34 MI House Dems introduce a bill that would provide refundable tax credit to cover union dues

[Badger]

I want to see the plebs actually own things, and have the lifestyle of the multi-millionaires

Okay commie.

Under communism the poorest starve! (I have met people who starved in the 1930s Soviet Union, and I have met people who starved in 2010s Venezuela. Their stories are the same; people on this forum are really substantially ignorant because they speak only English).

Under capitalism, yeah, they get the lifestyle of the multi-millionaires. There was a thread where someone (perhaps you) replied to me posting a picture of an ancient Egyptian Pharaoh being carried by slaves, saying libertarians wanted a return to that society...ignoring that very poor Americans today (88% of households) have access to a car which essentially always comes with air conditioning, something which would've been totally unimaginable to an Egyptian Pharaoh. The constant demonization of wealthy people comes from a plague of mentalistic thinking, where you are only capable of seeing someone in a hierarchy and never in an absolute way standing by themselves. (A very poor American today is substantially better off, in basically every way, than a monarch or nobleman would've been 150 years ago, and better off than virtually anybody but the most privileged was 100 years ago.)

So you are equating technological advances having improved people's lives as somehow justifying increased economic and class disparity?? It's harder than ever for younger families to afford a house or college for their kids wow economic gains of the top few tenths of a percent have skyrocketed, but your response is basically that that's okay because now we have penicillin, indoor plumbing, and Air conditioning? ???5

The reason college costs have gone up is cause far more people go to college today than people did 50 years ago. As for home prices





https://awealthofcommonsense.com/2021/09/why-u-s-housing-prices-arent-as-crazy-as-you-think/

There are notably more College professors than there were 50 years ago as well.

[Vosem]

As a reminder for people here who might benefit from hearing this:
-> vosem is a failed lawyer who has no credentials, expertise or training to interpret or understand empirical evidence about the economy

Failed lawyer? Last I heard he was in law school I think at Ohio state. What happened?

I learned to code and got a job making significantly more money than a median graduate of my law school (WUSTL) for significantly fewer hours worked. I never took the bar, though I did graduate law school. (I am not a 'failed' lawyer because I was never a lawyer! If you want to take this as evidence of flakiness/a tendency to reevaluate my career goals much more often than my political ideals, then you can go ahead.)

I want to see the plebs actually own things, and have the lifestyle of the multi-millionaires

Okay commie.

Under communism the poorest starve! (I have met people who starved in the 1930s Soviet Union, and I have met people who starved in 2010s Venezuela. Their stories are the same; people on this forum are really substantially ignorant because they speak only English).

Under capitalism, yeah, they get the lifestyle of the multi-millionaires. There was a thread where someone (perhaps you) replied to me posting a picture of an ancient Egyptian Pharaoh being carried by slaves, saying libertarians wanted a return to that society...ignoring that very poor Americans today (88% of households) have access to a car which essentially always comes with air conditioning, something which would've been totally unimaginable to an Egyptian Pharaoh. The constant demonization of wealthy people comes from a plague of mentalistic thinking, where you are only capable of seeing someone in a hierarchy and never in an absolute way standing by themselves. (A very poor American today is substantially better off, in basically every way, than a monarch or nobleman would've been 150 years ago, and better off than virtually anybody but the most privileged was 100 years ago.)

Do you have any evidence to support this bold assertion? Monarchs didn't need vacuums or dishwashers or many modern appliances because they had servants. Monarchs lived in extremely large, spacious dwellings. Monarchs did not have to do any meaningful labor in order to live in these palatial estates - usually we think that the well-being of someone is improved based on their ability to enjoy leisure. Monarchs didn't have to perform any housework whatsoever. Is this true of poor Americans? As far as I can tell, many of them do not even own washing machines or dryers - laundromats remain a business in the US.

We often see people making arguments without actually thinking hard about what they're saying or spending any time questioning "why am I saying something when I haven't been shown serious, rigorous academic research supporting my claim?"

