THE TRUTH - JOIN TODAY
November 01, 2014, 12:25:35 AM *
THE TRUTH - JOIN TODAY

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length
CLICK HERE to sign up for Obamacare
Obamacare
Health Care Exchanges.

US WORLD POLITICS MENU BELOW -
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register Chat GENERAL POLITICS PRESIDENT OBAMA BO AND LEON MARGARET AND HELEN FACEBOOK GOVERNMENT OFFICES RSS FEED  
Share |

CLICK THE IMAGE TO VIEW THEIR FACEBOOK PAGE

Michael J "Mick" Castleberry For Jeffersonville township Advisory Board. Democrat



Pages: [1] |   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Capitalist are Labor Usurers Not Job Creators  (Read 2666 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Butch Ragland
Butch Ragland
Global Moderator
*****
Offline

Posts: 877



WWW
« on: December 14, 2011, 03:52:23 PM »
Reply Split Topic

IF YOU REALLY CARE SEND THIS TO EVERYONE IN YOUR EMAIL ADDRESS LIST.

Capitalist aka Capitalusurer” do not work!
They create nothing.

Capitalusurers'” are labor usurers!
There once were laws against usury!

Capitalusurers'” apply capital to use our labor!
When they are finished with us they throw us into a compost pile to rot our bodies and spirit.
When our laboring days are done we should be able to look back on the tree we planted, tended and cared for with pride and pick the fruit. Sit with our grandchildren and enjoy a fruit salad.

Capital is mobile, labor is not. We work where the Capitalusurer” chooses and when the Capitalusurer” chooses to move the capital we are stuck without a job trying to pay for a house, car, children’s education, food, etc, etc. We can’t easily move to China to work in the  Capitalusurers'” new plant for a 1.00/day.

Worker/ Capitalist “A New Paradigm”!
Workers need to be in charge of our produce (work) and decide how we will capitalize on our labor AND what we will do with the old worn out “labor machine”; “We The Worker”.

Don’t expect the Capitalist/Job Creator “GAG” to give us anything, we must rip the control Capitalusurers'” have over our lives and politics from their greedy little fist.
Logged

 
Butch Ragland
Butch Ragland
Global Moderator
*****
Offline

Posts: 877



WWW
« Reply #1 on: December 15, 2011, 03:44:28 PM »
Reply Split Topic

“Capitalusurers'” receive the greatest benefit from the infrastructure required for “Capitalusurers'” to reap a profit therefore they should be taxed the greatest for public, general taxation that pays for the services required to prop up capitalism.

Workers do not receive a return on the investment of their labor? We only receive wages equal to the value for the work done as long as you are healthy enough to work. Why are workers taxed more than the one percent “Capitalusurers'”?  In fact, we the workers make it possible for the 1% who can jump from mansion to mansion telling the servants/workers what to prepare for dinner while increasing capital and undue influence over our politics producing nothing but capital. When has a checkout clerk working for Wal-Mart been able to buy Congress.

“Capitalusurers'” are a cancer on the value and benefits of society.

Now comes the Republipharisses’ to claim that capitalism is so great, how about you. Do you feel safe in your “job”, do you look forward to a safe old age? How does it feel to be a couple of paychecks away from living on the street? Get behind on your mortgage and see how long it takes for a “Capitalusurer” to foreclose on your home. Get behind on your credit card and see how long it takes for a “Capitalusurer” to raise your rate to 25-30%!

Can you survive with a credit card? Not can you survive without a credit card!

Tear up your credit card and take your money out of a big bank and see how long it takes to improve our world. They will be sitting in a corporate board meeting sharting in their pants.

