This letter is in regard to the “union busting” now going on in Wisconsin.
The first thing Republicans did when Gov. Scott Walker got into office was to cut corporate taxes. If Gov. Walker just raised corporate taxes to the national average, $1 billion would be added to state revenues. Sixty percent of businesses earning more than $100 million a year in Wisconsin do not pay any taxes, according to the Institute for Wisconsin’s Future.
The extravagant show of blaming unions is nonsense promoted by the billionaire Koch brothers, who also quietly fund the tea party, the Republican Party and Gov. Walker’s campaign. Of course, the Koches hate unions and having to pay workers a decent wage with benefits because that cuts a tiny sliver into their enormous profits.
Think about it. Companies making millions in Wisconsin pay no taxes and the working people in unions get blamed for the state’s money problems.
Ellen Field, New Gloucester
Report a correction
SCOTUS and Mr. Riml
As I have stated previously, I don't believe they have ever heard such a case. I never said they did. There is one particular "Brief" that has been filed in the 9thCircuit since 1976 and they refuse to bring it up for hearing. I just don't buy YOUR premise that if there is no SCOTUS ruling, that therefore it is not "unconstitutional". Our Founders' strong belief for life and individual freedoms was so strong that I honestly believe that a ruling such as "ROE v Wade" would never had seen a positive light of day as the extremely left leaning court did in those days! Look up the specific words in the 2nd or maybe 3rd version of "Blacks Law Dictionary". Maybe, just maybe, it could make you a true "PATRIOT" in the vision of our Founders and not the "ANTI-CONSTITUTIONALIST PROGRESSIVES" that the believers of "a smaller government governs best" philosophy of the Founders!
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Kudos AwardedAgree (1) Disagree (1)
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.In order to be a 'True Patriot' according to the Founders
and you put it, Mr. Cyr - do I also have to own slaves, and father children by them as they did at the time???
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Kudos AwardedDisagree (2)
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.You've got to be a bit more specific, Jim.
A 'brief' is a legal document field with the court specifying why a particular case should be decided in one way or another. If the brief you are referring to was filed back in 1976 - odds are that the case which this was filed with has long been decided - but as you are the one bringing it into the discussion here with the allegation that it was refused to be brought to hearing - it's your responsibility to provide both the details of the brief and the case with which it was filed.
You say you don't believe they've ever heard such cases? You're very wrong. Have you ever studied college level Constitutional Law courses, Jim? Been taught how to read Supreme Court Decsions and write legal briefs? It's much easier now with the internet; but I had to slog through that back before personal computers.
I'm not going to spell out the 16th Amendment cases which tested the Constitutionality of the Income Tax as we now have it. You're obviously well able to use a computer, and you can perform your own research. Remember - you don't get to interpret law or the Constitution - that's lies within the power of the Supreme Court.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Kudos AwardedDisagree (2)
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.People Have Gone!
Mr. LeBlanc, Most people have NOT gone to jail! And the few that have were mostly on "TRUMPED-UP" charges. And lets remember "UNITED WE STAND, DIVIDED WE FALL"
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Kudos AwardedDisagree (1)
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Of those indicted - most definitely go to jail!!!
Don't bet the farm on it, Mr. Cyr ----> http://www.irs.gov/compliance/enforcement/article/0,,id=106380,00.html
One would imagine most non-filers are converted to 'filers' with the gentle persuasive arts of the IRS. For those who still refuse to 'file' and are indicted, the future looks bleak - about an 80% incarceration rate with an average 33 to 44 months at the iron bar hotel. Not good odds.
And here are some 'Myths' --> http://docs.law.gwu.edu/facweb/jsiegel/Personal/taxes/happens.htm
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Kudos AwardedDisagree (2)
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Business pays "income taxes"
Good post Mr.Leblanc. Very interesting point that businesses pay "income tax" on profits minus expenses! One of those expenses just happens to be "wages"! And yet the I.R.S. insists that your "wages" are not an even exchange for your hard earned labor,they are twisted into calling it "PROFIT". Talk about an"UNCONSTITUTIONAL TAX" on the wage earners! What an economy we would have if we were "Allowed" to take home our whole paycheck! Gee, we just might buy those extra things that we so worked hard for! Instead we get stolen from and redistributed to those unproductive aspects of society! What a system!
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Kudos AwardedDisagree (1) Agree (3)
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.When did SCOTUS find that 'Unconstitutional' Jim??
I've asked you once before for the Supreme Court of the United State (SCOTUS) Decision declaring the income tax on wages 'Unconstitutional' as you state it is - but you continually neglect to do so.