Sure; poor people today have access to much better healthcare than monarchs would've then; although estimates on when healthcare became helpful at all vary, no one thinks it was earlier than the discovery of pasteurization in the 1870s, and some estimates go as late as the 1920s. Infant mortality today is indeed lower for the very poor than it used to be for the very rich. Food variety is much greater. Climate control is ubiquitous today and would've been unheard of then even for the very rich. Educational opportunities are much greater today purely because so much more is known; your typical public-high-school library, even in a poor area, will teach you more than anyone could've known in the recent past. Clothing is cheap and much more comfortable. Travel -- my initial point -- is more accessible today for someone with a terrible car than it was for a multi-millionaire in the 1910s. Entertainment today is far cheaper and more accessible -- monarchs might've had occasional access to live performance, but not round-the-clock access to 500 channels. (In much more socially rigid societies, expectations about how to behave were also very set in stone; it does not feel obvious to me that a 19th-century monarch could've gotten more enioyment out of leisure than a modern relatively poor American).

All of this seems significant to me! I'd be interested in seeing serious, rigorous academic discussion of the question, though; my initial point was based on a cartoon of a Pharaoh being carried around by servants, which led me to note that the worst technically-functioning car is more comfortable and much faster. I think the comparison still holds when you extend it outwards to every sphere of life, but I'd be fascinated to read a comparison from someone who has actually studied the question, because my knowledge here is pretty superficial and comes from a quick consideration of 'when were various consumer goods invented'.

[Yoda]

https://twitter.com/jonathanoosting/status/1633920704763801600?s=46&t=LQ7KCs...


So literally just after they voted to repeal right to work , MI Democrats are now planning to have the government pay money to unions .


Utterly ridiculous

We've thrown trillions of dollars at corporations (that pay less and less in taxes and continue to  cut jobs in some cases despite these huge government handouts) and the ultra wealthy class over the past 20+ years with nothing to show for it but exponential growth in debt and staggering levels of wealth inequality the country hasn't seen since the robber baron days.

For once we (propose) to spend money on working people instead of the unproductive investor class and look at the reaction from the right.

Btw, if this pisses you off you're gonna lay an egg when MI dems get around to fixing their state's absolutely heinous anti-worker tax code. Cry harder.

[Yoda]

This is what governing is. It's not regulating drag shows and reproductive rights, it's about doing things that actually benefit working people. This is what being a working class party is.

Using taxpayer money to pay of union bosses is the opposite of good governing . It’s literally the epitome of governing for special interests

Union members receive benefits that are helpful to them and their families. Those benefits are where dues money goes to.

Right, but they're harmful to all of the other people in the state, which is most of them. (They're even harmful to union members in other industries, for that matter).

Ah, good 'ol republican logic. A middle class union worker having benefits HURTS other people in the same state! B/c .......reasons!

[Vosem]

What's remarkable about vosem is that he'll keep arguing in favor of no government, libertarian cuckoobird capitalism because of its supposed benefits for the working class when, of course, the labor earnings vast majority of Americans have stagnated for the past 40 years or so. The machine isn't working as it is supposed to be working and the only reason why living standards of the poor have improved is due to the tax and transfer system that vosem despises and wants to dismantle...

The statistic that wages have not risen is largely itself due to demographic changes; if you disaggregate by race and gender then you will find that wages have in fact risen for every demographic group, and the fact that they haven't as a whole is an example of Simpson's Paradox (much like how in the 2000s among every income subcategory blacks had a higher turnout rate than whites, but overall whites had a higher turnout rate than blacks). Poorer people getting a chance to enter the United States, and obviously starting with fairly low household income, is not a bad thing.

My understanding is that much of the gains are concentrated in fairly few metropolitan areas -- it really is true that geographically lots of places are seeing no gains or backsliding. But the solution to that must surely be greater mobility, a topic I think I've read discussions of from you.

A very strange post given that if you bother clicking the link, you'll find that the median annual earnings of men, as computed by CPS-ASEC, have been flat from 1980 through 2017. There is a sudden upward trend but we've seen this before - it may or may not persist. So, no, this fun cheatcode you think you have discovered does not work. You may not simply assume away the stagnation of male wages in the United States as a triviality when they are a majority of the workforce...

