SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Liberalism: Do You Agree We've Had Enough of It? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Sidney Reilly who wrote (113433)9/21/2011 10:55:43 AM
From: d[-_-]b2 Recommendations  Respond to of 224750
 
Reagan started the don't tax the rich strategy, "because they create jobs". That's total bull sh**!

Never been hired by the poor myself.

Those 50% rates came with a lot of exemptions including airplanes and yachts.

The point is you either pick a single rate for everyone (which seems fair) or a progressive group of rates. The trouble is and always has been the allowed deductions aka loopholes. Attacking the rich for taking advantage of loopholes is not the issue - look at John Scary and his yacht purchase to avoid taxes.

blogs.marketwatch.com

Start closing the deductions that are no longer needed.



To: Sidney Reilly who wrote (113433)9/21/2011 10:58:21 AM
From: longnshort3 Recommendations  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 224750
 
A new ad attacks President Obama's claim that his new tax hike is "not class warfare, it's math."

Do The ‘Math’, Mr. President



To: Sidney Reilly who wrote (113433)9/21/2011 11:19:35 AM
From: Jorj X Mckie4 Recommendations  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 224750
 
I can remember when the tax rate on "the rich" was 50%. There were no deficits then. Reagan started the don't tax the rich strategy, "because they create jobs". That's total bull sh**! They ship whole factories overseas and then pay less % wise in taxes on their income here at home thanks to "tax cuts to create jobs".

The rich are creating jobs overseas. But why do they ship the jobs overseas? could it be because the fatcat rich union bosses get the union workers to demand more pay and benefits than they are worth?

Survey sez: 99% of respondents said HELL YES to the fact that the fatcat rich union bosses screwed their own union workers by demanding too much so that the fatcat rich union bosses could enjoy short term gains at the expense of the union workers jobs that have now gone to some poor families in Asia.

And what kind of jobs have unions, which we progressive liberal democrats love so much, created? None, they destroy American jobs.



To: Sidney Reilly who wrote (113433)9/21/2011 11:20:53 AM
From: longnshort1 Recommendation  Respond to of 224750
 
Law gives huge pension perks to union leaders In all, 23 expected to collect combined $56 million in their lifetimes


Dennis Gannon, then-president of the Chicago Federation of Labor, speaks with a bullhorn in April 2010 outside the Willis Tower as he joins around union members, small-business owners and community activists in a march with the federation. Gannon’s current annual city pension is $158,258. (Antonio Perez, Chicago Tribune / September 21, 2011)








By Jason Grotto, Tribune reporter September 21, 2011



All it took to give nearly two dozen labor leaders from Chicago a windfall worth millions was a few tweaks to a handful of sentences in the state's lengthy pension code.

The changes became law with no public debate among state legislators and, more importantly, no cost analysis.

Twenty years later, 23 retired union officials from Chicago stand to collect about $56 million from two ailing city pension funds thanks to the changes, a Tribune/WGN-TV investigation found.

Because the law bases the city pensions on the labor leaders' union salaries, they are reaping retirement benefits that far outstrip the modest salaries they made as city employees. On average, their pensions are nearly three times higher than what the typical retired city worker receives.

No one from either the state Legislature or city government will take credit for the law, which passed in 1991, and the process of drafting pension legislation in Springfield is so shrouded in secrecy that there's no way of knowing exactly whom to hold responsible.

The Tribune and WGN-TV found that Senate President John Cullerton was one of only 10 lawmakers on the committee that inserted the changes into a much larger bill. He's also the only one who is still in office.

Cullerton, who declined to be interviewed for this story, denied being involved in the changes and issued a statement that acknowledged the law now looks like a bad idea.

"Municipal pensions should be for the hard-working municipal employees, who typically toil in obscurity, loyally contribute to the pension funds and aren't about to get rich off of their retirements," he said in a prepared statement. "Outliers such as those highlighted by the WGN and Tribune reports should be corrected in order to help restore the system's fiscal and public integrity."

Making changes won't be easy, however. That's because the state constitution says pension benefits cannot be diminished once they are earned.

