Somebody wrote something on a blog I read about rich people, "already paying most of the taxes," which made me wonder, is paying the largest share of the tax burden, paying your fair share of the tax burden.
Let us consider taxes as
A) a percentage of income when an all inclusive rate is analyzed, and as a percentage of Net Worth, this means 1) the income tax, state and federal, 2) the social security payroll tax, 3) property taxes, 4) the gasoline/highway tax, 5) the sales and use tax, and 6)excise taxes and imposts on goods purchased.
Starting with the most obvious for a lower income American, the Social Security payroll tax, 7.515 percent for the worker, including the Medicare tax, and an additional 7.515 percent for their employer, which is really just a wage cost for the employer, so another "hidden" tax on the employee. Thats 15.3 percent of the EARNED income from dollar one, with no exemptions for someone earning $35K a year, which is more than 49% of all American taxpayers earn in a year.
So 15.3% of $35K equals $5355 in taxes right off the top.
Now let's consider the federal income tax, on that, less the standard deduction, $7850 off the top if I remember correctly, so $27,150 will be taxable income.
The first $11,200 for a single head of household has a rate of 10%, so that puts our average Joe at $1,120, from $11,200 to $42,650 is taxed at 15%, so that leaves Joe with an additional $2572.50 in taxes on income at the federal level.
Let's look at New York State's income tax, the standard deduction in New York state for a head of household is $10,500, so that will leave $24,500 in taxable income, and your tax on $24,500 in income in NY is $1,169 as a Head of Household.
Okay, so let's assume that Joe is a homeowner in Jefferson County New York, in the Town of Wilna, outside of a village, and the house is valued at $50K for tax purposes and his home is in the Carthage Wilna Fire District, his tax rate will be $36.171239 per thousand, or $1,808.56.
Let's assume that Joe inherited his home and owes nothing on the property. Lets assume that he bought a brand new Chevy Aveo this year with some cash down, say $1k, and that he has a loan for the rest of the price of that car, for about $10K. 8% of the $10K sticker price is charged in sales tax, so Joe paid the county and state $800 right there. Now let's assume his interest rate on the car is 6% for five years, so he is paying $194.50 each month to the bank, but he has no other debts, so he spends the rest of his paycheck on utilities, food, and clothing.
Let's assume that Joe, who is single, NEVER eats at home, and always dines out because it is easier, and he can be sociable with people at restaurants where he is a regular, so even his meals cost him sales tax.
Let's also assume that Joe is the kind of guy who goes out on the weekend and has 5 bottles of beer at the bar on Saturday and Sunday, every week. Let's examine, JUST THE FEDERAL BEER TAX! $0.05 per bottle, times 10 bottles per week, times 52 weeks, thats $0.50 per week, or $26 a year in Federal BEER TAXES.
Now let's examine the NY State Beer Tax, of $0.11 per gallon, that will hit Joe pretty hard, because assuming 12 ounce beers, he drinks 48.75 gallons of beer each year, which means he pays $5.36 in NY beer taxes each year.
After Joe has paid for his property taxes, his income taxes, his social security taxes, paid his car payment, and paid the sales tax on his car, he has $22,518.44 to spend for the year.
Assuming he spends that all in Jefferson County, his sales tax bill will be $1,801.48 for the year, in addition to the $800 in sales tax already paid for the car.
Now let's also assume that Joe drives the car occassionally, and gets 33 miles to the gallon. He drives 200 miles each week, meaning that he uses 315.15 gallons of gas per year. The federal gas tax is $0.184 per gallon, or $57.99 per year. The state gas tax is $0.319 per gallon, or $100.53 per year.
So on the $37,677.50 that was earned by Joe, if you include the employer's share of Social Security, Joe paid $158.22 in gas taxes. Joe paid $2601.48 in sales taxes. He paid $31.36 in excise taxes on beer. He paid $1,808.56 in property taxes. He paid $4861.50 in combined federal and state income taxes, and Joe paid $5355 in Social Security taxes.
Joe paid in total taxes $14,816.12 in taxes, or 39.32 percent of his income in taxes.
Now let's look at Nick, who like Joe, inherited his house debt free, but his house is a $300K home in the same zip code and tax district as Joe. His property tax bill is $10,851.37.
From employment, he "EARNS" the EXACT SAME AMOUNT AS JOE. $35K, so their Social Security taxes are IDENTICAL. $5355 per year.
Nick's earnings come from a business that he owns, which is incorporated and taxed as a separate entity.
Nick's personal spending habits are IDENTICAL to Joe in every way EXCEPT, Nick didn't buy his own car, his business bought his car, and owns his car.
Nick's driving habits are similar to Joe's, and they spend an equal amount in gas taxes. Nick is in fact Joe's good friend, and they both drink the same amount at the same bar every week.
Nick, doesn't eat at home either, and because his business pays for his car, he doesn't deduct that from his pay check.
Nick has $16,609.63 to spend from his paycheck each year, but he puts $4K into his IRA so he ends up paying $1,008.77 in sales tax each year.
Now let's see where Nick really makes his money and where he pays his taxes. We actually need to adjust Nick's tax bill a little, because Nick doesn't take the standard deduction like Joe, although their witholdings are the same throughout the year. Nick will get a bit of a refund. Nick's AGI for New York, is reduced by an extra $4,351.37 because of his IRA contribution, and his large property tax bill, so his NY AGI isn't $24,500, but $20,148.70, so his NY State income tax is $909.00, so he gets back $269.00 from the state. His federal AGI is a bit lower too, so he only pays $2462.30 in federal income tax, and gets back $110.20.
Nick's business earns $300K each year in profits after all deductions, including deductions for Nick's company car.
Nick's business pays 15% on the first $50K in income in federal taxes, 25% on the next $25K in income, 34% on the next $25K in income, and 39% on the next $200K in income, so, $22,500 on the first $100K, and $78K on the next $200K.
For the purpose of simplicity, let's assume that the business has $1 million in assets, and has a payroll of $1 million per year.
The company would pay a $325 payroll tax each year based on salaries paid to NY State.