Logged

Butch Ragland
Butch Ragland
Global Moderator
*****
Offline

Posts: 877



WWW
« Reply #2 on: February 10, 2012, 07:30:44 PM »
Reply Split Topic

A “perishable good” is something that declines in value when it is not consumed. Like cranberries. Or football tickets. Or labor.
An hour of labor, if not used, is gone. Gone forever.
Think about it. Today, February 10, 2012, there are millions of Americans who can work, who want to work, and who can’t find a job. There are millions more who want to work a full day today, and will work only for a few hours.
Even if every one of those people somehow found a full-time job between today and Monday, it wouldn’t change the fact that today, they went without work. Their skills, talents, abilities, whatever they have to offer, went unused.
What did that cost?  Well, given the fact that there are approximately 24 million Americans in that category, you would have to say that it cost us more than $1 billion, today alone.  Easily.  We missed out on the $1+ billion in goods and services that they would have produced for us, if they had a job.  Their labor simply . . . perished.  Vanished.  Like an unused football ticket.  That game is never played again.
Mitt Romney aside, one does hear from time to time about the plight of the unemployed.  But one never hears about the plight of the rest of us, because of high unemployment.  We are being denied the benefit of the goods and services that the unemployed would be providing to us, if they could.
.
I know that the unemployment rate is trending down. But that’s simply not good enough. As a nation, we cannot afford to expel millions of people from the workforce for years on end, and lose the benefit of their labor, just because there might be somewhat fewer people in that position on December 31 than there were on January 1.
If that’s the way that you see it, too, then please sign our petition: We Need Jobs NOW. And please forward this to your friends, and ask them to sign, too. Before another day is lost.
Courage,
Alan Grayson

Logged

Butch Ragland
Butch Ragland
Global Moderator
*****
Offline

Posts: 877



WWW
« Reply #3 on: February 27, 2012, 04:08:03 PM »
Reply Split Topic

This not union bashing period.

I think unions should get involved in business creation. When a union only organizes workers they are NOT creating lasting wealth. They are helping the capitalist use workers, when the capitalist is finished with the worker they throw them away. My system called Yankee Ingenuity allows workers to share in the value created in a business.

http://beauproductions.com/usworld/forum/index.php/topic,240.0.html
Logged

Butch Ragland
Butch Ragland
Global Moderator
*****
Offline

Posts: 877



WWW
« Reply #4 on: March 04, 2012, 11:42:24 AM »
Reply Split Topic

Catholic hospitals and universities are capitalist operations making money using labor. This labor (workers) has the same rights as any employee/worker.

Religious institutions that make money in the marketplace should operate under the same laws that any other business is subject to.

Catholic hospitals are “Capitalusuers'” in the same way any business are “ Capitalusuers'”. Since the Constitution says the government will not impose any religious belief on our citizens then it should apply to the Catholic “Capitalusuers'” as well.

We, the United States with its Constitution have struggled with those from the "religious community" (The Self-Righteous Religious White Right) who would want to impose their beliefs on the rest of us since our founding.

Logged

Butch Ragland
Butch Ragland
Global Moderator
*****
Offline

Posts: 877



WWW
« Reply #5 on: June 29, 2012, 08:36:11 PM »
Reply Split Topic

Democracy in the Workplace? Spain's Mondragon Corporation Shows Us an Alternative to Capitalism

"We are not some paradise, but rather a family of co-operative enterprises struggling to build a different kind of life around a different way of working."

Richard D Wolff

There is no alternative ("Tina") to capitalism?
Really? We are to believe, with Margaret Thatcher, that an economic system with endlessly repeated cycles, costly bailouts for financiers and now austerity for most people is the best human beings can do? Capitalism's recurring tendencies toward extreme and deepening inequalities of income, wealth, and political and cultural power require resignation and acceptance – because there is no alternative?

I understand why such a system's leaders would like us to believe in Tina. But why would others?

Of course, alternatives exist; they always do. Every society chooses – consciously or not, democratically or not – among alternative ways to organize the production and distribution of the goods and services that make individual and social life possible.

Modern societies have mostly chosen a capitalist organization of production. In capitalism, private owners establish enterprises and select their directors who decide what, how and where to produce and what to do with the net revenues from selling the output. This small handful of people makes all those economic decisions for the majority of people – who do most of the actual productive work. The majority must accept and live with the results of all the directorial decisions made by the major shareholders and the boards of directors they select. This latter also select their own replacements.

Capitalism thus entails and reproduces a highly undemocratic organization of production inside enterprises. Tina believers insist that no alternatives to such capitalist organizations of production exist or could work nearly so well, in terms of outputs, efficiency, and labor processes. The falsity of that claim is easily shown. Indeed, I was shown it a few weeks ago and would like to sketch it for you here.

In May 2012, I had occasion to visit the city of Arrasate-Mondragon, in the Basque region of Spain. It is the headquarters of the Mondragon Corporation (MC), a stunningly successful alternative to the capitalist organization of production.