Median annual earnings of Asian men are up; of white non-Hispanic men are up; of Hispanic men are up; and of black men are up. My point is that wages for men have stagnated because the relative weights of those demographics have shifted, and in particularly that Hispanic Americans are now a much greater fraction of the population than they were in the pretty recent past. (My comparison here is mostly a since-1990 one; the since-1980 one works for all groups but Hispanics. My fairly strong assumption here is that Hispanic wages declined during the 1980s because Hispanic immigration during that period was disproportionately from very poor backgrounds, but if there's a different reason you want to suggest, I'm all ears). Looking at more granular categories seems to pretty consistently paint a brighter picture here.

[OSR stands with Israel]

What's remarkable about vosem is that he'll keep arguing in favor of no government, libertarian cuckoobird capitalism because of its supposed benefits for the working class when, of course, the labor earnings vast majority of Americans have stagnated for the past 40 years or so. The machine isn't working as it is supposed to be working and the only reason why living standards of the poor have improved is due to the tax and transfer system that vosem despises and wants to dismantle...

The statistic that wages have not risen is largely itself due to demographic changes; if you disaggregate by race and gender then you will find that wages have in fact risen for every demographic group, and the fact that they haven't as a whole is an example of Simpson's Paradox (much like how in the 2000s among every income subcategory blacks had a higher turnout rate than whites, but overall whites had a higher turnout rate than blacks). Poorer people getting a chance to enter the United States, and obviously starting with fairly low household income, is not a bad thing.

My understanding is that much of the gains are concentrated in fairly few metropolitan areas -- it really is true that geographically lots of places are seeing no gains or backsliding. But the solution to that must surely be greater mobility, a topic I think I've read discussions of from you.

A very strange post given that if you bother clicking the link, you'll find that the median annual earnings of men, as computed by CPS-ASEC, have been flat from 1980 through 2017. There is a sudden upward trend but we've seen this before - it may or may not persist. So, no, this fun cheatcode you think you have discovered does not work. You may not simply assume away the stagnation of male wages in the United States as a triviality when they are a majority of the workforce...

Real household median wages is way higher than they were in 1980 and also the US has the highest median equivalent adult income in the world as well

[Badger]

This is what governing is. It's not regulating drag shows and reproductive rights, it's about doing things that actually benefit working people. This is what being a working class party is.

Using taxpayer money to pay of union bosses is the opposite of good governing . It’s literally the epitome of governing for special interests

Affluenza speaks.

I actually support unionizing companies like Walmart and Amazon. What I don't support is using taxpayer money to enrich the pockets of union leadership and then into campaign coffers of liberal politicians.

Maybe if Republicans didn't do such a crappy job and trying to represent the working class other than trying to convince them illegal immigrants stealing their jobs, maybe those Union endorsements wouldn't go for democrats?

And kindly wean yourself off whatever Mommy and Daddy or the Wall Street Journal op-ed page tells you about union leaders lining their pockets with member dues. The days of Jimmy Hoffa are long gone. I'm not going to say there's not a single union representative out of the millions out there who isn't putting g their hand in the till? but it's a damn sight less than the non-stop pilfering we see from corporations.  Besides, something you and other right-wing twits who parrot that whole Union Thugs and bigwigs crap line seem to forget is that union membership is democratically elected, one person one vote, unlike corporations where Whoever has the most money makes the rules and decides what one can and cannot get away with. You know, the good old Republican way . I assume on that basis you post tax cuts for corporations, beep boop?

Your definition of so-called special interest groups which you oppose tax cuts to support are merely organizations that don't support what you believe in. Such hypocritical myopia is ridiculous.

As a tax accountant , I have seen first hand the benefits of the 2017 tax bill. It has greatly benefited small business and thats great .

Anyway I would oppose any more major tax cut bills in future GOP trifectas.

You're not speaking as a tax accountant, dude. You're speaking as a economic conservative shell who thinks tax cuts only benefit the economy if they affect people in the 90th Plus percentile.

I'm speaking as an actual small businessman with a very good accountant and can tell you the 2017 tax bill didn't change our bottom line all that much.

[OSR stands with Israel]

This is what governing is. It's not regulating drag shows and reproductive rights, it's about doing things that actually benefit working people. This is what being a working class party is.