The company would pay a $1780 tax on its assets to NY State, with a rate of 0.178%.
Let's assume that the company pays income tax based on ENI as a small business in New York, and pays $18,850 on the first $290K in income, or 6.5%, and 7.1% on the remaining $10K, or $710.
Bringing the total NY corporate tax to, $21,440.
The corporation pays $121,940 in total corporate taxes.
Leaving $178,060 in AFTER TAX profit, with any non-income taxes paid by the corporation treated as a business deduction.
Let's assume that Nick uses the profits each year to expand the business and grow its operations, while maintaining a cash reserve.
This means that on $337,677.50 in total income, Nick has paid $142,726.02, including the money he has paid in gas taxes, and the money he has paid in taxes on the beer he drank, as well as his corporate taxes, and his real property taxes. This means that Nick paid 42.26% of his income in taxes.
Nick paid just 2.94% more of his income to the tax man than Joe, but let's compare their NET WORTH.
Joe has a net worth of approximately $50K, including his car and his house because of the deduction for the $10K loan for the car.
Nick has a net worth of $1.3 million including his business assets and his house. Joe is worth just 3.8% of the amount that Nick is worth, which is not unusual, as the top 3% of income earners, like Nick, control approximately 80% of all of the wealth in not only the United States, but also the world.
So, is it FAIR for Nick to pay just 2.9% more of his total income to the tax man than Joe, when he is in essence 26 times as wealthy?
As a percentage of their NET WORTH, Joe paid 29.63% of his Net Worth in taxes this year, while Nick paid 10.98% of his Net Worth in taxes this year, meaning that Joe's tax rate is in essence 3 times as high as Nick. If EVERYONE is paying their fair share, shouldn't we all be paying a similar percentage of our NET WORTH?
Oh, and if I remember correctly, when Warren Buffet performed this same analysis when comparing his own tax burdern to that of his secretary, he found out that he paid 15% of his income to the tax man, while she paid closer to 50% of her income to the tax man, so it can get worse than this when you are talking about serious wealth. I wonder how great the disparity of the tax rate as a percentage of Net Worth.
Full Version: A Question of Tax Fairness
QUOTE (CFKane_ @ Aug 15 2008, 01:02 PM) 
Somebody wrote something on a blog I read about rich people, "already paying most of the taxes," which made me wonder, is paying the largest share of the tax burden, paying your fair share of the tax burden.
taxes and imposts on goods purchased.
taxes and imposts on goods purchased.
Your a-hole analysis suggests that we should spend equal time reading the poetic works of Edgar Allen Poe and little Johnny Buttfark
QUOTE (CFKane_ @ Aug 15 2008, 04:02 PM)
If EVERYONE is paying their fair share, shouldn't we all be paying a similar percentage of our NET WORTH?
The only net worth tax in the US is the Estate Tax and that has a significant basic deduction and folks with really high net worth take advantage of estate planning so there is actually little collected. Could be cause the folks making the rules are mostly high net worthers too. Some states have intangibles taxes but my experience was lots of exemptions, little enforcement, and eventually dumped usually after court challenges... Some Ds talk about it from time to time but they ain't had the cojones to actually propose it... So No
Net worth is not a reliable basis for taxation. So, even on a 'nuts and bolts' basis, taxation based on net worth is impractical.
Fair is in the eye of the beholder. Why two guys doing the same job are paid a different wage cause one has been around the plant longer doesn't make sense to me but it sure must to most of the folks negotiating Union contracts...
QUOTE (Nomarchy @ Aug 15 2008, 08:24 PM)
Net worth is not a reliable basis for taxation. So, even on a 'nuts and bolts' basis, taxation based on net worth is impractical.
Some big gubment advocates might be getting a little nervous about the increasing value of Roth IRAs and Roth 401Ks.Tax deferred they could live with, tax free is another kettle of fish...
QUOTE (arebuntz @ Aug 15 2008, 07:26 PM)
Fair is in the eye of the beholder. Why two guys doing the same job are paid a different wage cause one has been around the plant longer doesn't make sense to me but it sure must to most of the folks negotiating Union contracts...
Those kinds of wages usually top out in a few years. The little guy gets that wage if he stays around a couple years.
QUOTE (Bart Katz @ Aug 15 2008, 08:30 PM)
Those kinds of wages usually top out in a few years. The little guy gets that wage if he stays around a couple years.
It's been awhile but as I recall the Boeing IAM contract had years of service adjustments all the way to any expected full service period...
QUOTE (Nomarchy @ Aug 15 2008, 05:24 PM)
Net worth is not a reliable basis for taxation. So, even on a 'nuts and bolts' basis, taxation based on net worth is impractical.
Any system ends up manipulated. I'd like to see more advantages to poor and young people to accumulate some net worth. Seems everything is designed to take every last cent of disposable income.
QUOTE (arebuntz @ Aug 15 2008, 07:31 PM)
It's been awhile but as I recall the Boeing IAM contract had years of service adjustments all the way to any expected full service period...
I've never seen that. People could move up to another level, but they'd top out at any level.
QUOTE (arebuntz @ Aug 15 2008, 07:22 PM)
The only net worth tax in the US is the Estate Tax and that has a significant basic deduction and folks with really high net worth take advantage of estate planning so there is actually little collected. Could be cause the folks making the rules are mostly high net worthers too. Some states have intangibles taxes but my experience was lots of exemptions, little enforcement, and eventually dumped usually after court challenges... Some Ds talk about it from time to time but they ain't had the cojones to actually propose it... So No
QUOTE (Nomarchy @ Aug 15 2008, 07:24 PM)
Net worth is not a reliable basis for taxation. So, even on a 'nuts and bolts' basis, taxation based on net worth is impractical.
Correct.
There is no point in even discussing wealth taxes as they have never worked.
I think income taxes "work" cause for the most part business acts as the tax agent for the government both reporting income and withholding taxes. Without this there would be serious problems with enforcement (far greater than now.) It is hard to imagine a similar mechanism for wealth that could operate on a continuous basis. Estate tax only occurs at most once in a persons life, only impacts a very few people, and estate planning and outright asset hiding avoids a considerable amount of that tax. I don't think voluntary compliance gets this idea very far down the road.