MC is composed of many co-operative enterprises grouped into four areas: industry, finance, retail and knowledge. In each enterprise, the co-op members (averaging 80-85% of all workers per enterprise) collectively own and direct the enterprise. Through an annual general assembly the workers choose and employ a managing director and retain the power to make all the basic decisions of the enterprise (what, how and where to produce and what to do with the profits).

As each enterprise is a constituent of the MC as a whole, its members must confer and decide with all other enterprise members what general rules will govern MC and all its constituent enterprises. In short, MC worker-members collectively choose, hire and fire the directors, whereas in capitalist enterprises the reverse occurs. One of the co-operatively and democratically adopted rules governing the MC limits top-paid worker/members to earning 6.5 times the lowest-paid workers. Nothing more dramatically demonstrates the differences distinguishing this from the capitalist alternative organization of enterprises. (In US corporations, CEOs can expect to be paid 400 times an average worker's salary – a rate that has increased 20-fold since 1965.)

Given that MC has 85,000 members (from its 2010 annual report), its pay equity rules can and do contribute to a larger society with far greater income and wealth equality than is typical in societies that have chosen capitalist organizations of enterprises. Over 43% of MC members are women, whose equal powers with male members likewise influence gender relations in society different from capitalist enterprises.

MC displays a commitment to job security I have rarely encountered in capitalist enterprises: it operates across, as well as within, particular cooperative enterprises. MC members created a system to move workers from enterprises needing fewer to those needing more workers – in a remarkably open, transparent, rule-governed way and with associated travel and other subsidies to minimize hardship. This security-focused system has transformed the lives of workers, their families, and communities, also in unique ways.

The MC rule that all enterprises are to source their inputs from the best and least-costly producers – whether or not those are also MC enterprises – has kept MC at the cutting edge of new technologies. Likewise, the decision to use of a portion of each member enterprise's net revenue as a fund for research and development has funded impressive new product development. R&D within MC now employs 800 people with a budget over $75m. In 2010, 21.4% of sales of MC industries were new products and services that did not exist five years earlier. In addition, MC established and has expanded Mondragon University; it enrolled over 3,400 students in its 2009-2010 academic year, and its degree programs conform to the requirements of the European framework of higher education. Total student enrollment in all its educational centers in 2010 was 9,282.

The largest corporation in the Basque region, MC is also one of Spain's top ten biggest corporations (in terms of sales or employment). Far better than merely surviving since its founding in 1956, MC has grown dramatically. Along the way, it added a co-operative bank, Caja Laboral (holding almost $25bn in deposits in 2010). And MC has expanded internationally, now operating over 77 businesses outside Spain. MC has proven itself able to grow and prosper as an alternative to – and competitor of – capitalist organizations of enterprise.

During my visit, in random encounters with workers who answered my questions about their jobs, powers, and benefits as cooperative members, I found a familiarity with and sense of responsibility for the enterprise as a whole that I associate only with top managers and directors in capitalist enterprises. The easy conversation (including disagreement), for instance, between assembly-line workers and top managers inside the Fagor washing-machine factory we inspected was similarly remarkable.

Our MC host on the visit reminded us twice that theirs is a co-operative business with all sorts of problems:

"We are not some paradise, but rather a family of co-operative enterprises struggling to build a different kind of life around a different way of working."

Nonetheless, given the performance of Spanish capitalism these days – 25% unemployment, a broken banking system, and government-imposed austerity (as if there were no alternative to that either) – MC seems a welcome oasis in a capitalist desert.

Logged

Butch Ragland
Butch Ragland
Global Moderator
*****
Offline

Posts: 877



WWW
« Reply #6 on: September 09, 2012, 10:24:27 PM »
Reply Split Topic

"There are two ways of viewing the Government's duty in matters affecting economic and social life. The first sees to it that a favored few are helped and hopes that some of their prosperity will leak through, sift through, to labor, to the farmer, to the small business man."
'Franklin Roosevelt

"How is the labor of a few superior to the labor of the many?"
'Butch Ragland
Logged

Butch Ragland
Butch Ragland
Global Moderator
*****
Offline

Posts: 877



WWW
« Reply #7 on: September 20, 2012, 07:00:50 PM »
Reply Split Topic


A Direct Stake in Economic Life
Thursday, 20 September 2012 09:19 By Gar Alperovitz, Truthout | News Analysis

This "Chapter Seven" is part eleven of Truthout's continuing series of excerpts from Gar Alperovitz's "America beyond Capitalism."

