First off this sentence by sentence thing is pretty annoying, I would prefer if you used paragraphs and skipped the majority of the quotes. A sentence by sentence rebuttal is pedantic, and these comments are threaded anyways so people can go back and read the prior comment
The corruptibility of the system is an argument for simplification and for bringing the rates in line with comparable countries. Any corporation that actually paid the 39.1% (average combined federal + state rate) would fail in the world marketplace, and hence the large incentive to influence the system in their favor. Additionally a lot of tax avoidance is done through international subsidiaries, a sign that domestic tax burdens are unusually high. 39.1 percent is the third highest rate in the world. If you were in charge of an international corporation you'd be doing everything you could to avoid is as well
Corporation and other business firms are essentially organization for the transformation of capital into profit. Not all firms in the market are price-setters, many are price takers. Nonetheless among firms that set prices the strategy of revenue maximization is rare and are associated with extremely thin margins and are pursued to gain a market-share or other long-term advantage. Most price-setters take the profit maximizing strategy, which as you describe sets prices as to maximize the proportion of revenue to marginal costs. Nonetheless the story does not end when this quarter's profits are made. High margins are signals that encourage investors and new entrants into that market. Low margins will drive investment elsewhere. (Any economic analysis mush include both eh seen and unseen, the immediate and the longterm.) " As Larry Summers, former Secretary of the Treasury in the Clinton Administration, explained in a Brookings Institution paper, “Although unsophisticated observers focus on the distinction between tax relief for business and for individuals, all taxes are ultimately borne by individuals in their role as labor suppliers, consumers, or suppliers of capital.” Hence, it is difficult to apply the concept of tax fairness to corporations. Any tax imposed on corporations results in either a reduction to employee wages, an increase in costs passed on to consumers, a reduction in the return to capital received by shareholders, or a combination of all three." - Joint Economic Council Study, May 2005 https://www.jec.senate.gov/pub...
>"Citizens against government waste". Why not go all-out and cite Grover Norquist and Ayn Rand?
Because the government never has any wast to redundancy? They cite primary sources including the congressional budget office and explain the difference in methodology from the FSC, mainly in correcting for the value of fringe benefits. They are consistent with the CBO analysis and other independent sources. in treating the question as total renumeration rather than as simply nominal salary
As an employer, you'd know theres a large cost in finding, hiring, and training new employees. It can take six months to a year for productivity to cover these costs. A job offer from another employer is often all the leverage you need. Unless you're talking about mind-numbing shift work that anyone with and IQ over 65 can do. Even then such work is being increasingly automated. I've also never had a job where I've said "A little more bureaucracy just what this job needs" Unions have been shrinking in the private sector because they are increasingly irrelevant.
>Another zombie talking point. You guys really think that once you'd join a union, you'd really stand around and think "boy, I wish Bob would start slacking off so I can do my job plus his!" And there is nothing about unions that prevents people from being fired with cause.
So why does New York City Schools have "rubber rooms", why do most of the police harassment and brutality reports keep being filed against the same small percentage of cops? At the end of the day the private sector needs to make a profit, but the the government organization fails, they just raise taxes, and this is where the firing for cause process that can take several months to two years is the norm. While you don't want your coworkers to slack off or misbehave they are human, and reducing to delaying the consequence makes it much more likely that somebody will.
>Now you're just putting on the clown shoes. The employer having to actually give a reason for termination is objectionable to no one but employers.
Again you fail to look at the unseen. An at-will arrangement reduces the Coase cost of employment, making employers more likely to hire someone they aren't quite sure will work out. The cost in proving or litigating cause is a real cost and risk where cause it required, making it less likely that any two people will enter into an employment contract, simultaneously increasing demand for perfect-fit employees, and decreases opportunity for those in adjacent feilds, with little experience, or some blemish on their records or resume. Anything other than a default at-will tears rungs of the the social lader, decreasing social mobility ceretis parribus .
>Zombie talking point #3. Union members are free to vote on what policies their union supports.
Which means it may be doing something that 50%-1 of it's members are opposed to, and does not consider those in the workplace that are or would rather be non-members. . Democracy is not a God, and there are limits to the propriety of any vote. A healthy democracy keeps core rights meant to protect minorities, and to keep lively debate in the public sphere. At least insofar as the activity of the union is direct political advocacy, it is improper to impose dues to that end. And there is a good argument that even your standard collective bargaining is political in public sector unions because it is paid from taxes and affects the functioning of government institutions. 4 out the the 8 current Supreme court justices agree with this particular argument BTW. Additionally about 30% of Koch industry employees are Unionized. http://www.kochfacts.com/kf/ca...
>If the company had previously been demanding 14 hour workdays and paying employees in company script? Then yes, they did owe the union. Any more questions?
Actually this isn't true, as a workplace could de-unionize the day after. People join Unions and pay dues precisely for the benefits they expect to see from them. There is no economic problem with positive externalities, the issue is what is thought to be fair. Where collective bargaining is inherently political, I think the issue of what is fair must lean towards freedom of political expression. Where it is merely economic, assessing the direct cost of collective bargaining is probably fair, so long as the union can prove for most employees the collective bargain less fees, is greater than no collective bargaining.
"Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority. It thus exemplifies the purpose behind the Bill of Rights, and of the First Amendment in particular: to protect unpopular individuals from retaliation—and their ideas from suppression—at the hand of an intolerant society. The right to remain anonymous may be abused when it shields fraudulent conduct. But political speech by its nature will sometimes have unpalatable consequences, and, in general, our society accords greater weight to the value of free speech than to the dangers of its misuse."
No problem is so large it can't be fit in somewhere.