You didn't actually propose a wealth tax, just to use it as a comparison of "fairness" and I assume set income rates accordingly. Unfortunately that creates real "fairness" issues for persons with same income and different assets and same assets but different incomes.
I would find a use based tax "fair" for instance but would require high taxes from the poor who obviously cannot afford to pay taxes and to the extent they do it only makes them poorer and demanding of more government services which leads to higher government revenue requirements from everyone...
You didn't actually propose a wealth tax, just to use it as a comparison of "fairness" and I assume set income rates accordingly. Unfortunately that creates real "fairness" issues for persons with same income and different assets and same assets but different incomes.
I would find a use based tax "fair" for instance but would require high taxes from the poor who obviously cannot afford to pay taxes and to the extent they do it only makes them poorer and demanding of more government services which leads to higher government revenue requirements from everyone...
... of course with a significant reduction in government spending the issue of taxes is greatly simplified...
QUOTE (arebuntz @ Aug 15 2008, 05:26 PM)
Fair is in the eye of the beholder. Why two guys doing the same job are paid a different wage cause one has been around the plant longer doesn't make sense to me but it sure must to most of the folks negotiating Union contracts...
Bullchit. The companies are the ones who'd like to go by the "buddy system" or the "sucky system" or the "younger, faster, stronger systems".
If two people do the same job, then they should receive the same wage. No matter who is the bosses buddy or who sucks the most or who's younger, faster and stronger.
The Union contends that years of dedicated service mean something.
You got a problem with that?
QUOTE (Bart Katz @ Aug 15 2008, 05:30 PM)
Those kinds of wages usually top out in a few years. The little guy gets that wage if he stays around a couple years.
I'm not sure, but I think I'll say amen brother. :~)
QUOTE (CharlieRay @ Aug 16 2008, 03:06 AM)
The Union contends that years of dedicated service mean something.
You got a problem with that?
You got a problem with that?
Yes I do... and "the Union contends" is not a rational for anything...
Yahweh Gave Us the Sabbath but Unions Brought Us the Weekend
They shall build houses and inhabit them; they shall plant vineyards and eat their fruit. They shall not build and another inhabit; they shall not plant and another eat; for like the days of a tree shall the days of my people be, and my chosen shall long enjoy the work of their hands (Isaiah 65: 21-22).
Isaiah's vision contrasts sharply with economic reality today. In the United States, farm workers — those who plant and harvest — don't always eat. Nearly two-thirds of farm workers live in poverty. And those who build don't always inhabit. In Washington, D.c=, day laborers hired to build luxury condominiums spend their nights in homeless shelters or on the streets.
There are health care workers without health insurance, restaurant workers without food, and hotel housekeepers without homes.
But people of faith know that all workers are children of God with inherent dignity and value. All work that makes a contribution to the community has dignity and is not degrading. But, unfortunately, many jobs are degraded.
A degraded job is one that pays too little — one-quarter of all jobs in the United States pay wages so low that a full-time worker earns too little to lift a family of four above poverty.
A degraded job is one that is potentially unsafe. Each year some 5,000 workers are killed on the job and about 5 million are injured or become sick due to their job.
A degraded job is one in which the worker is treated unfairly or illegally. According to the U.S. Department of Labor, essentially all poultry processing plants and 60 percent of nursing homes fail to properly pay workers for overtime hours worked, pay less than the legally-required minimum wage, and/or violate child labor laws.
A degraded job is one where the employer discriminates in hiring or promotions. These abuses occur in firms large and small, in local businesses and within Fortune 500 companies.
A degraded job is one in which a worker has too little autonomy or control over her work, resulting in high levels of stress and even physical illness.
Unfortunately, U.S. labor law provides few protections against many of these abuses. Existing laws are often poorly enforced and penalties typically are small and ineffective.
Workers need jobs, even bad jobs, if those are the only ones available. But how can they improve their workplaces and gain dignity on the job, especially the three-quarters of all workers who don't have a college degree and have little bargaining power with their employers?
One important way workers can address workplace injustice is by joining and participating in a labor union.
All of us are indebted to the union struggles of the past for many of the workplace benefits we take for granted. Yahweh gave us the Sabbath but unions brought us the weekend, the 8-hour day, paid vacations, holidays, health insurance, and pensions.
Unions continue to work for justice today.
Unions reject the notion that any work is demeaning and remind us that all workers have value. Janitors, nursing home attendants, hotel and restaurant staff, and many other workers on the bottom of the hierarchy of jobs are actively seeking to join unions to gain dignity on the job, fair treatment, greater voice, and just compensation.
Unions are working to bring living wages, health insurance, pensions, paid vacations, sick leave, and holidays to workers who have none of these.
And unions are not just for workers on the lower rungs of the wage scale. Unions can provide every employee with a stronger voice in their workplace, protect workers against unfair practices by employers, and facilitate workers' input into workplace decision making.
Through legislative action, unions are working to reform immigration laws, raise the minimum wage, and improve workplace safety.
Unions are some of the most democratic and diverse organizations in the United States today. They can be avenues of empowerment that give workers the means to become active in their own liberation from unjust structures of domination.
But in the United States, workers' right to organize is frequently violated. The Employee Free Choice Act, currently under consideration by Congress, would greatly strengthen this fundamental human right. It would make it easier for workers to form and join unions and bargain collectively.
The church has a special role to play in this struggle. Workplace injustice is not only a problem for an individual worker nor is it only an economic problem. It is also a theological problem.
A basic teaching of Christianity and many other faith traditions is to love our neighbors as we love ourselves.
But do we love our neighbors as we love ourselves when some of us eat very well and others do well just to eat?
Do we love our neighbors as we love ourselves when some are safe at work and others are at risk? When some have sick leave and health insurance and others do not?
Do we love our neighbors as we love ourselves when, on the job, some people's views are sought out and others are ignored?
God created a world of abundance. Unions are helping workers in the United States and around the world share in this abundance. Strengthening the right to organize through the Employee Free Choice Act would move us closer to Isaiah's vision of the new earth.