That individuals work harder, better, and with greater enthusiasm when they have a direct interest in the outcome is self-evident to most people. The obvious question is: why aren't large numbers of businesses organized on this principle?
 
The answer is: in fact, thousands and thousands of them are. Indeed, more Americans now work in firms that are partly or wholly owned by the employees than are members of unions in the private sector!
 
The Appleton company, a world leader in specialty paper production in Appleton, Wisconsin, became employee-owned when the company was put up for sale by Arjo Wiggins Appleton, the multinational corporation that owned it-and the 2,500 employees decided they had just as much right to buy it as anyone else. Reflexite, an optics company based in New Avon, Connecticut, became employee-owned in 1985 after 3M made a strong bid for the company and the founding owners, loyal to their workers and the town, preferred to sell to the employees instead. In the case of Science Applications International Corporation, the founder, Dr. J. Robert Beyster, has for more than thirty years simply believed that people "involved in the company should share in its success."
 
This is an exclusive Truthout series from political economist and author Gar Alperovitz. We will be publishing weekly installments of the new edition of "America Beyond Capitalism," a visionary book, first published in 2005, whose time has come. Donate to Truthout; and receive a free copy.
 
One factor that has contributed to the rise of employee-owned firms is that multinational corporations often must seek the very highest profit they can make on invested capital-whereas workers living in a community are content with substantial profits (rather than the highest possible) since the other benefits of keeping a plant in town outweigh differences in profit rates. (Often, of course, when employees take ownership, the change produces greater efficiency-and greater profits than those which the multinational registered.)
 
A major boost to employee-ownership came from passage in 1974 (and thereafter) of federal legislation providing special tax benefits to Employee Stock Ownership Plans (ESOPs)-the legal structure that most such firms now utilize. Technically an ESOP involves a trust that receives and holds stock in a given corporation on behalf of its employees.
 
At the heart of the ESOP idea is the basic financing concept urged by Louis Kelso for broadening the ownership of wealth-namely, if some form of guarantee or collateral can be arranged to provide loans for productive investment, new wealth ownership by diverse groups (in this case employees of a firm) can be developed and paid for by the profits that the investment itself generates.
 
Although ESOPs based on this principle date from the 1950s, the modern federal legislation gave tax incentives to corporations contributing stock to an employee trust and to retiring owners of businesses who sell their corporations to employees and reinvest the proceeds within a defined time frame.
 
There are approximately 11,000 ESOPs now operating in communities in all regions of the United States. Asset holdings total more than $400 billion. The National Center for Employee Ownership (NCEO) estimates that total worker holdings (of all forms of stock ownership and stock options) reached approximately $800 billion in 2002-that is, roughly 8 percent of all U.S. corporate stock.
 
W.L.Gore, the maker of Gore-Tex apparel, is one of the most impressive modern ESOPs. The company, owned since 1974 by (currently 6,000) worker-owners in forty-five locations around the world, has no bosses or formal titles. To ensure communication and innovation, those working at any one site number no more than 200. Depending on their particular skills, workers may lead one task one week and follow other leaders the next week; teams disband after projects are completed, with team members moving on to other teams. W. L. Gore revenues totaled $1.33 billion in 2003; the firm regularly ranks on the Fortune "Best Companies to Work For" list.
 
Another impressive ESOP, Weston Solutions, Inc., is the second largest environmental firm in the country. Its highly specialized services range from forestry and urban planning to high-hazard nuclear and chemical waste cleanups. The company has helped rehabilitate "sick" (asbestos, lead paint) school buildings from New York and Chicago to Decatur, Alabama. It was the lead information technology contractor in recovery operations after the space shuttle Columbia disaster. The company is 100 percent owned by its 1,800 employees. In recognition of its creative structure and its "consistent record of profitability, growth and financial stability," Weston received the Environmental Business Journal's top "gold" award for 2003.
 
ESOP firms are also common in nonspecialized areas: Fetter Printing Company in Louisville, Kentucky, is 100 percent owned by its 200-plus workers. The firm has annual revenues of $17.5 million and was recently ranked as one of the top twenty-five printers in the United States. Fastener Industries in Berea, Ohio, is owned by more than 100 worker-owners. Machinists who have participated in the ESOP since 1980 commonly receive the equivalent of an additional three months' pay in dividends each year and retire with personal shareholding accounts of up to $350,000. Parametrix-100 percent owned by over 350 employees-is an environmental engineering firm headquartered in Sumner, Washington. The company was recently selected as one of the best companies to work for in Washington State-and was named 2001 National ESOP of the Year by the ESOP Association. In Harrisonburg, Virginia, ComSonics-100 percent owned by 160 employees-makes cable television (CATV) test and analysis devices and boasts the largest CATV repair facility in the United States.
 
A 1998 survey of Washington State firms found that median hourly pay in ESOP firms was 12 percent higher than pay for comparable work in non-ESOP firms. Worker-owners of ESOPs also ended their careers with almost three times the retirement benefits of others with similar jobs. A 1990 study by the National Center for Employee Ownership estimated that an employee making $20,000 a year in a typical ESOP would accumulate $31,000 in stock over ten years-no small feat, considering that median financial wealth was just $11,700 during this period. A 2000 Massachusetts survey found ESOP accounts averaging just under $40,000.
 
It is also clear that ESOPs-and worker ownership in general-have broad political appeal for both practical and philosophical reasons. The ESOP concept has been endorsed by (among others) Ronald Reagan, Ralph Nader, Mario Cuomo, William F. Buckley, William Greider, Jack Kemp, Richard Gephardt, Mikhail Gorbachev, and Coretta Scott King. Both parties backed the tax legislation that now provides over $2 billion in annual support to ESOPs. Other forms of federal help include loan guarantees and the financing of worker-ownership feasibility studies in the event of plant closures or major layoffs.
 
A number of state programs also provide support for worker ownership. One of the most widely recognized, the Ohio Employee Ownership Center, conducts feasibility studies for potential independent worker buyouts and for transition buyouts from retiring owners. The Michigan Workforce Transition Unit offers employee-ownership efforts feasibility-assessment assistance. Massachusetts funds the quasi-governmental Commonwealth Corporation, which provides technical and financial assistance to firms seeking to establish an ESOP.
 
The extraordinary growth of ESOPs over the last thirty years has brought with it growing sophistication, the development of expert advisory and technical assistance organizations, a group of advocates and a group of critics, and-what is important-an expanding and diverse constituency interested in next-stage development of the institution.
 
Critics of ESOPs commonly decry the lack of democratic control offered to workers in most trust arrangements. They point out that unlike such leaders as W.L.Gore, many-indeed, most-ESOPs do not involve real participation; they often function mainly as a tax-favored legal mechanism to help employees accumulate additional assets over time. (It is estimated that only between a quarter and a third of ESOP companies pass through full voting rights to worker shareholders.) Moreover, since ESOPs commonly award stock in proportions related to wage and salary levels, they do little to improve overall compensation ratios and in some cases actually increase internal firm disparities due to compounding effects when stock values increase or dividends are received.
 
Several considerations suggest that greater democratic participation and control of ESOPs is likely to develop as time goes on-hence, also open the way for broader support. First, a significant share of ESOP companies (some three thousand, or nearly 30 percent of ESOPs in privately held companies)are already majority-owned by workers. Of these, 40 to 50 percent already pass voting rights through to plan participants. Second, as workers within specific firms steadily accumulate stock they become majority owners as time goes on. Surveys by the National Center for Employee Ownership reveal that the proportion of privately held ESOPs that are majority-owned increased approximately 50 percent during the past decade. Majority-owned firms increased from 38 percent of ESOP association members in 1989 to 68 percent in 2000.
 
It is conceivable that as more and more ESOPs become majority-owned, workers will ignore the fact that in many firms they have little power. On the other hand, the more likely result-as Business Week observed in 1991-is that ultimately workers "who own a significant share of their companies will want a voice in corporate governance." In Ohio (which has been closely studied) a survey completed in the mid-1990s found that 53 percent of majority-owned ESOPs passed through voting rights. It also found that employee ownership was becoming more democratic over time, with three times as many closely held companies passing through full voting rights to ESOP participants as had been the case in a previous 1985-1986 survey.
 
The third-and perhaps most important-reason to expect change is that several studies demonstrate that greater participation leads to greater productivity and thus greater competitiveness in the marketplace. In general, ESOPs have been found to be as productive or more productive than comparable non-ESOP firms. Annual sales growth, on average, is also greater in ESOP than in non-ESOP firms. When ESOPs are structured to include greater participation, however, the advantages of worker ownership increase substantially. Studies undertaken by the National Center for Employee Ownership, by several teams of economists, and by the U.S. General Accounting Office all confirm that combining worker ownership with employee participation commonly produces greater productivity gains, in some cases over 50 percent.
 