Using taxpayer money to pay of union bosses is the opposite of good governing . It’s literally the epitome of governing for special interests

Affluenza speaks.

I actually support unionizing companies like Walmart and Amazon. What I don't support is using taxpayer money to enrich the pockets of union leadership and then into campaign coffers of liberal politicians.

Maybe if Republicans didn't do such a crappy job and trying to represent the working class other than trying to convince them illegal immigrants stealing their jobs, maybe those Union endorsements wouldn't go for democrats?

And kindly wean yourself off whatever Mommy and Daddy or the Wall Street Journal op-ed page tells you about union leaders lining their pockets with member dues. The days of Jimmy Hoffa are long gone. I'm not going to say there's not a single union representative out of the millions out there who isn't putting g their hand in the till? but it's a damn sight less than the non-stop pilfering we see from corporations.  Besides, something you and other right-wing twits who parrot that whole Union Thugs and bigwigs crap line seem to forget is that union membership is democratically elected, one person one vote, unlike corporations where Whoever has the most money makes the rules and decides what one can and cannot get away with. You know, the good old Republican way . I assume on that basis you post tax cuts for corporations, beep boop?

Your definition of so-called special interest groups which you oppose tax cuts to support are merely organizations that don't support what you believe in. Such hypocritical myopia is ridiculous.

As a tax accountant , I have seen first hand the benefits of the 2017 tax bill. It has greatly benefited small business and thats great .

Anyway I would oppose any more major tax cut bills in future GOP trifectas.

You're not speaking as a tax accountant, dude. You're speaking as a economic conservative shell who thinks tax cuts only benefit the economy if they affect people in the 90th Plus percentile.

I'm speaking as an actual small businessman with a very good accountant and can tell you the 2017 tax bill didn't change our bottom line all that much.

The QBI deduction has been a pretty big tax break and that deduction wasn’t available prior to the 2017 tax reform . 

[jojoju1998]

I’ lo repeat this again.


American Unions are flawed and need to be fixed !

[Alben Barkley]

Utterly awesome.

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

What's remarkable about vosem is that he'll keep arguing in favor of no government, libertarian cuckoobird capitalism because of its supposed benefits for the working class when, of course, the labor earnings vast majority of Americans have stagnated for the past 40 years or so. The machine isn't working as it is supposed to be working and the only reason why living standards of the poor have improved is due to the tax and transfer system that vosem despises and wants to dismantle...

The statistic that wages have not risen is largely itself due to demographic changes; if you disaggregate by race and gender then you will find that wages have in fact risen for every demographic group, and the fact that they haven't as a whole is an example of Simpson's Paradox (much like how in the 2000s among every income subcategory blacks had a higher turnout rate than whites, but overall whites had a higher turnout rate than blacks). Poorer people getting a chance to enter the United States, and obviously starting with fairly low household income, is not a bad thing.

My understanding is that much of the gains are concentrated in fairly few metropolitan areas -- it really is true that geographically lots of places are seeing no gains or backsliding. But the solution to that must surely be greater mobility, a topic I think I've read discussions of from you.

A very strange post given that if you bother clicking the link, you'll find that the median annual earnings of men, as computed by CPS-ASEC, have been flat from 1980 through 2017. There is a sudden upward trend but we've seen this before - it may or may not persist. So, no, this fun cheatcode you think you have discovered does not work. You may not simply assume away the stagnation of male wages in the United States as a triviality when they are a majority of the workforce...

Median annual earnings of Asian men are up; of white non-Hispanic men are up; of Hispanic men are up; and of black men are up. My point is that wages for men have stagnated because the relative weights of those demographics have shifted, and in particularly that Hispanic Americans are now a much greater fraction of the population than they were in the pretty recent past. (My comparison here is mostly a since-1990 one; the since-1980 one works for all groups but Hispanics. My fairly strong assumption here is that Hispanic wages declined during the 1980s because Hispanic immigration during that period was disproportionately from very poor backgrounds, but if there's a different reason you want to suggest, I'm all ears). Looking at more granular categories seems to pretty consistently paint a brighter picture here.

