• After 15+ years, we've made a big change: Android Forums is now Early Bird Club. Learn more here.

Wisconsin Union Bill

cipher6 said:
Not true. My Mom's a teacher in Texas... I said earlier, but was wrong, that you had to be in the Union to be a teacher in Texas. (I thought I heard that somewhere, I was wrong). I went home and asked her, and she said, in the State of Texas, the public unions, at least her teachers union, doesn't have collective bargaining rights.





There is one big key difference your missing. The CEO isn't payed for with our tax dollars. Yes, there are a few companies the gov bailed out, then gave out big bonuses. I don't agree with that, the companies shouldn't have been bailed out.

But in general private company CEOs are paid with private money. Teachers are paid with tax dollars. I think its well within the right of tax payers to have some say in how their money is spent. I actually think your looking at it backwards. Your worried about how a private company spends private money, but don't care about public sector employees milking the government of YOUR money.




Again, where do you get the idea you should have a say, or have any stake in what a private company does with its money. If you want to start a business and flush $100 bills down the toilet, what business is that of mine? But if I start flushing your money down the toilet, I'd bet you have something to say.




Its got nothing to do with classes, and everything to do with do you have a legitimate interest in what they do with their money. You have an interest in how tax payer money is spent, because its partly your money. But a private company, that you haven't invested in, and have no relationship with, what interest do you have in how they spend it?




You keep repeating that, but have no basis for why its the right thing to do. When I give money to my Wife, I put regulations on how it should be spent... "Go buy some groceries, but no salon this week." Because its my money. But I don't, in the name of "fairness" also tell your wife what to do with the money she has in her pocket.




State and local governments being bankrupt DOES effect everyone living there and paying taxes... thats EXACTLY why they have a dog in the fight... it most certainly does effect them financially. When states and local governments go bankrupt (or close to it) taxes get raised and services get cut.

But when GE wants to fire 1,000 people, consolidate a few divisions, and give the CEO a zillion dollar bonus, that only effects the 1,000 people that got laid off.

Which has a greater public effect? Which situation do citizens have more of a stake in?





IF you don't like the wages paid to a CEO of a particular company, don't buy their stuff. If you think big wall street bankers are corrupt, go with local family owned banks. Invest your money in things you think worthy of it. You "indirectly" fund a CEO's salary by choice. You have no choice in paying taxes, so the least a just government could do is give you some say in how those taxes are spent. I think putting public employee union raises to a vote is a great idea. The 'investors,' taxpayers, get a say in how their money is spent. If they love their teachers for doing a great job, they vote a raise. If, their state spends more money per capital than everyone else, with lower results (like Wisconsin), they may not be so quick to approve a raise.



Because I don't care what you do with your money, its a free country. But I want some say over how my money is spent. If I invest in a company, that gives me a small say (based on how much I invest) in what that company does. If I've invested nothing, I don't care if they burn piles of cash. But if I've invested... or forced by law to invest, by paying taxes, we should have some say.
Click to expand...


I'm not going to disect every portion, but with regard to what you're arguing, you're saying that a CEO should be allowed to set his/her salary to whatever they want, because we live in a "pseudo-capitalist" society and thus the laws of the market apply. But for whatever reason teachers and other union workers should NOT be allowed to unionize and "collectively bargain".

Why shouldn't a teacher/group of teachers be allowed to fight for a better life, better insurance, a better pension? A single teacher fighting for his/her singular cause isn't going to get as far as a group of teachers because the individual teacher is easier to replace. Like I said before, some of you must be perfectly fine with the U.S. turning into another China if it "keeps us competitive". There's generally no "medium" ground when it comes to workes' rights. Once your rights as a worker start to erode, it's only a matter of time before you can be legally defined as a slave.
 
if your argument were to hold any merit it would mean there are no jobs in the US that pay a decent wage or have any employees rights unless they are union...... which is utter nonsense

and to compare a teacher fighting for wages vs a CEOs wages is ridiculous as well.......... since the CEO of the company the teachers belong to is the Governor of Wisconsin......how many billions does he rake in each year?

Scott Wilson's salary is approx $137K.... the AVERAGE teacher salary in Wisconsin is approx $50K......... with some teachers earning MORE than the CEO of their company (the governor of the state)....... so exactly who is gettin screwed here?

youre going to have to come to grips with the fact that teachers are payed by taxpayer dollars in a non-profit company (in fact the company/state is operating at a huge loss) ...... this has nothing to do with private corporations or CEO salaries
 
TxGoat said:
I'm not going to disect every portion, but with regard to what you're arguing, you're saying that a CEO should be allowed to set his/her salary to whatever they want, because we live in a "pseudo-capitalist" society and thus the laws of the market apply. But for whatever reason teachers and other union workers should NOT be allowed to unionize and "collectively bargain".

