Depends on how you look at it. Does most money come from the rich? Well, DUH, that makes sense, doesn't it?

Instead, look at the % paid by the rich as opposed to the poor. Take out all the loopholes they can use and see how they compare. You'll find that the rich might pay slightly more % wise, but they can deal with it easier. 10% of a $50,000 income can really make it difficult to pay your bills, but 15% of a 1,000,000 income and there's no worry about losing your home or putting food on the table.

And compared to just about every other country on Earth, our taxes are amazingly small.

Nobody pays 15% on a $1,000,000 income due to AMT, but that's a separate point.

In your original point you were saying that if the rich are better off, then they should pay more in taxes. Well, surprise, they do. By a wide margin. Then you turn around and say that they should pay even more. Why? Because somehow that would make things more fair. How much more? Anyone's guess.

Mike, that is classic class warfare rhetoric. Personally, I would love for everyone to pay less in taxes, not more. And yes, I would love to get rid of the myriad of tax exemptions too - they're nothing more than social engineering attempts by the government. Unfortunately in a democracy people can vote more money for themselves - all the way to financial ruin - something that we saw take place just a few months ago in Greece.



That's not really true, but if it were, it would be fantastic.

I agree, class warfare through government means doesn't exist in this country. Rocket dockets are a lefty lie.

I'm being glib of course, but the banks in this country...

Look, if there is any class warfare in America, the rich have already won.

And I know whose side I am on.

Well isn't that convenient.

It's a sure sign of a meaningful debate when cartoons and punk rock music substitute for actual thoughts.

Have a good day, gentlemen.

Aw, Krem, don't cry. Just because we disagree with you. You can still have your opinion.

It's OK. It's very admirable of you to stand up for the over-privileged like that. I mean, if you don't look out for their numerous homes, fancy cars, and weekends in Bermuda, who will? I'm sure your heart just bleeds when you worry about their incredible tax burden. Why, if people like me had their way, they might have to lay off one of the maids! The horror!

I can only talk from personal experience, but I would question whether teachers have more incompetent workers or ones committing crimes than any other profession.

And, again, I can only talk from personal experience, but I know of both tenured and non-tenured teachers that have been let go due to performance issues.

I think it's an exaggeration to suggest that it is a more protected or coddled profession than would be typical. It is also an exaggeration to suggest that the teacher's union is some powerful body that protects every bad teacher.

What, don't like the Dead Kennedys? C'mon mang.

So, what should we do with the Wall Street guys that tanked the economy? Let's appropriate more power for them and let them restart another shitstorm cycle. But don't tax them. God no.

Hmm: http://www.jsonline.com/news/milwaukee/32492604.html

From another board...

What contract will be broken? The law would limit collective bargaining rights mainly to wages (and even that would be narrow) and it will apply to future and not current contracts.

Besides, states have to follow the United States Constitution:

Art. 1, § 10, Cl. 1. (Emphasis added).

Rational basis review applies when the state modifies a private contract. Where there is a contract with the state (like a CBA), an elevated level of review applies to all retroactive modifications by the state. However, this is an example of neither.

LAWL: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WBnSv3a6Nh4

Doesn't this show that Walker doesn't really receive much input from the Koch Bros.? Meaning, he couldn't even tell this was a fake.

It's not a good imitation really, but you have to take into account he didn't hear his voice in such crystal-clear quality. But if he wasn't on reasonably acquainted terms with him, why does he break into casual conversation so easily? Plus, he pretty much admits throughout it's not about balancing the budget. Sooo...

I also like how he admits to considering planting protesters. I swear I heard something about pay-offs too. "I'll show you a good time!"

I listened to about the first 5 minutes and the last 1. It seemed pretty dry and was mostly Walker talking about behind the scenes political maneuvering, maybe some legal recourse if the union's were paying the legislators to not work, and other things like that.

The Koch impersonator made some [unfunny] joke about hiring hobos and Walker seemed to mostly ignore him. All-in-all I found the conversation to be boring and nothing controversial was said (at least in the parts I did not skip out of boredom).

I suppose if you are a Koch/Soros type fringer, then this was some red meat. Personally, I do not give a shit what George Soros wants to waste his money on and I do not see why you care what the Koch Bros. choose to waste their money on.

You missed a lot of amusing shit.

Soros was pretty evil back in the day. I'm not sure what exactly he's up to now other than being another cash cow for Dems, but I haven't seen explicitly crazy anti-science shit. Another strange guy.

I agree though, people's spending habits are irrelevant in a massively interconnected society.

The brilliance of anti-union orchestrators is that their propaganda is often of such high quality that they can get the common man to cheer his own demise. Not to mention that the great foresight in buying the media, to disseminate it.

PS: Your use of the "§" symbol was a lovely touch.

I used the symbol for the word "section" (§) because that or "sec" is the proper way to cite it under Bluebook rules.

The problem is, once again, down to a simple way of looking at the world. Too many people see things in black and white: Our side is good, your side is bad, and there is no inbetween.

Unions are good in that they have brought about better working conditions for people, fought against unjust treatment of workers, and act as a way to counter the huge advantage the businesses have in money and connections. When both sides are relatively equal, the resulting contract made is fairer -- when one side has all the advantages, they can basically get anything they want.

This does not mean that unions are perfect. They can be stubborn, ask too much, and sometimes be corrupt. Just like management.

Instead of painting both union and management with such a broad brush claiming they are always right or always wrong, we should acknowledge that they both have very important functions in our society.

That's one of the reasons I roll my eyes at some of the debate I see over this issue ... and why I don't have any sympathy for the governor in this one. He's not saying the union abused its power in any meaningful way or otherwise did something wrong -- he just wants to destroy them because, well, he's blatantly and admittedly on the other side. He doesn't want them to have equal bargaining power. He wants an unequal playing field.

Good thing the people of Wisconsin disagree with him in large numbers (according to the polls). So much for him representing the people of his state, hm?

The issue here is public and not private unions.

So?

Seriously, why does that matter?