May people of faith join with workers and our union sisters and brothers in our struggles for justice and greater wholeness. Amen.
Edith Rasell, Ph.D., serves as minister for labor relations and community economic development, justice and witness ministries for the United Church of Christ.
2004
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2004/06/b99064.html
QUOTE (arebuntz @ Aug 16 2008, 05:53 PM)
Yes I do... and "the Union contends" is not a rational for anything...
I suppose that you prefer the "buddy system" or the "sucky system".
I think it's just fine that they take their members for every penny they can get...
QUOTE (CharlieRay @ Aug 17 2008, 07:51 PM)
I suppose that you prefer the "buddy system" or the "sucky system".
I prefer reaching a mutual agreement with the other party in any transaction including an exchange of my services for compensation. Some prefer to be a thug and goon it up...
QUOTE
Union criminals kept OLMS very busy in May
An indictment is the method by which a person is charged with criminal activity and raises no inference of guilt. As in all criminal cases, each defendant is presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
On May 29, 2008, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, Francis Pagan, former President of Boilermakers Local 3-M (located in East Cleveland, Ohio), was sentenced to six months home confinement and electronic monitoring, four years of probation, ordered to pay a $100 special assessment, and restitution. On February 29, 2008, Pagan pled guilty to embezzling union funds in the amount of $17,415. The sentencing follows an investigation by the OLMS Cleveland District Office.
On May 29, 2008, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Scott Gehringer and Alex Margaritis, former President and Financial Secretary, respectively, of International Association of Bridge, Structural, Ornamental and Reinforcing Iron Workers Local 594 (located in Hellertown, PA), were indicted on one count of aiding embezzlement and embezzling union fund sin the amounts of $3,500 for Gehringer and $13, 320.79 for Margaritis. The charges follow an investigation by the OLMS Philadelphia District Office.
On May 22, 2008, in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, Pauline M. Gibson, former President of Drivers, Warehousemen, Maintenance and Allied Workers of America Local 1 (located in Nashville, Tenn.), was sentenced to twelve months probation and a $25 special assessment. On February 27, 2008, Gibson pled guilty to one count of making a false statement and representation of a material fact, knowing it to be false, on the local’s annual financial report. The sentencing follows an investigation by the OLMS Nashville District Office.
On May 20, 2008, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia,Donna Roles, former Financial Secretary of Steelworkers Local 14310 (located in Mount Hope,WVa.), was charged with one count of embezzling union funds in the amount of $76,420.37, and one count of falsifying union records. The charges follow an investigation by the OLMS Pittsburgh District Office.
On May 20, 2008, in the United States District Court for the District of Oregon, Thomas Wallace, former Financial Secretary-Treasurer of Amalgamated Transit Union 757 (located in Portland, Ore.), pled guilty to an information filed the same date charging him with embezzling and uttering forged securities. Wallace forged approximately 176 checks drawn on the union’s accounts to acquire funds in the amount of $454,406. The criminal information and plea follow an investigation by the OLMS Seattle District Office.
On May 20, 2008, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, Randy Sanders, former Executive Vice President of Steelworkers Local 20 (located in Kaukauna, Wis.), was indicted on 13 counts of embezzling union funds in the amount of $3,298.66. The charges follow an investigation by the OLMS Milwaukee District Office.
On May 20, 2008, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, Eugene Huss, Area Vice President of Steelworkers Local 20 (located in Kaukauna, Wis.), was indicted on 13 counts of embezzling union funds in the amount of $1,617.75. The charges follow an investigation by the OLMS Milwaukee District Office.
On May 20, 2008, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, Mary Schaeuble, Insurance Committee Member of Steelworkers Local 20 (located in Kaukauna, Wis.), was indicted on 13 counts of embezzling union funds in the amount of $3,379.30. The charges follow an investigation by the OLMS Milwaukee District Office.
On May 16, 2008, in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama, Bridgett Cardall Hooks, former Secretary-Treasurer of Postal Workers Local 332 (located in Dothan, Ala.), was sentenced to 48 months probation to include six months home confinement with electronic monitoring and a $100 special assessment. On February 7, 2008, Hooks pled guilty to one count of embezzling union funds in the amount of $10,820.17. The sentencing follows an investigation by the OLMS Nashville District Office.
On May 15, 2008, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, Carolyn M. Wallace, former President of Steelworkers Local 02-356 (located in Milwaukee, Wis.), was sentenced to180 days home confinement, five years probation, $100 special assessment, drug treatment and ordered to pay restitution in the amount of $19,436.02. Wallace previously paid restitution in the amount of $7,000. On February 8, 2008, Wallace pled guilty to embezzling union funds in the amount of $25,200. The sentencing follows an investigation by the OLMS Milwaukee District Office.
On May 14, 2008, in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, Maryland, Rhonda Holmes, former Secretary-Treasurer of Laborers Local 481 (located in Baltimore, Md.), was indicted on one count of theft for allegedly stealing $6,349.55 from the local. The indictment follows an investigation by the OLMS Washington District Office.
On May 13, 2008, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, New York City School Bus Inspectors Neil Cremin, George Ortiz (retired), Milton Smith and Ira Sokol, were arrested following indictments for conspiracy to accept bribes, extortion, and bribery in a program that receives federal funds. On May 13, 2008 the four inspectors were arrested and entered pleas of not guilty. The charges follow a joint investigation of Amalgamated Transit Union Local 1181 (the primary union that represents drivers and escorts for school bus companies in New York City) by the OLMS New York District Office, the FBI, and the Department of Labor's Office of the Inspector General.
On May 12, 2008, in the Superior Court of Dougherty County, Georgia, Barbara Dodson, former Financial-Secretary of Boilermakers Local 100 (located in Albany, Ga.), pled guilty to six counts of forgery in the first degree and one count of theft-by-taking of union funds in the amount of $1,400. Subsequently, Dodson was sentenced to 120 days in jail, 10 years probation, and a fine of $500. The plea and sentencing follow an investigation by the OLMS Atlanta District Office.