Why shouldn't a teacher/group of teachers be allowed to fight for a better life, better insurance, a better pension? A single teacher fighting for his/her singular cause isn't going to get as far as a group of teachers because the individual teacher is easier to replace. Like I said before, some of you must be perfectly fine with the U.S. turning into another China if it "keeps us competitive". There's generally no "medium" ground when it comes to workes' rights. Once your rights as a worker start to erode, it's only a matter of time before you can be legally defined as a slave.
Click to expand...

I'll address you. Yes, short answer. A CEO should be able to be paid whatever he or she wants, depending on the corporation, the shareholders, and the amount of tolerable greed all involved are willing to accept.

You are like many people that think overpaind CEOs represent all CEOs. What is a CEO? Well, hate to tell you, but the CEO position is a component of a legal structure called Incorporation. Lots of CEOs out there.

I am a CEO. A number of my friends also wear CEO caps. Tens of thousands of small corporations headed by CEO's. So, when you decide to set a limit through legislation, you are being unfair. If I wanted to pay myself three million a year, I should be able to do so and it is in no bloody way any of your business.

Many teachers do well. But to hear man y of them speak, they are being kicked around. If you want to enter some professions like teaching or nurseing, learn that getting rich is not part of the deal. In some cases, they are paid for twelve months of work yet they have anyewhere from three to four months off. And this is without union involvement; it simply happens because of school summer vacations, conferences, and the like.

Many teachers are unqualified and when we find one, it is impossible to get rid of him or her.

To be very clear, I love teachers. They are needed because they shape minds. A good one is worth ten sloppy ones.

And yes, some groups must not be allowed to strike. Cops, firemen, soldiers, teachers, garbage men, etc., because they work for us in many cases and with them gone, things can get bad.

Bob Maxey
 
copestag said:
Scott Wilson's salary is approx $137K.... the AVERAGE teacher salary in Wisconsin is approx $50K......... with some teachers earning MORE than the CEO of their company (the governor of the state)....... so exactly who is gettin screwed here?
Click to expand...

Hey copestag . . . what do your teachers do during the summer vacation? Do you know? Here in Utah, I think they get three months off. So earning fifty grand a year is for what, 9 months work? If they had to teach for the full 12 months, would they want more money?

Bob Maxey
 
thats exactly my point....... teachers shouldnt be complaining about how much they earn...... theyre paid plenty well in Wisconsin

in Wisconsin the average teacher salary is higher than the average police officer salary..... higher than the average firefighter salary...... and higher than the states overall average salary

combine that with cadillac benefits, 9 month at most work year, and a pension and they have very little to complain about........ but to hear them tell it they are struggling to get by and deserve so much better
 
copestag said:
thats exactly my point....... teachers shouldnt be complaining about how much they earn...... theyre paid plenty well in Wisconsin

in Wisconsin the average teacher salary is higher than the average police officer salary..... higher than the average firefighter salary...... and higher than the states overall average salary

combine that with cadillac benefits, 9 month at most work year, and a pension and they have very little to complain about........ but to hear them tell it they are struggling to get by and deserve so much better
Click to expand...

John Stossel, at ABC at the time, did a story about teachers and their salary issues and complaints. Not sure where you will find the (Nightline?) episode, but it is quite revealing. And it cannot be argued against because the facts and figures are provided. Mostly in the public records.

In the clip below, the striking teachers tell us they are not in it for the money, they love the kids, yet there they are, begging for mo money, mo money, mo money.

Here, try this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2bpb9DymmoU

Very interesting stuff.

Bob
 
TxGoat said:
I'm not going to disect every portion, but with regard to what you're arguing, you're saying that a CEO should be allowed to set his/her salary to whatever they want, because we live in a "pseudo-capitalist" society and thus the laws of the market apply. But for whatever reason teachers and other union workers should NOT be allowed to unionize and "collectively bargain".
Click to expand...

Umm... yes, someone that I don't pay for his/her compensation has the right to not have me involved in his/her compensation.

Someone who I DO pay for his/her compensation does not have the right to not have me involved in his/her compensation.
 
mdram said:
and reagan cut those taxes. by cutting them he encouraged spending and growth. causing them to pay more at a lower rate. sounds backwards but its what happened

now as for more figures
the top 1% are taxed at an avg of 23% by the fed
top 25% at 15% by the fed
top 50% at 15% by the fed
bottom 50% at 2.6% by the fed


so ummmm whos under taxed?

and those are just federal numbers throw state and city in and many of those top 25% are close to 50% and dont even talk about property taxes
Click to expand...
ou need to remember the top 1% has most of their income outside the US to keep it from being taxed or in other things that is exempted from being taxed.

so lets say a person is worth 300 million but only keeps a few million in the US. Then he is paying far less than he should. compared to someone who cant do the same because they have to live on what they make. So they cant hide their money like the rich can.
 
