Friday, May 20, 2011
It Takes Two Sides to Make a Balance Sheet
Robert Reich and others are correct. The income of the top 1% of wage earners HAS gone up, and gone up dramatically. According to the IRS, the top 1% in 1981 made but a modest 8.3% of the country's total gross income. By 2008, this same group was earning a whopping 20% of that income. So, are Mr. Reich and the rest of the progressives correct in their saying that Reaganomics has in fact ruined America, accentuated inequality, etc.? Well, maybe.................................................................................................You see, folks, Mr. Reich has conveniently left out an important part of the story-line here. Yes, the income of the top 1% indeed HAS skyrocketed. But, so, too, has this particular strata's tax burden. Again, according to the IRS, in 1981, the top 1% payed 17.6% of all income taxes. In 2008, that number grew to a shade over 38%. Please, allow me here to do the math for you. From 1981 to 2008, the adjusted gross income of the top 1% went up (as a percentage of all income) a total of 141%. At the same time as this, the percentage of the top 1%'s tax share went up 116%, not a hugely significant difference.................................................................................................Now, if you wanted to include wealth as a variable, that might more adequately make the progressives' case here. BUT, if you're looking strictly at income and taxes, along with the fact that social spending as a percentage of GNP was basically the same at the end of the Reagan years as it was at the beginning, it is kind of hard to say that Reagan was any sort of huge monster dude - a great President - no, a monster - no.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
20 comments:
Robert Reich was well known for his hostility to workers' rights... Such as this quote in which he complains about the problem of unions being accountable to workers.
“The theory is that the only way unions can exercise countervailing power vis-a-vis management is to hold their members’ feet to the fire . . . Otherwise, the organization is only as good as it is convenient for any given member at any given time.”
Wow, that's almost as bad as these 2 political parties and their litmus tests and shit.
Saying that (as a percentage) how much the wealthy pay in taxes went up more than how much they earn doesn't mean the wealthy are overburdened, or getting screwed... or whatever it is you're implying... because total income earned and total taxes paid are two different numbers!
Total taxes paid is a SMALLER number than total income earned, so OF COURSE the percentage the wealthy paid in taxes is going to go up more (as a percentage)... because it's a percentage of a smaller number!
Also, I've got no problem with that Robert Reich quote (if genuine)... Business imposes rules upon their employees as a condition of employment, why should the same not be the case with unions?
I'm not exactly sure what you're saying, dude. First of all, I said that the INCOME went up HIGHER than the TAXES (which kind of supports your side). I was just criticizing Reich, etc. for the fact that they Hannityesque only reported half of the story, the half that more closely ascribes to his narrative.......I'm not saying that the wealthy are "burdened". That is you paranoiacly putting words into my mouth (remember, I'm in favor of the top rates going back to 39.6%?). I'm just saying that the left is perhaps overreaching somewhat in its analysis, too. The bottom 50% make 13% of the income but pay only 3% of the taxes. The top 1% make 20% of the income and pay 38% of the taxes. Could and should they pay a higher percentage? Perhaps. But let's not go totally socialism on us here.
W Dervish: The problem is that most workers who are in unions are bullied into joining them. So there's simply no accountability there. This would not be a problem if this choice were left to individual workers.
If union membership were voluntary, I'd have no problem at all with such rules being imposed.
And yes the quote IS genuine.
Another worker-hostile action of Reich's was an order resciding Bush 1's requirements that unions inform their members of their rights not to make outright political contributions.
I can give personal testimony to that, dmarks. The union tried to muscle in at our facility and most of the people who signed those cards did so just to get the people off of their backs (the union was of course voted down once the workers were allowed a private vote on the matter).
dmarks: If union membership were voluntary...
IT IS voluntary in "right to work for less" states... which I oppose. RTW is a Republican creation designed to weaken unions (RTW laws should be repealed).
After EVERYONE VOTES for a union, people who don't want to be a part of it can voluntarily seek employment elsewhere. New employees can voluntarily elect to work for a non-union business.
Foreigners looking for a new country to call home can voluntarily elect to not immigrate to the US if they don't like democracy. How is this different?