On May 9, 2008, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Kathy Thompson, former employee of Teamsters Local 325 (located in Rockford, Ill.), was sentenced to five years probation, including seven months of home confinement with electronic monitoring, and ordered to liquidate her retirement savings account and pay approximately $29,000 in restitution. On December 17, 2007, Thompson pled guilty to one count of embezzling union funds in the amount of $33,770. The sentencing follows a joint investigation by the OLMS Chicago District Office and the Department of Labor’s Office of the Inspector General.
On May 6, 2008, in the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri, Donald B. Dawson, former director of the National Electrical Contractors Association (NECA) and the Alliance of Professional Specialty Contractors (APSC) (located in Kansas City, MO), was charged with one count of bank fraud as a result of his embezzlement of $95,721.56 of APSC funds. The charge follows an investigation by the OLMS St. Louis District Office.
On May 6, 2008, in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado, John Mullenix, former Secretary-Treasurer of APWU Local 441 (located in Ft. Morgan, Col.), was indicted on one count of embezzlement of union funds. The indictment follows an investigation by the OLMS Denver District Office.
On May 7, 2008, in the County Court for Lorain, Ohio, Gary Smink, former President of Steelworkers Local 1-962 (located in Elyria, Ohio), pled guilty to one count of theft totaling $770. On April 9, 2008, Smink was indicted on one count of theft in the same amount. The plea follows an investigation by the OLMS Cleveland District Office.
On May 5, 2008, in the County Court of St. Lawrence County, New York, June E. Wilkins, former President of AFSCME Local 625 (located in Potsdam, NY), pled guilty to two counts of third degree grand larceny. Wilkins confessed to taking more than $15,000 in union funds. The plea follows an investigation by the Buffalo District Office
On May 5, 2008, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Chad M. Mowery, former Treasurer of Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers (BLET) Division 282 (located in Springdale, Ohio), pled guilty to embezzling union funds in the amount of $2,537.00. On February 6, 2008, Mowery was charged with one count of embezzling union funds in the same amount. The plea follows an investigation by the OLMS Cincinnati District Office.
An indictment is the method by which a person is charged with criminal activity and raises no inference of guilt. As in all criminal cases, each defendant is presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
On May 29, 2008, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, Francis Pagan, former President of Boilermakers Local 3-M (located in East Cleveland, Ohio), was sentenced to six months home confinement and electronic monitoring, four years of probation, ordered to pay a $100 special assessment, and restitution. On February 29, 2008, Pagan pled guilty to embezzling union funds in the amount of $17,415. The sentencing follows an investigation by the OLMS Cleveland District Office.
On May 29, 2008, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Scott Gehringer and Alex Margaritis, former President and Financial Secretary, respectively, of International Association of Bridge, Structural, Ornamental and Reinforcing Iron Workers Local 594 (located in Hellertown, PA), were indicted on one count of aiding embezzlement and embezzling union fund sin the amounts of $3,500 for Gehringer and $13, 320.79 for Margaritis. The charges follow an investigation by the OLMS Philadelphia District Office.
On May 22, 2008, in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, Pauline M. Gibson, former President of Drivers, Warehousemen, Maintenance and Allied Workers of America Local 1 (located in Nashville, Tenn.), was sentenced to twelve months probation and a $25 special assessment. On February 27, 2008, Gibson pled guilty to one count of making a false statement and representation of a material fact, knowing it to be false, on the local’s annual financial report. The sentencing follows an investigation by the OLMS Nashville District Office.
On May 20, 2008, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia,Donna Roles, former Financial Secretary of Steelworkers Local 14310 (located in Mount Hope,WVa.), was charged with one count of embezzling union funds in the amount of $76,420.37, and one count of falsifying union records. The charges follow an investigation by the OLMS Pittsburgh District Office.
On May 20, 2008, in the United States District Court for the District of Oregon, Thomas Wallace, former Financial Secretary-Treasurer of Amalgamated Transit Union 757 (located in Portland, Ore.), pled guilty to an information filed the same date charging him with embezzling and uttering forged securities. Wallace forged approximately 176 checks drawn on the union’s accounts to acquire funds in the amount of $454,406. The criminal information and plea follow an investigation by the OLMS Seattle District Office.
On May 20, 2008, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, Randy Sanders, former Executive Vice President of Steelworkers Local 20 (located in Kaukauna, Wis.), was indicted on 13 counts of embezzling union funds in the amount of $3,298.66. The charges follow an investigation by the OLMS Milwaukee District Office.
On May 20, 2008, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, Eugene Huss, Area Vice President of Steelworkers Local 20 (located in Kaukauna, Wis.), was indicted on 13 counts of embezzling union funds in the amount of $1,617.75. The charges follow an investigation by the OLMS Milwaukee District Office.
On May 20, 2008, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, Mary Schaeuble, Insurance Committee Member of Steelworkers Local 20 (located in Kaukauna, Wis.), was indicted on 13 counts of embezzling union funds in the amount of $3,379.30. The charges follow an investigation by the OLMS Milwaukee District Office.
On May 16, 2008, in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama, Bridgett Cardall Hooks, former Secretary-Treasurer of Postal Workers Local 332 (located in Dothan, Ala.), was sentenced to 48 months probation to include six months home confinement with electronic monitoring and a $100 special assessment. On February 7, 2008, Hooks pled guilty to one count of embezzling union funds in the amount of $10,820.17. The sentencing follows an investigation by the OLMS Nashville District Office.
On May 15, 2008, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, Carolyn M. Wallace, former President of Steelworkers Local 02-356 (located in Milwaukee, Wis.), was sentenced to180 days home confinement, five years probation, $100 special assessment, drug treatment and ordered to pay restitution in the amount of $19,436.02. Wallace previously paid restitution in the amount of $7,000. On February 8, 2008, Wallace pled guilty to embezzling union funds in the amount of $25,200. The sentencing follows an investigation by the OLMS Milwaukee District Office.
On May 14, 2008, in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, Maryland, Rhonda Holmes, former Secretary-Treasurer of Laborers Local 481 (located in Baltimore, Md.), was indicted on one count of theft for allegedly stealing $6,349.55 from the local. The indictment follows an investigation by the OLMS Washington District Office.