The problem with this style of reasoning is that it lacks a clear connection with economic theory. It is certainly true that, as a descriptive fact, we can see the wage series stagnate while the majority of some components of the wage series are increasing over time but this doesn't help us answer why the wage series has stagnated. It tells us that if we separate wage earners into groups in a way that isn't arbitrary from the view of society but that is, actually, quite arbitrary in terms of the factors governing human capital and other forces that actually determine one's productivity, we can see that shifting shares of the group explain wage stagnation.

What I will say is that one reason why women's wages have increased dramatically since 1980 may relate to selection. Prior to 1980, the typical female worker was quite likely to be a single mother, someone who was working in some dead-end job. Women who were quite capable of performing professional or managerial roles in terms of their credentials tended to be "stay-at-home" mothers. This changed rapidly. Today, we see "positive selection" in who works among women, just as we do among men. Personally, I think we should be cautious when viewing this trend as an unalloyed positive. This represents a beneficial trend for society but, fundamentally, a driving force for growth in median household income relates to more women working.

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

What's remarkable about vosem is that he'll keep arguing in favor of no government, libertarian cuckoobird capitalism because of its supposed benefits for the working class when, of course, the labor earnings vast majority of Americans have stagnated for the past 40 years or so. The machine isn't working as it is supposed to be working and the only reason why living standards of the poor have improved is due to the tax and transfer system that vosem despises and wants to dismantle...

The statistic that wages have not risen is largely itself due to demographic changes; if you disaggregate by race and gender then you will find that wages have in fact risen for every demographic group, and the fact that they haven't as a whole is an example of Simpson's Paradox (much like how in the 2000s among every income subcategory blacks had a higher turnout rate than whites, but overall whites had a higher turnout rate than blacks). Poorer people getting a chance to enter the United States, and obviously starting with fairly low household income, is not a bad thing.

My understanding is that much of the gains are concentrated in fairly few metropolitan areas -- it really is true that geographically lots of places are seeing no gains or backsliding. But the solution to that must surely be greater mobility, a topic I think I've read discussions of from you.

A very strange post given that if you bother clicking the link, you'll find that the median annual earnings of men, as computed by CPS-ASEC, have been flat from 1980 through 2017. There is a sudden upward trend but we've seen this before - it may or may not persist. So, no, this fun cheatcode you think you have discovered does not work. You may not simply assume away the stagnation of male wages in the United States as a triviality when they are a majority of the workforce...

Real household median wages is way higher than they were in 1980 and also the US has the highest median equivalent adult income in the world as well

If the only reason household median wages are higher is due to the both members of a household working, that is a pretty hollow victory. For the household to advance economically, household needs to sacrifice some time or effort that would be spent on "home production" (childrearing, chores and the like) or "leisure".

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

I will say that trends in earnings over the past few years are rather heartening. I strongly suspect that large state-level minimum wage increases are the decisive factor. Data limitations pose challenges in studying this hypothesis, as many substantial increases have occurred in the past few years and high quality administrative data will not be accessible for some time. Evidence in other contexts suggests that very large minimum wage increases can have large "spillover effects".

There is no reason for social democrats to be opposed to the free market. With a welfare state, strong institutions and the right regulations, it is the best way of achieving the twin goals of equality and efficiency (progress) that we care about. This insight is at the heart of what I think is one of the most successful governments of the 21st Century - "New Labour". It should go without saying that this does not imply that infantile libertarian arguments, which are every bit as fanatical and religious in character as Marxism, have merit. They do not. Markets are useful instruments but there are well-studied failures of markets.

[Ferguson97]

So literally just after they voted to repeal right to work , MI Democrats are now planning to have the government pay money to unions .

Awesome!

[Libertas Vel Mors]

What's remarkable about vosem is that he'll keep arguing in favor of no government, libertarian cuckoobird capitalism because of its supposed benefits for the working class when, of course, the labor earnings vast majority of Americans have stagnated for the past 40 years or so. The machine isn't working as it is supposed to be working and the only reason why living standards of the poor have improved is due to the tax and transfer system that vosem despises and wants to dismantle...