Pension experts from around the country say they've never heard of such a perk for union leaders. They warn that it not only creates opportunities to scam the system but also robs the city of its ability to control pension costs. The city doesn't set union salaries, the most important ingredient in determining the size of the leaders' pensions.

What's more, none of the labor officials retired in the traditional sense. Even as they collected their inflated city pensions, they held on to their high-paying union jobs. A decade ago, those public pension funds were flush, but they're now in such deep financial trouble that they threaten to burden taxpayers and dues-paying union workers alike.

"At a time when the public is going to be asked to pay higher taxes for fewer services, the revelation that there are benefits being paid for work that doesn't directly relate to official city business is outrageous," said Laurence Msall, president of the Civic Federation, a nonpartisan policy research group.

"It also undermines the hardworking government employees when state statutes are manipulated to benefit a handful of people," he said.

Since the 1950s, city workers who take leaves of absence to work full time for unions have been able to remain in city pension funds if they choose. The time they spend at their union jobs counts toward their city pensions.

But few labor leaders took the deal until the law was changed in 1991 to base those workers' city pensions on their union salaries instead of their old city paychecks, dramatically boosting the amount they could receive.

And every year, those city pensions grow by 3 percent. Records show the top earners are:

•Liberato "Al" Naimoli, president of the Cement Workers Union Local 76. He retired last year from a $15,000-a-year city job that he last held a quarter-century ago. Today, Naimoli receives more than $13,000 a month from the city laborers' pension fund even as he continues to earn nearly $300,000 annually as president of Local 76. His city laborers' pension will pay him about $4 million during his lifetime, according to a Tribune/WGN-TV analysis based on the funds' actuarial assumptions.

•James McNally, vice president of the International Union of Operating Engineers Local 150. He receives nearly $115,000 a year even though at the time he retired, in 2008, he had not worked for the city in more than 13 years. He was only 51 when he started collecting a city pension. By the time he turns 78, he will have received roughly $4 million from the city laborers' fund.

•Dennis Gannon, former president of the Chicago Federation of Labor. In 2004, he began receiving more than $150,000 a year after retiring at age 50 from a $56,000-a-year city job that he had left nearly 13 years earlier. He received his city pension while collecting a salary of about $200,000 from the federation. During his lifetime, the city municipal pension fund will pay him approximately $5 million. Gannon told the Tribune that he was only following the law in filing for a city pension.





To: Sidney Reilly who wrote (113433)9/21/2011 11:25:05 AM
From: d[-_-]b1 Recommendation  Respond to of 224750
 
They ship whole factories overseas

Look for Boeing to shift aircraft manufacturing overseas soon due to government intervention -

online.wsj.com

At stake is the future of a $1 billion factory Boeing recently opened to build its new 787 Dreamliner passenger jet. The NLRB alleges that Boeing built the plant in South Carolina, where unions are weak, to punish union workers in Washington state for their past strikes. As evidence, the NLRB cited public comments by Boeing executives.

Boeing asked the judge to dismiss the case as unfounded. "Frankly, we have a hard time understanding the elements" of the NLRB's allegations, said William Kilberg, an outside counsel for the company.

Aside from instances in which Boeing executives were misquoted, Mr. Kilberg said, "We would argue that Boeing's statements are truthful statements of economic realities. Customers don't want production delays caused by strikes."

"A company can certainly establish new facilities in other locations," he added.

Boeing also has challenged NLRB Acting General Counsel Lafe Solomon, arguing that he lacked authority to bring the complaint. Boeing says a provision of the National Labor Relations Act specifies that an acting general counsel can serve for only 60 days before being formally appointed general counsel. Mr. Solomon has served longer than that on an acting basis.



To: Sidney Reilly who wrote (113433)9/21/2011 11:47:57 AM
From: joefromspringfield4 Recommendations  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 224750
 
"I can remember when the tax rate on "the rich" was 50%. There were no deficits then. Reagan started the don't tax the rich strategy, "because they create jobs". That's total bull sh**!


Well as Reagan used to say facts are a stubborn thing. There were 91,031,000 jobs in the US in January 1981 when Reagan took office. When he left office after 8 years later there were 107,133,000 jobs. This results in a net increase of 16,102,000 jobs an increase of 17.7%.

en.wikipedia.org