On May 13, 2008, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, New York City School Bus Inspectors Neil Cremin, George Ortiz (retired), Milton Smith and Ira Sokol, were arrested following indictments for conspiracy to accept bribes, extortion, and bribery in a program that receives federal funds. On May 13, 2008 the four inspectors were arrested and entered pleas of not guilty. The charges follow a joint investigation of Amalgamated Transit Union Local 1181 (the primary union that represents drivers and escorts for school bus companies in New York City) by the OLMS New York District Office, the FBI, and the Department of Labor's Office of the Inspector General.
On May 12, 2008, in the Superior Court of Dougherty County, Georgia, Barbara Dodson, former Financial-Secretary of Boilermakers Local 100 (located in Albany, Ga.), pled guilty to six counts of forgery in the first degree and one count of theft-by-taking of union funds in the amount of $1,400. Subsequently, Dodson was sentenced to 120 days in jail, 10 years probation, and a fine of $500. The plea and sentencing follow an investigation by the OLMS Atlanta District Office.
On May 9, 2008, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Kathy Thompson, former employee of Teamsters Local 325 (located in Rockford, Ill.), was sentenced to five years probation, including seven months of home confinement with electronic monitoring, and ordered to liquidate her retirement savings account and pay approximately $29,000 in restitution. On December 17, 2007, Thompson pled guilty to one count of embezzling union funds in the amount of $33,770. The sentencing follows a joint investigation by the OLMS Chicago District Office and the Department of Labor’s Office of the Inspector General.
On May 6, 2008, in the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri, Donald B. Dawson, former director of the National Electrical Contractors Association (NECA) and the Alliance of Professional Specialty Contractors (APSC) (located in Kansas City, MO), was charged with one count of bank fraud as a result of his embezzlement of $95,721.56 of APSC funds. The charge follows an investigation by the OLMS St. Louis District Office.
On May 6, 2008, in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado, John Mullenix, former Secretary-Treasurer of APWU Local 441 (located in Ft. Morgan, Col.), was indicted on one count of embezzlement of union funds. The indictment follows an investigation by the OLMS Denver District Office.
On May 7, 2008, in the County Court for Lorain, Ohio, Gary Smink, former President of Steelworkers Local 1-962 (located in Elyria, Ohio), pled guilty to one count of theft totaling $770. On April 9, 2008, Smink was indicted on one count of theft in the same amount. The plea follows an investigation by the OLMS Cleveland District Office.
On May 5, 2008, in the County Court of St. Lawrence County, New York, June E. Wilkins, former President of AFSCME Local 625 (located in Potsdam, NY), pled guilty to two counts of third degree grand larceny. Wilkins confessed to taking more than $15,000 in union funds. The plea follows an investigation by the Buffalo District Office
On May 5, 2008, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Chad M. Mowery, former Treasurer of Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers (BLET) Division 282 (located in Springdale, Ohio), pled guilty to embezzling union funds in the amount of $2,537.00. On February 6, 2008, Mowery was charged with one count of embezzling union funds in the same amount. The plea follows an investigation by the OLMS Cincinnati District Office.
Just Another Month in The Union Movement
QUOTE (arebuntz @ Aug 17 2008, 06:59 PM)
I prefer reaching a mutual agreement with the other party in any transaction including an exchange of my services for compensation. Some prefer to be a thug and goon it up...
QUOTE (Nomarchy @ Aug 16 2008, 01:24 AM)
Net worth is not a reliable basis for taxation. So, even on a 'nuts and bolts' basis, taxation based on net worth is impractical.
Did the analysis argue that taxation should be based on Net Worth? No, it suggested that if a system of taxation were fair, a similar percentage of Net Worth would be paid by all at the end of the day.
I think the income tax works very well, and think that if we ELIMINATED the Social Security payroll tax, ELIMINATED sales taxes, and set a limit as a percentage of income for property taxes on an individual's primary residence, that is progressive based on income, ELIMINATE hidden taxes, like the gas tax, and the beer tax, ELIMINATE the corporate tax, and REQUIRE a DISTRIBUTION OF 50% of profits per annum to shareholders, ELIMINATE special treatment of capital gains, and put in place a VERY PROGRESSIVE Income Tax in place, the country would be better off as a whole.
I don't know what the average percentage of Net Worth would end up if that were the case, but I do know that the system of taxation would be considerably fairer than it is today.
My propsed system of progressive taxation would have the following tax brackets, $0 to $20,000 per year in income, the 0% rate, $20,000 to $100,000, the 15% rate, $100,000 to $200,000 per year the 30% rate, $200,000 to $600,000 the 80% rate, $600,000 and above 61%, with NO NON-BUSINESS DEDUCTIONS at any level of the income tax spectrum.
Under that system, Joe, who this was all originally about, would pay a 6.4% effective tax rate on his income, with $2,250 being paid in taxes, and 4.5% of his Net Worth, without property taxes as would be payable under this system, and Nick would be paying $37,500 in taxes if he distributed only the required 50% of profits from his business or 11% of his earnings in taxes overall, and 2.8% of his Net Worth, if Nick distributed 100% of his income, he would pay $122,000 in taxes, doesn't that sound familiar, and would be paying 36% effective rate in taxes, and 9.4% of his Net Worth in taxes, doesn't this system of taxation sound a bit fairer? It event allows Nick to accumulate wealth tax free to expand his business if he wants to, providing a considerable tax cut, assuming that his property taxes, capped as a percentage of his income aren't too bad.
QUOTE (arebuntz @ Aug 17 2008, 04:59 PM)
I prefer reaching a mutual agreement with the other party in any transaction including an exchange of my services for compensation. Some prefer to be a thug and goon it up...
I prefer a non-adversarial workplace myself. Some folks like to fight with the boss.
I like the no deductions part and it sort of complies with the principal of largest base and lowest rates. I can live with progressive rates as taxing low income folks is counterproductive as I said earlier. I don't think you meant 80% rate but probably 40% rate and the top 61% rate is getting into serious tax avoidance and evasion territory. Also as I mentioned earlier this works in your "fairness" test only if you assume a correlation between wealth and income which in many instances is not the case as in my case...