The statistic that wages have not risen is largely itself due to demographic changes; if you disaggregate by race and gender then you will find that wages have in fact risen for every demographic group, and the fact that they haven't as a whole is an example of Simpson's Paradox (much like how in the 2000s among every income subcategory blacks had a higher turnout rate than whites, but overall whites had a higher turnout rate than blacks). Poorer people getting a chance to enter the United States, and obviously starting with fairly low household income, is not a bad thing.

My understanding is that much of the gains are concentrated in fairly few metropolitan areas -- it really is true that geographically lots of places are seeing no gains or backsliding. But the solution to that must surely be greater mobility, a topic I think I've read discussions of from you.

The "wages" being referred to are also the earnings of productive, non-supervisory workers: this is a group that has seen rapid internal shifts with the shift from industrial work and which excludes a large portion of the workforce. Median household incomes, a better metric, have risen even without race disaggregation (which of course makes the rise even steeper when added on).

[Libertas Vel Mors]

As a reminder for people here who might benefit from hearing this:
-> vosem is a failed lawyer who has no credentials, expertise or training to interpret or understand empirical evidence about the economy
-> If we turn to actual empirical evidence about the minimum wage, which will operate through the same channel as union effect on wages, there's basically no evidence of a significant effect on employment. This fact has overturned conventional wisdom in economics, rekindling a very old interest in labor market power of firms - the only way we can easily rationalize this result is if firms are setting wages and, by placing a wage floor under them, we force a useful re-allocation of resources from less productive firms (small businesses) to large firms that are actually productive.
-> I'm not aware of any evidence offered against unions that focuses on the price channel that vosem hypothesizes. I believe he simply made this up. In an economic environment where very few firms are unionized, a higher wage bill isn't going to mechanically lead to higher prices, it would lead to reduced output or 'inefficient' allocation of inputs etc. I doubt this story also but I think that pretty standard models wouldn't show an effect on prices. They might show an effect on aggregate output - in a way, that's 'like' people being less able to have as much stuff?
-> The case against regulations is basically strong but do you know where it isn't strong? On safety regulations meant to protect workers. The notion that the labor market features large compensating differentials has been overturned recently. If one thinks about this, it's shocking that economists ever believed that the labor market was capable of "pricing" safety risk properly. How can workers evaluate the safety risks at a job a priori, before working at that job? All of the extremely old literature about this is based on 'rational expectations', where workers are omniscient, having foresight about the distribution of risks at every occupation that is aligned with reality.
-> It's worth mentioning that the kind of low IQ libertarianism espoused by vosem also believes that 'the consumer' is capable of evaluating the risks of taking pharmaceutical y or x or z and that these kinds of regulations are harmful. It also tends to endorse getting rid of medical licensing or pharmaceutical licensing. Do I need to explain why this is a patently silly viewpoint? I don't think so: by the same logic of compensating differentials, if taking pills or going to doctor is a 'voodoo medicine' lottery, patients will simply ration themselves out of these things. Efficiency would suffer.

What offends me the most about vosem is his insistence that if he asserts something with enough gusto, it becomes true because he wants it to be true. What also bothers me is the implicit assertion that if you have some humility and actually work hard to try to understand how something functions, you're some kind of fool - why bother doing that when you can be a sophist and cobble together some points that seem half-true in isolation.

DFB, which college did you attend and what is your current employment? How much money do you make? If you are going to insult someone for their employment/career trajectory (especially when those insults are not correct) it is only fair for you to provide your own employment/career trajectory for context.

[OSR stands with Israel]

https://twitter.com/jonathanoosting/status/1633920704763801600?s=46&t=LQ7KCs...


So literally just after they voted to repeal right to work , MI Democrats are now planning to have the government pay money to unions .


Utterly ridiculous

We've thrown trillions of dollars at corporations (that pay less and less in taxes and continue to  cut jobs in some cases despite these huge government handouts) and the ultra wealthy class over the past 20+ years with nothing to show for it but exponential growth in debt and staggering levels of wealth inequality the country hasn't seen since the robber baron days.

For once we (propose) to spend money on working people instead of the unproductive investor class and look at the reaction from the right.