You're forgetting one thing, wd. The workers who form these unions DON'T OWN THE BUSINESSES.......I have mixed feelings on this right to work issue. Part of me agrees with you that the vote (and I'm glad that you're saying that it should be a vote and not card check) should be all encompassing. But the other part of me thinks that if a person wants to form a separate relationship with the employer, they (the worker and the owner) should in fact have the right to do that. I have to think a little bit more about this.
I support card check. It's just the first step in the process. First a survey is conducted to determine if a vote should be held (card check). Then, if the workers think there should be a vote, a secret ballot election is held.
Should a worker and an owner be allowed to "form a separate relationship"? No, not if there is a union. They should not be allowed to do that.
I want to form a "separate relationship" with the Federal government and not be represented by the two Republican Senators from Tennessee (the state where I live). Can I do that?
It's apples and oranges, wd. No one person owns the state of Tennessee. One person in fact COULD own a business, a business that he/she may have worked their entire career for. It just doesn't seem right that 60-70 people (in some instances) could virtually take the place over and dictate to the owner any other potential relationship that that owner may develop. We live in a free frigging society, for Christ.............So, the workers decide if there's going to be a secret vote? One side gets to dictate the parameters here? Unacceptable. That would be like Joe Frazier saying to the referee, "No, don't stop it. I want to beat Mr. Quarry some more."
W-dervish said: "IT IS voluntary in "right to work for less" states... which I oppose."
I strongly support it since it puts the power in the hands of the workers.
"RTW is a Republican creation designed to weaken unions (RTW laws should be repealed)."
Well, of COURSE it weakens the power of unions if people aren't forcede to give money to them. Just like the current situation where people aren't forced to give money to the NRA weakens the NRA. RTW laws should be made national.
"After EVERYONE VOTES for a union, people who don't want to be a part of it can voluntarily seek employment elsewhere."
So, what you are saying is that people should be fired for refusing to join a political organization that has nothing to do with how well they can do the job. Sorry, I stand with the workers on this.
"Foreigners looking for a new country to call home can voluntarily elect to not immigrate to the US if they don't like democracy. How is this different?"
That's a very bad analogy. A much better one would be a workplace where the employer forces people to join the Baptist Church. If the workers don't want to join, they can work elsewhere, right?
After all, whether or not you are a registered Baptist has much to do with how well you can do a job as whether or not you are in a union.
dmarks, how do Right To Work For Less laws put power in the hands of workers? The employer has all the power unless there is a union, and you want to diminish the union's power. You ADMITTED in your prior post that RTW (for LESS) does this!
I strongly support unions (and oppose RTW-FL laws) because unions give workers power where previously they had none.
People depend on their jobs for their livelyhood... the same can hardly be said of the NRA. Also, you're correct to say that being a Baptist or Union member has nothing to do how you perform on the job, but being in a union DOES have a lot to do with how much you are paid to do that job.
In RTW-FL states avergae wages are $5,333 a year less.
A Union isn't a "political organization", it represents ALL of it's members, whatever political party they throw their lot in with.
The union that I worked for didn't represent ALL of its workers. It threw the much less senior (and often more productive) ones under the bus in order to protect the bloated salaries of the much more senior/connected (often LESS productive) ones. Not everybody, wd, DESERVES, representation.
W-dervish asked: "dmarks, how do Right To Work For Less laws put power in the hands of workers? "
By letting them each choose whether or not it is in their interest to join a union.
"The employer has all the power unless there is a union"
Assuming this is true, you make the problem WORSE by ADDING another big organization to bully the workers: the unions.
"and you want to diminish the union's power. You ADMITTED in your prior post that RTW (for LESS) does this!"
Yes. Exactly. I don't want unions to steal money from people and force them to support their causes. Unions are way too powerful due to the huge percentage of members that are forced to join.
Diminish their power and they will be like LEGITIMATE political groups that don't bully and steal. Like the NRA, the ACLU, and the Sierra Club.
"I strongly support unions (and oppose RTW-FL laws) because unions give workers power where previously they had none."