Or is this something that you've just decided that you're the 'Supreme Decider' on?
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Kudos AwardedDisagree (2)
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.People have gone done the
People have gone done the unconstitutional path before. Most of them are in jail. There is a way to get there. Support the FairTax.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Kudos AwardedAgree (2)
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Business and income taxes
I'm hardly an expert on tax law but it's my impression that businesses get quite a few write offs on their income taxes as things are now. Since the State of Maine derives most of its income from the income tax, however, I do feel businesses should contribute for the following reason. Infrastructure. Take cheap electricity for example. We are heavily dependent on Middle Eastern oil in this state. Anyone reading the news lately should be concerned about how their political upheavals will affect the cost of living and doing business here should they close off the spigot or prices spike out of control. The solution is to find other sources of energy. I don't know of anyone who would have the resources to do that without a lot of state support. Companies who need a lot of power would be the ones who would benefit the most and I think they should contribute to solving this problem.
The same goes for roads, ports, airports, bridges, statewide broadband access etc. The income tax is formulated so that those who have the most profit would contribute more. I think it is the only fair way to do it.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Kudos AwardedDisagree (2) Agree (2)
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.A business pays income tax on
A business pays income tax on its profit: revenue minus expenses. One of those expenses is electricity. Is this an example of a "write-off"? What would happen if Maine decided to disallow that expense? (Aside from getting way out of sync with federal tax law.) Profit would go up (artificially) and they would pay more state income tax; they would increase the prices they charge to cover the increased expense. The increased prices percolate throughout the state's economy until they finally arrive at the only real tax payers: individuals. You and me.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Kudos AwardedAgree (2)
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Why aren't there more unions...
...in the private sector? Corporate greed.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Kudos AwardedDisagree (3) Agree (1)
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Bob, you are a virtuoso on a
Bob, you are a virtuoso on a one note piano.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Kudos AwardedDisagree (2) Agree (1)
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.So we're just an octave different from your piano....
Pot meet kettle, kettle meet pot, Mike.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Kudos AwardedAgree (3)
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.I was pointing out the
I was pointing out the obvious that Bob posts the same comment in every thread even remotely related to unionism. Evidently some folks need more obvious than others. At least yours has a few more words, although no more content.
Taking a guess here ... You say I shout "Unions are evil!" for every one of Bob's "Corporations are evil!" Actually, Veritas, I usually suggest that union[u]ism[/u] is evil. Union members are generally hard working, honest people who are being sold down the river by union leaders who generally make mafiosi look like choirboys.
The ultimate result of unionism is always the same. Before you sit down to play your masterpiece, look on the underside of that piano and see the label "Made in China".
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Kudos AwardedAgree (3)
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Anything you say...
...professor. You're so much more intelligent than I and of course, have a lot more money (probably mine) and are much more important than I. Anything and everything you say is right on.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.I have no idea how
I have no idea how intelligent you are, given just a few snarky bumpersticker posts. So until some different evidence comes in, I have to agree with you.
By the way, in a working career that is now 41+ years, the only handout I have taken was unemployment for 5 weeks in 2006. If that was your money, thank you very much. But I have always been under the impression that employers paid unemployment insurance. I could be wrong, I suppose, but with all that intelligence, money and importance, I'll stick to that impression.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Kudos AwardedAgree (1)
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Another snarky bumpersticker
Another 12 years and you'll catch me. In all that time I paid into Social Security. My money. Now, people rag on me for wanting some of it back, calling me a freeloader, and if I mention no COLA for two years, I really get jumped on. Even in the three years I was "right sized" and worked three jobs, in my late 50's and early 60's, to try and make ends meet, I didn't take unemployment. That's NOT a criticism. That's what it's there for and if qualified, should be used. That will get me some posts about what a liberal I am and how my time has now come and I should sit back and enjoy it and how my Social Security should be taken away. Teachers pensions should be taken away. Bargaining rights should be taken away. And that money, that rightfully belongs to working stiffs, goes into the pockets of the rich, which, according to my conservative friends, is how it should be. Keep the boot on the neck of the working class. What goes around comes around. Gov. Buffoon will get his.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Kudos AwardedDisagree (1)
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Finally some evidence!
… In all that time I paid into Social Security. My money. Now, people rag on me for wanting some of it back …
It is not your money. The government spends SS "contributions" as soon as it receives them. There's an IOU in the lockbox, no money, no account - gone. Blame FDR for setting it up that way.
… and how my Social Security should be taken away.
Of course not. Liberals always drag that out to scare old folks. SS should be fixed before it's lost to you and everyone else. The only way to fix this Ponzi scheme is to convert it into a real, private (gasp) investment like a 401(k). As long as the government can get its grubby paws on the money, it will continue to be just a slush fund for politicians.