Btw, if this pisses you off you're gonna lay an egg when MI dems get around to fixing their state's absolutely heinous anti-worker tax code. Cry harder.

1. Who do you think ends up indirectly paying corporate taxes

2. There are far less loopholes for corporations than 40 years ago and even less than 2017. The reason Amazon pays zero in taxes is largely because  of the NOL deduction which is something that any business looking to grow benefits from .

Getting rid of the deduction will probably make  Amazon pay taxes but will also harm their competitors a good deal too and that’s worse

[Long Live The King!]

This sounds like they're trying to subsidize labour unions with taxpayer money.

[インターネット掲示板ユーザー Punxsutawney Phil]

https://twitter.com/jonathanoosting/status/1633920704763801600?s=46&t=LQ7KCs...

So literally just after they voted to repeal right to work , MI Democrats are now planning to have the government pay money to unions .


Utterly ridiculous

We've thrown trillions of dollars at corporations (that pay less and less in taxes and continue to  cut jobs in some cases despite these huge government handouts) and the ultra wealthy class over the past 20+ years with nothing to show for it but exponential growth in debt and staggering levels of wealth inequality the country hasn't seen since the robber baron days.

For once we (propose) to spend money on working people instead of the unproductive investor class and look at the reaction from the right.

Btw, if this pisses you off you're gonna lay an egg when MI dems get around to fixing their state's absolutely heinous anti-worker tax code. Cry harder.

1. Who do you think ends up indirectly paying corporate taxes

2. There are far less loopholes for corporations than 40 years ago and even less than 2017. The reason Amazon pays zero in taxes is largely because  of the NOL deduction which is something that any business looking to grow benefits from .

Getting rid of the deduction will probably make  Amazon pay taxes but will also harm their competitors a good deal too and that’s worse

This reminds me of the reason big banks liked Dodd Frank - they took a hit, but they could handle it. Their competitors were harder hit.

[Abolish ICE]

This sounds like they're trying to subsidize labour unions with taxpayer money.

Good

[Yoda]

https://twitter.com/jonathanoosting/status/1633920704763801600?s=46&t=LQ7KCs...


So literally just after they voted to repeal right to work , MI Democrats are now planning to have the government pay money to unions .


Utterly ridiculous

We've thrown trillions of dollars at corporations (that pay less and less in taxes and continue to  cut jobs in some cases despite these huge government handouts) and the ultra wealthy class over the past 20+ years with nothing to show for it but exponential growth in debt and staggering levels of wealth inequality the country hasn't seen since the robber baron days.

For once we (propose) to spend money on working people instead of the unproductive investor class and look at the reaction from the right.

Btw, if this pisses you off you're gonna lay an egg when MI dems get around to fixing their state's absolutely heinous anti-worker tax code. Cry harder.

1. Who do you think ends up indirectly paying corporate taxes

LMAOOOO ok this is gonna be good. I haven't heard this absurdly asinine argument in a while....

Tell me, if what you're insinuating is true, when corporate taxes go down to zero, why don't corporations pass on the saving to consumers and lower prices?

[Ferguson97]

https://twitter.com/jonathanoosting/status/1633920704763801600?s=46&t=LQ7KCs...


So literally just after they voted to repeal right to work , MI Democrats are now planning to have the government pay money to unions .


Utterly ridiculous

We've thrown trillions of dollars at corporations (that pay less and less in taxes and continue to  cut jobs in some cases despite these huge government handouts) and the ultra wealthy class over the past 20+ years with nothing to show for it but exponential growth in debt and staggering levels of wealth inequality the country hasn't seen since the robber baron days.

For once we (propose) to spend money on working people instead of the unproductive investor class and look at the reaction from the right.

Btw, if this pisses you off you're gonna lay an egg when MI dems get around to fixing their state's absolutely heinous anti-worker tax code. Cry harder.

1. Who do you think ends up indirectly paying corporate taxes

LMAOOOO ok this is gonna be good. I haven't heard this absurdly asinine argument in a while....

Tell me, if what you're insinuating is true, when corporate taxes go down to zero, why don't corporations pass on the saving to consumers and lower prices?

Give him a minute, he has to get his Heritage Foundation talking points ready.