Only for those workers that agree with them. For those who do not (who can be half or more of the workers), the workers have even less power than they had before.
"People depend on their jobs for their livelyhood... the same can hardly be said of the NRA."
True.... No one can be fired for refusing to give money to the NRA. All the more reason to stop union thuggery.
"but being in a union DOES have a lot to do with how much you are paid to do that job."
Which is LESS. Unions steal hundreds from each member each year and siphon this money into political campaigns.
As for union wages overall, they ARE often higher. But this is an unsustainable situation: union workers tend to do a worse job since the unions prevent bad workers from being fired. So you end up with people being paid %60 an hour to build very shoddy automobiles, and the unions force the manufacturers to move overseas. I'd rather have people be paid the real value of the work; it will keep more jobs.
"A Union isn't a "political organization",
It is, because they steal large sums to use for political campaigns.
"it represents ALL of it's members"
No, it only represents those few workers who agree with it.
"whatever political party they throw their lot in with."
Yet, almost all unions bully their members into giving to the Democrats.
This is actually a big issue. Laws have been proposed, called "paycheck protection", to give workers a choice in this political money. The unions oppose it, of course, admitting that the main point is to extort political contributions.
Let each worker choose whether or not to be in a union. I side with workers, not union thugs.
dmarks, I already know you support the Citizens United decision (from a previous discussion), however, given the fact that you just said unions shouldn't be able to use their members' money to support political campaigns...
would you also support a law requiring shareholders in a corporation be allowed the same choice before any corporate money is spent supporting a political candidate?
I do not believe corporations or unions should be allowed to donate to political campaigns AT ALL. Neither corporations nor unions are people. Neither should be allowed to participate in the political process. Only individual people should have that right.
I do not believe, however, that we should outlaw or do anything else to diminish the ability of unions to give to political campaigns and (at the same time) do nothing to curtail the amount of money corporations are donating (either directly or through 3rd party support).
The purpose of a union is to REPRESENT it's members, not "bully" them. So, in regards to the "union thugs"...
I do not approve of any variety of thugishness. I oppose corruption whether it be corporate, union, or governmental. I believe in rooting out corruption, not weakening the institutions it exists in to the point that they become ineffective in performing their necessary functions.
W-Dervish said: "unions shouldn't be able to use their members' money to support political campaigns..."
Only if workers have a choice in union membership. However, in most situations, workers are forced against their will and interest to join.
If we had national "right to work" protection for workers, I would oppose ALL restrictions on what unions do with the money.
"Neither corporations nor unions are people."
Irrelevant. These and other organizations are MADE of people.
There is no clause in the First Amendment to allow government to censor people because they belong to organizations.
"The purpose of a union is to REPRESENT it's members, not "bully" them. So, in regards to the "union thugs"..."
It SHOULD be, but in reality it's not. The thugs don't have to be accountable to their members since the members are forced to join anyway.
Just like the Sierra Club, NRA, and ACLU would become arrogant and unaccountable if they didn't have to do things to convince people to join, and instead forced them to join against their will.
And to answer this question
"would you also support a law requiring shareholders in a corporation be allowed the same choice before any corporate money is spent supporting a political candidate?"
It's a red herring. Shareholders all CHOOSE to invest on a corporation. Their choice to invest in it means their approval of the company's policies (including its political support).
The comparison is simply invalid. It would be valid if the shareholders, as part of investing in the company, were forced to join and give dues to an unnecessary side group. Then we have apples and apples.
"Only individual people should have that right."
Finally, do you really look forward to a reversal of Citizens United and a complete enforcement of what you just said?
The New York Times is a corporation. Putting in the censorship regime you favor would gag any political opinions from being expressed in it.
What ever happened to, if you don't like what someone says, ignore it? We need to stop looking for excused to censor and to bar people from the political process.
....and it turns out that "Democracy Now" is also an organization, and subject to censorship.
Do you honestly support the idea that caused the court decision in the first place... the government gag on a film people made that was critical of a US senator?
dmarks: Do you honestly support the idea that caused the court decision in the first place?
Yes.
Post a Comment