The number of ESOP-style worker-owned firms increased from 1,600 in 1975 to 4,000 in 1980, to 8,080 in 1990, and as we have noted, to roughly 11,000 in 2003. The number of worker-owners involved rose, correspondingly, from a mere 248,000 in 1975 to 8.8 million in 2003. There is no question that the feasibility and efficiency of wealth owning through worker institutions has been demonstrated, and that the basic concept has substantial potential for future development.
 
Likely directions for next-stage advances have been outlined in systematic proposals put forward on both the left and the right. During the Clinton administration one expert, Joseph Blasi, developed a comprehensive package that included tax and other benefits, along with substantial support for state-based technical assistance efforts. The Blasi plan also proposed restructuring tax benefits to redress the greater concentration of ownership among higher-paid employees as a result of awarding stock in amounts related to salary and wage level.
 
One of the most conservative Republican members of Congress, Dana Rohrbacher, went further. Rohrbacher introduced legislation-the Employee Ownership Act of 2001-the goal of which was to have "30 percent of all United States corporations . . . owned and controlled by employees of the corporations" by 2010. The proposed legislation would define a new entity, the Employee Owned and Controlled Corporation, (which Rohrbacher calls "ESOP-plus-plus"), in which over 50 percent of stock is held by employees, 90 percent of regular employees are enrolled in the plan, and all employees vote their stock on a one-person, one-vote basis. Various tax benefits would encourage adoption of the ESOP-plus-plus form.
 
The development in the 1970s and 1980s of broad Democratic and Republican political backing for employee-ownership ideas and supportive state and federal policies was in part related to the economic difficulties experienced by many communities during this period. Employee-owned firms not only embody new wealth-owning principles, they help local economies. The law that established New York State's program makes the connection particularly clear: "The general welfare is directly dependent on the economy and plant closures are a problem. The purpose of this Act is to encourage employees of these plants to continue them as employee-owned enterprises, thereby retaining jobs."
 
The 1990s economic boom tended to obviate such concerns. With the return of increased economic difficulties and the uncertainties created by globalization, supportive efforts are likely to build upon, and expand, the now well-developed and growing foundation of accumulated experience.
 
Traditional cooperatives also, of course, have long been based on democratic ownership ideas related to the Pluralist Commonwealth vision. It is rarely realized that there are more than 48,000 co-ops operating in the United States-and that 120 million Americans are co-op members. Roughly 10,000 credit unions (with total assets of over $600 billion) supply financial services to 83 million members; 36 million Americans purchase their electricity from rural electric cooperatives; more than a thousand mutual insurance companies (with more than $80 billion in assets) are owned by their policyholders; and approximately 30 percent of farm products are marketed through cooperatives.
 
Ongoing co-op development is likely to draw upon the experience of successful modern models like Recreational Equipment, Inc.-an outdoor equipment retailer and producer that employs six thousand people, operates sixty stores, and had revenues of $735 million in 2002. Recreational Equipment is owned by its 2 million members, each of whom receives a refund-usually about 10 percent-on purchases at the end of the year. Named one of the "100 Best Companies to Work For in America" by Fortune magazine from 1997 to 2002, Recreational Equipment offers employees a substantial profit-sharing plan and has taken part in numerous joint ventures with local environmental groups.
 This article may not be republished without permission from Truthout.
Logged

Butch Ragland
Butch Ragland
Global Moderator
*****
Offline

Posts: 877



WWW
« Reply #8 on: September 24, 2012, 08:58:26 PM »
Reply Split Topic

“ When a man tells you he got rich through hard work, ask him: Whose? ”
 
— Don Marquis

Logged

Butch Ragland
Butch Ragland
Global Moderator
*****
Offline

Posts: 877



WWW
« Reply #9 on: September 27, 2012, 01:08:52 PM »
Reply Split Topic

Workers build own coffin!

http://beauproductions.com/usworld/forum/index.php/topic,1431.msg3163.html%23msg3163
Logged

Butch Ragland
Butch Ragland
Global Moderator
*****
Offline

Posts: 877



WWW
« Reply #10 on: October 02, 2012, 09:14:38 PM »
Reply Split Topic

How The "Job Creators" steal your taxes!