QUOTE (Arturo_Vandelay @ Aug 17 2008, 10:18 PM)
I prefer a non-adversarial workplace myself. Some folks like to fight with the boss.
There are some folks here abouts that would be problematic employees for me... of course they would all be contract employees for me... at will employees...
QUOTE (CFKane_ @ Aug 17 2008, 06:32 PM)
Did the analysis argue that taxation should be based on Net Worth? No, it suggested that if a system of taxation were fair, a similar percentage of Net Worth would be paid by all at the end of the day.
I think the income tax works very well, and think that if we ELIMINATED the Social Security payroll tax, ELIMINATED sales taxes, and set a limit as a percentage of income for property taxes on an individual's primary residence, that is progressive based on income, ELIMINATE hidden taxes, like the gas tax, and the beer tax, ELIMINATE the corporate tax, and REQUIRE a DISTRIBUTION OF 50% of profits per annum to shareholders, ELIMINATE special treatment of capital gains, and put in place a VERY PROGRESSIVE Income Tax in place, the country would be better off as a whole.
I don't know what the average percentage of Net Worth would end up if that were the case, but I do know that the system of taxation would be considerably fairer than it is today.
I think the income tax works very well, and think that if we ELIMINATED the Social Security payroll tax, ELIMINATED sales taxes, and set a limit as a percentage of income for property taxes on an individual's primary residence, that is progressive based on income, ELIMINATE hidden taxes, like the gas tax, and the beer tax, ELIMINATE the corporate tax, and REQUIRE a DISTRIBUTION OF 50% of profits per annum to shareholders, ELIMINATE special treatment of capital gains, and put in place a VERY PROGRESSIVE Income Tax in place, the country would be better off as a whole.
I don't know what the average percentage of Net Worth would end up if that were the case, but I do know that the system of taxation would be considerably fairer than it is today.
Fair is just too subjective a proposition to run our whole economy on. I don't care if I have the same net worth or pay the same tax as everyone else. I want a vibrant economy with lots of jobs and opportunity for all, not a feel-good tax system that focuses on equality over everything. That's not to say I'm set against all your ideas, just that trying to do all that at once with "fairness" in mind seems to me like a recipe for disaster.
... and besides the folks in Congress that make the rules know that the tax system is about two things... raising them money to spend... and making sure their supporters don't pay too much of that... both with the ultimate goal of getting them reelected.
QUOTE (arebuntz @ Aug 17 2008, 08:00 PM)
... and besides the folks in Congress that make the rules know that the tax system is about two things... raising them money to spend...
A needed function.
QUOTE
and making sure their supporters don't pay too much of that..
only a political function.
Since everything gets manipulated I'd just assume have the simplest tax system that brings in the most money and allows the economy to flourish. Not too much to ask with a little dynamic cost/benefit analysis.
QUOTE (arebuntz @ Aug 17 2008, 04:56 PM)
I think it's just fine that they take their members for every penny they can get...
How does that compare to the CEOs pay?
Let's be real.
QUOTE (arebuntz @ Aug 17 2008, 04:59 PM)
I prefer reaching a mutual agreement with the other party in any transaction including an exchange of my services for compensation. Some prefer to be a thug and goon it up...
Particularly the companies that evidently you defend.
QUOTE (Arturo_Vandelay @ Aug 17 2008, 07:18 PM)
I prefer a non-adversarial workplace myself. Some folks like to fight with the boss.
It's usually not a matter of liking to do it. It's a matter of having to do it.
It benefits all workers, including you.
QUOTE (arebuntz @ Aug 17 2008, 07:23 PM)
There are some folks here abouts that would be problematic employees for me... of course they would all be contract employees for me... at will employees...
Of course, you'd rather not take responsibility for your workers, or their families. Leave that for another management team. Your costs are higher, but you've less "people problems".
Hope it's worth it to you.
QUOTE (CharlieRay @ Aug 17 2008, 09:11 PM)
It's usually not a matter of liking to do it. It's a matter of having to do it.
It benefits all workers, including you.
It benefits all workers, including you.
That's debatable.
QUOTE (Arturo_Vandelay @ Aug 17 2008, 09:20 PM)
That's debatable.
Do you like the 40 hour workweek and overtime pay?
Do you like holidays and/or holiday pay?
We could go on, but let's cut it short.
What benefit at work do you have that you think the Union didn't get or at least help get for you?
QUOTE (CharlieRay @ Aug 18 2008, 12:08 AM)
How does that compare to the CEOs pay?
Let's be real.
Let's be real.
OK, it's the my guys a crook but your guy earns more defense...
QUOTE (arebuntz @ Aug 18 2008, 08:02 AM)
OK, it's the my guys a crook but your guy earns more defense...
Of course. Besides, the union officers are much more productive in creating jobs and products you know.
QUOTE (CharlieRay @ Aug 18 2008, 12:13 AM)
Of course, you'd rather not take responsibility for your workers, or their families. Leave that for another management team. Your costs are higher, but you've less "people problems".
Hope it's worth it to you.
Hope it's worth it to you.
Contact workers not automatically more expensive and compared to a Union shop very cost effective. Employers not responsible for their workers and their families... no more than your local hamburger joint is responsible for it's customers and their families. It's very simple really, you supply your employer a service and your employer compensates you for that service. When either side is not getting value for their cost then the relationship should be terminated.
QUOTE (CharlieRay @ Aug 18 2008, 12:24 AM)
Do you like the 40 hour workweek and overtime pay?
Do you like holidays and/or holiday pay?
We could go on, but let's cut it short.
What benefit at work do you have that you think the Union didn't get or at least help get for you?
Do you like holidays and/or holiday pay?
We could go on, but let's cut it short.
What benefit at work do you have that you think the Union didn't get or at least help get for you?