Dark Jedi said:
ou need to remember the top 1% has most of their income outside the US to keep it from being taxed or in other things that is exempted from being taxed.

so lets say a person is worth 300 million but only keeps a few million in the US. Then he is paying far less than he should. compared to someone who cant do the same because they have to live on what they make. So they cant hide their money like the rich can.
Click to expand...

Seriously? A person can have $300,000,000 anywhere he/she wants - assets aren't taxed - INCOME is taxed. I could put that same $300 million under my mattress and my tax liability would be exactly ZERO.
 
Dark Jedi said:
ou need to remember the top 1% has most of their income outside the US to keep it from being taxed or in other things that is exempted from being taxed.

so lets say a person is worth 300 million but only keeps a few million in the US. Then he is paying far less than he should. compared to someone who cant do the same because they have to live on what they make. So they cant hide their money like the rich can.
Click to expand...

The reason for having profits realized overseas is to take advantage of lower tax rates in some of these foreign countries. Hmm... So what to do about it? Perhaps lower taxes here to eliminate the advantage of keeping money overseas and thus increasing US revenue?
 
cjr72 said:
The reason for having profits realized overseas is to take advantage of lower tax rates in some of these foreign countries. Hmm... So what to do about it? Perhaps lower taxes here to eliminate the advantage of keeping money overseas and thus increasing US revenue?
Click to expand...

no, we get them to raise theirs to reasonable levels
 
cjr72 said:
How do we compel other countries to do that and who or what determines reasonable levels?
Click to expand...

Good question. And . . . what about all of those fools that will begin to scream about how the United States now wants to control the financial business of other countries?

Bob
 
Bob Maxey said:
Give me a break, you absolutely do not know that.

Bob
Click to expand...

Oh please wake up and look a these rich people. They are some of the. Most stingy class of people around. If they could save a Buck they would do it. But if you want to think the rich are so honest and are willing to allow all their finances to be taxed so willingly then that's fine. They are rich for a reason and its not by playing by the rules.
 
Dark Jedi said:
Oh please wake up and look a these rich people. They are some of the. Most stingy class of people around. If they could save a Buck they would do it. But if you want to think the rich are so honest and are willing to allow all their finances to be taxed so willingly then that's fine. They are rich for a reason and its not by playing by the rules.
Click to expand...

Wow . . . how very angry you are. Wrong, angry, and undereducated. A trifecta.

Bob
 
Bob Maxey said:
Wow . . . how very angry you are. Wrong, angry, and undereducated. A trifecta.

Bob
Click to expand...

Wow who is angry now. Calling me under educated. I wasn't angry as I could care less. You seem to have a problem following the rules of arguing the topic and not the people.

Its a proven fact the rich keeps the bulk of their funds in other countries that has lower if no taxes. I am glad you can see the good in the wealthy.
 
Dark Jedi said:
Wow who is angry now. Calling me under educated. I wasn't angry as I could care less. You seem to have a problem following the rules of arguing the topic and not the people.

Its a proven fact the rich keeps the bulk of their funds in other countries that has lower if no taxes. I am glad you can see the good in the wealthy.
Click to expand...

Yup, undereducated indeed. For good reason: you seem to post things without any facts to back them up. Like you really know anything about how the rich think or where they keep their cash. Give me a break. I know a number of 'the rich' and even I do not know where they keep their money.

You make silly claims, and this tells me you do not read too many books or you only read books that support something you find on the web that is ever so laughable.

For the record, I am also undereducated.

So lets get back to the thread topic so we both stay out of trouble with the moderators. FYI, it was the Wisconsin Union Bill.

Bob
 
shadowninty said:
imposing trade barriers, are through supranational organisations
Click to expand...

Really? Imposing trade barriers on sovereign nations that have the temerity to set their own levels of taxation? Never mind the fact that trade barriers generally don't end well for all involved. See the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act vis-a-vis the Great Depression.
 
So how about that Wisconsin Union Bill.... Whew, bet we could really discuss the hell out of that one, huh? Perhaps someone could start a thread called "The Wisconsin Union Bill and Everything Unrelated To The Bill" I know I would read it.

Bob
 
cjr72 said:
Really? Imposing trade barriers on sovereign nations that have the temerity to set their own levels of taxation? Never mind the fact that trade barriers generally don't end well for all involved. See the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act vis-a-vis the Great Depression.
Click to expand...

there are few major offending countries and territorries
corporation tax rates are a big deal in Europe, UK corporations scam citizens by moving profits to other EU countries
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom