person who has been out there more than 15-20 years knows is a crock of shit. The companies that we work for have been chiseling away at what is rightfully ours for decades so that now we are in the position of resenting the few who still have the benefits and job security that our parents had. I mean, my father went to work for Southern Bell right out of college, stayed there for more than 50 years and retired with a pension. It's the way things used to be. Therefore, I cannot find it - not in my heart and not in my mind - to resent the few people who still have these benefits when it is my opinion that more people should have them, not less. Particularly when they are the people who are teaching our kids or protecting our streets or keeping our neighborhoods from burning down.

It's sick, what is happening to this country.

Let them eat cake? It's not me who is saying it. It's your employer.

Yeah, I guess my previous posts do read like I am somewhat resentful of paying taxes to provide benefits to others that I can't even provide for myself. I'm really not just looking for company in the race to the bottom but more or less complaining about our current method of taxation.

I suspect millions of us will have to lower our standard of living trying to compete with lower wages and benefits in this worldwide economy.

Shamefully sick.

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/...t-popup-v5.gif

Among advanced economies, the U.S. is:

* near the very bottom in income inequity -- and the Republicans want to make permanent the lower tax rate (from the 2000 rate) for the top 1 percent of wage earners

* near the very bottom in unemployment -- and the Republicans want to cut job retraining funds and limit unemployment insurance....which contributes to...

* the very bottom in food insecurity -- and the Republicans want to cut funding for food stamps, school lunch programs,

* the very bottom in prison population -- and the Republicans want to cut funding for social programs that are proven deterrents to some from turning to crime

* near the bottom in student performance -- and the Republicans want to cut investments in education, including the capacity to attract people into the teaching profession, with good benefits to offset mediocre salaries.


/end thread jack

---------- Post added at 04:35 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:27 PM ----------

I doubt your total federal/state/local taxes are anywhere near 40% . Most likely, you are confusing marginal tax rates with effective tax rates.

Yay, Canada!

Do you think there should be public schools and other public services?
If not, that is fine and at least consistent.

But if you do believe that there should be those things, then they inevitably have to have some level of benefits, and unless you think they should be the worst paid people in the state, their benefits will be better than someone else's.

I mean, if you are struggling the get health insurance and a retirement plan, it seems to me that the goal then is to make health insurance and retirement plans more affordable. Not to strip them from others who have it.

I do understand the difference. I just looked up my 2009 1040. Dividing my total federal income tax, state income tax and local property tax by my W2 income is about 25%. Add in the 15.3% I and my employer pay for Social Security and Medicare and I'm just over 40%. Add in a few percent more to cover sales taxes, gas taxes, corporate taxes buried in the price of products, and I'm over 40%.

It just passed. Republican State Senators realized that if they stripped the bill of all the financial elements, they didn't need the full senate for it to pass. So, as of tonight, collective bargaining is now illegal in Wisconsin.

GOP Senators find way to advance collective bargaining ban without Democrats present | Defend Wisconsin

Protesters are already returning to Capitol Square due to this cowardly move. I'm thinking about taking a week off work to get to Madison. This is quite simply unacceptable.

So wait.... It's now purely, solely, a bill to remove collective bargaining?

It was always that. As always, the GOP used their fiscal responsibility lies to cover their real intentions. The thing is, this is only just getting started. 8 Wisconsin Senate Republicans are likely to be impeached in the near future, possibly with more in the pipeline. If we can get enough control, Walker will eventually be impeached.

You mean recalled not impeached.

Here is my prediction: This will now go to the courts and will be overturned due to procedural issues. Then their will be a thread on this forum about activist judges and finally that thread will discuss the right to bear arms thanks to DK ;)

Ah yes, recalled.

As I said before, discussing your particular situation is irrelevant because this is the internet. The average effective total tax rate for the richest 10% of Americans is 34%, and much lower than that for all other groups.

The average percentage of family income that goes to all taxes is closer to 30%, according to this source:
PolitiFact Texas | Phil King says 40 percent of family incomes goes to taxes

dogzilla also counted the employer half of of social security on his taxes which is a bit disingenuous.

And why is that? If I was self employed I would be paying the full amount. As it is, it's just a hidden tax that my employer pays that is directly tied to my salary. But whether my taxes are over 35% or over 40%, they are still way too high.

Unless you are also counting the other things that your employer pays elsewhere and are not a part of your w2 as part of your income (health insurance, employer matching for retirement, etc), then you can't also count their tax payments.

And in any case, it has already been shown that regardless, the national average is nowhere near close to 40.

In fact, for federal taxes the national average is at their lowest point since 1950.

Because the business is paying it not you. If tomorrow the government said employers no longer have to pay that half your employer would get that money not you.

Whatever. I think my taxes are too high, and there's lots of other people who think similarly. If the current set of politicians doesn't understand that we will keep voting them out until we get ones that do understand that.

If that means breaking the stranglehold the unions have on state and local governments, so be it.

It's time for the Democrat representatives in Wisconsin to quit playing hide and seek and do their jobs. If I was a Wisconsin resident, I would be protesting that and insisting on their recall.

If some upper income people are getting to keep more of their money so they can invest it in the economy, that's at least a start. It's not like they have vaults full of cash just doing nothing.

I wouldn't expect a substantial reduction in taxes anytime soon (or ever). As an American, you are already enjoying what is one of the lowest tax rates in the world. Well, unless you include the Middle East, parts of Asia, and Eastern Europe. Even still, the average U.S. tax rate is close to the global average.

If you consider the richer, developed nations exclusively, I would say the U.S. tax rate is relatively low, not high.

Do you think that the compensation received by union members wasn't going into the economy at all? I'm pretty sure that pension funds are invested prior to being paid out.

Speaking of vaults full of cash:

Companies Flush With Cash - Newsweek

I guess we're all pretty lucky that tax rates aren't higher or they'd be investing even less. ;)

The vast majority of Americans receive more in direct services and transfers (which means I am not even counting abstract things like national security and science investment) from the government than they put in. I would bet that most here, if not all, will be part of the group once social security and medicare expenditures are taken into account.

If given a choice, no one would pay taxes. That is why they are taxes, not donations. But people who want lower taxes without corresponding cuts in spending are hypocrites.

And people who think that scapegoating teachers and other public servants for the budget hole is the right thing to do are also uninformed.

I was going to say this...

But, 40% is possible. At least in certain lower income brackets that have to pay set fees at least. It also depends on what house you bought and the state you live in... There are a lot of taxes in other parts of life as well outside of the Federal Income tax. State, city, school, sales, gas,...

And tax rates should be higher, since the government is spending this money and putting off taking it in on a different administration for the past 30 years...

As for the Union thing, I hope they go on strike...

I rarely post anymore, but this I do not get.

How are they the cowards when it was the Democrats who ran away and refused to be involved to vote no. That is what happens when there is a majority who feels that way.

You may disagree with the bill, go protest it, but coward way, no.

The Democrats didn't flee the state out of cowardice, but rather desperation. What they're doing is actually very risky for them and involves real sacrifice, because they can't return to their own homes and their families without the risk of being arrested. They believe in protecting collective bargaining rights for public workers so much, they've actually left the state as it's the only way they can protect the people of Wisconsin from the Republicans. That's bravery.

On the other hand, we have the GOP in Wisconsin who are lying through their teeth about why they're trying to strip collective bargaining from state workers. They put up these pretexts about a budget crisis and how unions are to blame and have to give up their rights, when in actuality the Wisconsin GOP are responsible for the deficit. This is all just smoke and mirrors hiding the true reason for the GOP's actions, namely to defund unions to win the 2012 election. It's a cowardly, dishonest political move that's going to hurt real people.

I was coming here to post the link that Willravel posted. But in case anyone missed, here's what the WI Majority leader said about the bill:

And yet even after the Republicans have essentially openly admitted that this is about electoral politics (which they've not only through the statement above but through the fact that they removed every single budget provision to pass the bill), we still have to put up with people trying to spin this in the "future budgets" BS, because as we all know that 3% of the budget might one day become 3.1%, and then we are all screwed...