Facts not in evidence. Impossible to demonstrate that these changes in the workplace would have never occurred without labor unions. Many other changes have occurred in business sectors that were never unionized... see dot.coms. THere is a reason the only Union growth in the US is occurring in the gubment sector, a perfect match of no expectations meets no accomplishment...
QUOTE (Bart Katz @ Aug 18 2008, 09:04 AM)
Of course. Besides, the union officers are much more productive in creating jobs and products you know.
Yes they need additional landscape maintenance techs as they expand their mansions... also there is a lot of turn over in the goon and thug divisions...
QUOTE (arebuntz @ Aug 18 2008, 06:02 AM)
OK, it's the my guys a crook but your guy earns more defense...
No, it's the my guy is not even near the crook that your guy is defense. :~)
QUOTE (arebuntz @ Aug 18 2008, 06:07 AM)
Contact workers not automatically more expensive and compared to a Union shop very cost effective. Employers not responsible for their workers and their families... no more than your local hamburger joint is responsible for it's customers and their families. It's very simple really, you supply your employer a service and your employer compensates you for that service. When either side is not getting value for their cost then the relationship should be terminated.
No real relationship there? Nothing more than just another customer? Even after years of dedicated service? hmmmn...
No responsibility? Even when he's injured while working for you after years of dedicated service? No responsibility when their kids get sick and they can't afford to get medical care because you don't pay enough? No responsibility when you squeeze out as much as you can out of every minute of their day for as bare little as possible?
No responsibility when they've given you all their best for all their best years and now are old and can't just "terminate" the relationship because there's no where else for them to go?
No responsibility? Does that go both ways in your system?
Does the employee have any responsibility to you? Should they just take everything that they can get from you and give as little as possible as well? hmmmn?
QUOTE (arebuntz @ Aug 18 2008, 06:12 AM)
Facts not in evidence. Impossible to demonstrate that these changes in the workplace would have never occurred without labor unions. Many other changes have occurred in business sectors that were never unionized... see dot.coms. THere is a reason the only Union growth in the US is occurring in the gubment sector, a perfect match of no expectations meets no accomplishment...
Bullchit, facts in evidence.
The fact is that the Unions did make these things come about.
You can fantasize about alternate realities, but that's not much of an argument.
QUOTE (arebuntz @ Aug 18 2008, 06:14 AM)
Yes they need additional landscape maintenance techs as they expand their mansions... also there is a lot of turn over in the goon and thug divisions...
If you study your labor history at all, you'll see that the companies are much more guilty of the goon and thug thing.
QUOTE (CharlieRay @ Aug 17 2008, 09:24 PM)
Do you like the 40 hour workweek and overtime pay?
Do you like holidays and/or holiday pay?
We could go on, but let's cut it short.
What benefit at work do you have that you think the Union didn't get or at least help get for you?
Do you like holidays and/or holiday pay?
We could go on, but let's cut it short.
What benefit at work do you have that you think the Union didn't get or at least help get for you?
It's a big leap to assume nothing happens without a union. Like assuming the south would have always had slavery without the civil war. THere's a reason the union movement isn't as big as it used to be, and the pro-union people need to be a little introspective about that instead of trying to relive the glory of the trust-busting days.
QUOTE (CharlieRay @ Aug 18 2008, 10:51 AM)
No real relationship there? Nothing more than just another customer? Even after years of dedicated service? hmmmn...
No responsibility? Even when he's injured while working for you after years of dedicated service? No responsibility when their kids get sick and they can't afford to get medical care because you don't pay enough? No responsibility when you squeeze out as much as you can out of every minute of their day for as bare little as possible?
No responsibility when they've given you all their best for all their best years and now are old and can't just "terminate" the relationship because there's no where else for them to go?
No responsibility? Does that go both ways in your system?
Does the employee have any responsibility to you? Should they just take everything that they can get from you and give as little as possible as well? hmmmn?
No responsibility? Even when he's injured while working for you after years of dedicated service? No responsibility when their kids get sick and they can't afford to get medical care because you don't pay enough? No responsibility when you squeeze out as much as you can out of every minute of their day for as bare little as possible?
No responsibility when they've given you all their best for all their best years and now are old and can't just "terminate" the relationship because there's no where else for them to go?
No responsibility? Does that go both ways in your system?
Does the employee have any responsibility to you? Should they just take everything that they can get from you and give as little as possible as well? hmmmn?
Yes it does and no they do not... No responsibility either way... You are compensated by your employer in exchange for a service... You want more, get a dog... and of course employees can leave their employer (assuming no individual contract with the employer that says otherwise, not the usual case) without any notice. Plenty of government regulation of employer as to when they can and cannot terminate a direct employee. Is that the "even" relationship your looking for? It's just a job CR, you want someone to take care of you, get yourself a family...
QUOTE (Arturo_Vandelay @ Aug 18 2008, 08:03 AM)
It's a big leap to assume nothing happens without a union. Like assuming the south would have always had slavery without the civil war. THere's a reason the union movement isn't as big as it used to be, and the pro-union people need to be a little introspective about that instead of trying to relive the glory of the trust-busting days.
The biggest reason that for the Unions decline is that the corporates spend 14 times more money lobbying against them.
Yours is the side assuming. Let's be clear. The fact is that in reality, this reality, the Union brought about these good things for the workers. No assuming.
QUOTE (CharlieRay @ Aug 18 2008, 10:54 AM)
Bullchit, facts in evidence.
The fact is that the Unions did make these things come about.
You can fantasize about alternate realities, but that's not much of an argument.
The fact is that the Unions did make these things come about.
You can fantasize about alternate realities, but that's not much of an argument.
QUOTE
On January 5, 1914, the Ford Motor Company took the radical step of doubling pay to $5 a day, and cut shifts from nine hours to an eight hour day, moves that were not popular with rival companies, although seeing the increase in Ford's productivity, most soon followed suit.
QUOTE (CharlieRay @ Aug 18 2008, 10:55 AM)
If you study your labor history at all, you'll see that the companies are much more guilty of the goon and thug thing.
In my time in the Detroit area in the 60s and 70s and at Boeing in the 80s and 90s I observed many strikes, thuggery and goonery were the tools of the Unionists...
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.