WSJ:
Union employees bear more of the burden of high state corporate taxes than non-union employees, according to a new study distributed by the National Bureau of Economic Research.
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Everyday it seems like the lib3rals keep back stepping. We make no progress in anything but getting obama elected. Now we get the same rethreads. NO change we can believe in.
good articles 4 slow news day: http://www
When the public demand change if the politicians won't give it to us? ......
One Big Duh! You might as well have two headlines.
1. People pay higher state taxes in higher tax states.
and
2. People who have higher incomes tend to pay more in state taxes.
Union membership has nothing to do with it.
Let's see:
Take the $47,000 per year union income and pay more in taxes or...
Take the $33,000 per year income and apply for food stamps to help feed my family of four.
Think I'll take the first one.
obama reappoints Bernanke 'the beagle' Ben
yay another example of no change. voters were deceived. No change.
good articles 4 slow news day: http://www
Goofy observation, blinders on , maybe if you close your eyes, you can remember the Bush Catastrophe, and be really proud , lol,lol,lol
What the article does not address is how the unions cause everyone else to pay more for products. Thats fine if you are in the union and get paid more, but bad for minimum wage workers that have to pay more for products. There will be more of an effect if card check is passed. If you are not in a union do not be fooled by the propaganda that union gains will benifit you. Those you are not in a union will have their living standard reduced. If you unionized every worker in the country would be the solution. That is not going to happen and if you did there would be no net benifit to anyone. Unions do not care about the effect on nonunion workers,
We should then outlaw all jobs in the United States and export them to China, India or wherever people are willing to work for next to nothing. That is the surefire way to cut the costs of all products.
The only problem is that there wouldn't be anyone left in American who can afford to buy any of these products.
What some commenters have failed to understand is that this article and study is not promoting the obvious claim that if you make more you pay more taxes. This is really the trickle down claim that when corporations make more we all do better. They are claiming that all corporate taxes redound on the employees, in this case union employees. And this study, which as some have noted is only lightly touched upon, was probably designed to show that corporations that paid higher taxes had less money for their employees.
Even if this is true, and we can’t be sure because it is only one study and we have no details on how the conclusions were reached, there are no corporations in America that are 100 percent unionized. None! So conclusions based on such a percentage of union employees do not reflect reality. In addition, even if the basic principle were right, the opposite situation might not be true, that if corporations had more money they would share it more equitably with their workers. Further, the states with the lowest taxes are also the states with the lowest union membership. In fact most of those states are “right to work: states which have the lowest union membership and the lowest average wages.
A proper study would look at would be the percentages of profits before wages that corporations pay in salaries across the board and see if that increases, decreases or stays the same as taxes increase. Not pretend that corporations have 100 percent union workers. The solution to more government revenue is to raise taxes on everyone making more than $250,000 a year by something like 25 to 30 percent to the levels that existed in the Kennedy administration. Then such studies regarding corporate profits could cease.
The article does not provide the analysis. They used a bogus headline to set the story up in a WSJ approved way, but the report comes from respected sources. What they are saying is that union workers are able to successfully bargain for more money in states with lower corporate taxes. What that means is that workers are paying a share of those takes in the form of lower wages, not just stock holders or executives. This kind of analysis is crucial if effective policy is to be created. For instance, it might be helpful to know that just because you say "so and so" should pay a tax doesn't they pay it with their money. You can't just ignore it because you heard about it through the WSJ.
This article and its' premise are ridiculous. Unions are predominantly in northern, mid-Western, and northwestern states. Those states have higher state income taxes. TX and the others mentioned are right to work states, have few unions because of that, and TX has no income tax on ANYONE, even union members. Ditto for the rest.
This is, once again, a ridiculous attempt at trashing unions.
Gosh darn it! I almost fell for it again, Huffpo. Desperate to keep the click numbers up, no?
What I think you're saying is: higher wages, higher taxes.
Why are people such lemmings?
It is p.a.t.h.e.
When it comes to people who want to protect people from injust people, they always have to struggle with people who want to use people to enrich people.
Judge a tree by its fruit for cryin' out loud!!
Injust or unjust?
a University of Michigan professor, looks at “union wage premiums,” or the average amount by which union hourly wages exceed non-union hourly wages. It analyzes how various levels of state tax affect those premiums.
"union wage premiums".
why is there anything from the effin WSJ on this site...
the hole point of this propaganda is, if you dont make as much you dont pay as much...W.T
Duh. We make more money!!
THIS IS A WALL STREET JOURNAL ARTICLE.
Owned by Murdoch.
He should rename it Faux Financial, but he's still riding on the old WSJ rep.
Heh heh and let Cramer break the bottle on the new brass name plate~!
Too funny.
Wow! All those kickbacks and payoffs aren't working out so well then, are they.
Meaning"..
Same here.
Guys anidiot who should be thanking unions for all he's getting now. Needs to study a little American history rather than make ignorantremarks about things he's clearly ignorantabout.
You have a pretty warped idea of what unions are about. When you make a living wage, you pay more taxes.
It's simple, really.
Except for the ones in Wisconson working for Mercury Marine (MM). Add a couple 2,500 to the unemployed rolls. Be thankful for a job but they pushed it and zoom!, no more job. Good for you MM! Glad I have one on the back of my boat.
Read Sinclair's The Jungle or Steinbeck's Grapes of Wrath and then thank your lucky stars that there were courageous men who fought for what was right. Corporations dehumanize people and turn them into numbers that do not hurt do not feel do not starve and do not love--they only make them money and if they are not doing that, then they are disposable.
Thank your lucky stars you live in a country with unions. Without unions, our citizens would be treated like animals, or as Steinbeck wrote, "If you have a team of oxen and there are no crops to plow, you wouldn't think of not feeding them, but weez people
Goldman Sachs, Bank of America, AIG, the ratings agencies, most of Wall Street do not have union workers; but, their lobbyists probably laid alot of money around to get the $700 billion TARP bailout money.
What I got from that article is that unions are usually better off in states that lower corporate income taxes and that totally makes since because in this day and age companies can easily close up shop and relocate to mexico or china or wherever, if we want to strengthen unions we need to repeal the NAFTA, GATT AND CAFTA trade agreements that have gutted this country of industry. You don't here Obama talking about that now do you!!!
That's a Wall Street Journal article.
Murdoch.
It's anti-union propaganda.
At the moment, I hear Obama talking about health care reform, which would LOWER COSTS for employers.
You want NAFTA repealed or amended? Great idea. Are you doing anything to make that happen, suggesting it at www.whiteh
Loading comments…
First Posted: 08-24-09 06:07 PM | Updated: 08-24-09 06:16 PM