Teachers pensions should be taken away. Bargaining rights should be taken away.
No one ever said the former, but a lot of people have said the latter - starting again with FDR, the liberal demigod.
And that money … goes into the pockets of the rich …
Ah, the mantra of envy, often stated, seldom substantiated. You can't show me one instance of a rich person stealing pension money from working stiffs. But I can show you plenty of instances of pensions being raided by union goons and politicians.
Woody, you have a lot of legitimate beefs but you're blaming the wrong perps.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Kudos AwardedAgree (3)
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Truth be told...
...I'm not looking to blame anyone for anything. I would just like to have what I believe I've worked for for over 60 years without having my neck stepped on and told what a bad man I am.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Kudos AwardedAgree (1)
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Who's to blame?
I know of no business in this country that exists for the purpose of creating jobs. They all exist to create profit mainly for owners, CEO's and shareholders. They do this mainly by trimming the payroll and driving up prices. Sometimes they even do this to the point of damaging customer satisfaction and product quality. To blame the workers who are barely making enough to live on for driving up prices is a lot of smoke and hooey. Businesses use community services like plowing and roads and schools and trash removal and courts and licensing services and they should pay for them like everybody else. In every survey done with business owners cheap energy, good schools and a quality work force were the most important factors in the desirability of a community. Lowering taxes on the rich and laying off teachers, policemen, firemen and state workers will only result in poor schools, unsafe cities and logjams in state services such as courts and licensing not to mention the damage to the infrastucture such as electrical transmission, roads, bridges and technology. None of this will improve the business climate in Maine and laying off a bunch of people does not constitute job creation in my book.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Kudos AwardedDisagree (3) Agree (4)
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Ms. Gamache, how many
Ms. Gamache, how many businesses have you worked for or run that exist for losing money or just breaking even? Of course they want to make a profit (gasp) to repay the folks who invested to get them going in the first place. Businesses pay property taxes to cover all those services you mentioned, just like individuals. We're talking about income taxes. Raising income taxes on businesses does nothing to help community services, in fact it hurts them because historical evidence suggests that higher income taxes lead to lower government revenue.
Businesses who damage customer satisfaction and product quality won't be in business very long and won't be able to sustain the union demanded wages and benefits at any level. In fact, you make them sound like those companies driven to desperation by union extortion. This has been what's going on for decades and it certainly hasn't improved the business climate in Maine. Ready, fire, aim!
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Kudos AwardedDisagree (1) Agree (3)
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.source?
"higher income taxes lead to lower government revenue."
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Kudos AwardedAgree (3) Disagree (1)
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Laffer Curve Mark, Google
Laffer Curve Mark, Google it....
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Kudos AwardedAgree (2) Disagree (1)
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.theory
The Laffer Curve is nothing more than an economic theory. It has not been proven.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Kudos AwardedDisagree (2) Agree (1)
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Clinton
In fact, the Clinton administration laid waste to the whole theory.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Kudos AwardedDisagree (2) Agree (1)
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.You said it yourself Mark,
You said it yourself Mark, the Laffer Curve is just a baseline "theory" but just because it hasn't been proven, doesn't make it not true. It is merely a baseline principle as there are countless variables in economics. I think even most liberals would say that the Clinton administration was an exception to many "rules".
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Kudos AwardedAgree (2) Disagree (1)
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.its outrageous
I agree with you 110% - the Walker talker would have us believe that it is the pblic school teacher who is the one guilty of avarice and must cede his/her bargaining rights. After all teachers only work 9 months of the year and get out of school in the middle of the afternoon and get paid $50,000 + per year - but he forgets continuing education and paper work - students are not the only ones with homework. Meanwhile corporations get huge tax breaks and I bet the walker talker makes more than $50k!
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Kudos AwardedDisagree (5) Agree (5)
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.You think about it.
Ms. Field, companies do not pay taxes. Oh, they fill out forms and some even send a check, but it's just another cost of doing business. They pass that cost to their customers in the form of higher prices for goods and services. The state may (heavy emphasis) give that money back to you, but you lose it immediately when you pay higher prices. We, the customers, can't pass the cost along because we're at the end of the line.
Meanwhile, companies lose the option of using those tax payments to hire more workers, all of whom pay income and payroll taxes, the source of most of the state's revenue. Higher wages and benefits, forced by unions, are indirect taxes with the same result.
With high corporate taxes and strong unions, "working people" get the worst of both worlds.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Kudos AwardedDisagree (5) Agree (6)
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.