David Cay Johnston previously wrote "Perfectly Legal: The Covert Campaign to Rig Our Tax System to Benefit the Super Rich--and Cheat Everybody Else" and "Free Lunch: How the Wealthiest Americans Enrich Themselves at Government Expense (and Stick You with the Bill)." His new book, "The Fine Print: How Big Companies use 'Plain English' to Rob You Blind," is the Truthout Progressive Pick of the Week. You can obtain it here for a minimum donation, directly from Truthout. "Fine Print" explains how corporations bill consumers extra fees and keep money that should not be theirs, and legally. The following excerpt exposes how, in an increasing number of circumstances, corporations can keep worker deductions for state taxes.
 
Take a look at your pay stub. In all but six states, workers will see a deduction for state income taxes. You probably expect that money to finance public schools, the state university and college system, law enforcement and the other services that businesses and individuals rely on. Mostly it does, but in a growing number of states, your state income taxes will also be increasing the profits of your employer.
 
You read that right. Many employers in nineteen states can now keep state income taxes withheld from paychecks. General Electric, Goldman Sachs and Procter & Gamble have these deals, along with a host of foreign firms from the German computer maker Siemens to the Swedish appliance maker Electrolux and a host of Canadian, European and Japanese banks. In all more than 2,700 companies get to pocket the state income taxes withheld from some of their workers' paychecks.
 
In Illinois, for example, six big companies made deals with the state to pocket half or all of the state income taxes paid by their workers over ten years. Ford got a deal in 2007 by threatening to close an automobile assembly plant. In 2009, when the economy was in the worst shape in eight decades, Chrysler and Mitsubishi used threats of assembly plant closings to get similar deals.
 
In 2011, three more companies threatened to move out of Illinois. The state paid them off by letting them keep all the taxes withheld from their workers' paychecks for ten years. The German tire maker Continental will pocket $22 million of its workers' taxes, about a tenth of what it invested to modernize a tire plant in poverty-stricken southern Illinois, retaining 2,500 jobs and creating 444 more.
 
Navistar, maker of big diesel trucks for industry and the military, threatened to go to Alabama or maybe Iowa. In return for staying put, Navistar will pocket almost $65 million.

The big winner, though, was Motorola Mobility, the cell phone maker. Just for promising not to move out of state and take three thousand jobs with it, Motorola gets to siphon $136 million from the paychecks of its well-paid high-tech workers. As if to make this transaction all the more interesting, Motorola Mobility agreed to be acquired by Google soon after the state made the big tax deal. The Motorola board then paid its CEO, Sanjay Jha, to go away. He received $66 million. Thus, Illinois taxpayers underwrote his golden parachute, which amounted to roughly half the value of the worker taxes flowing to Google.
 
Google hardly needs a subsidy from Illinois taxpayers. It dominates the worldwide search engine and advertising business. Its founders, Larry Page and Sergey Brin, are each worth more than $15 billion. Monopoly profits are the key to such fortunes and oversize toys: at a Capitol Hill hearing in September 2011, Senator Herb Kohl of Wisconsin asked if Google was effectively a monopoly and Eric Schmidt, Google's CEO, acknowledged, "We're in that area."
 
If you work for one of the above companies in Illinois, you probably have not heard that your employer is keeping the state taxes taken out of your check. The diversion is stealthy by design. No law requires the companies to notify the workers that state income taxes are being diverted. The state treats you as having paid your taxes even though it never got the money.
 
Excerpted from "The Fine Print: How Big Companies use 'Plain English' to Rob You Blind." Published by Portfolio/Penguin. Copyright © David Cay Johnston, 2012.
 This piece was reprinted by Truthout with permission or license.
Logged

Butch Ragland
Butch Ragland
Global Moderator
*****
Offline

Posts: 877



WWW
« Reply #11 on: October 28, 2012, 10:38:04 PM »
Reply Split Topic

As we lurch uncontrollably toward Election Day, choosing our next set of lawmakers, I've been looking for a way to cast some light on what is at stake. I think that I've found it in the oldest legal code, the Code of Hammurabi, from 1772 B.C.

In general, the Code of Hammurabi established the law as a force much like William Blake's "tyger" in "Tyger, Tyger, Burning Bright": it has a "fearful symmetry." How many times have you heard the phrase, "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth"? That is shorthand for these sections of the Code of Hammurabi:

196. If a man has knocked out the eye of a patrician, his eye shall be knocked out. . . .

200. If a patrician has knocked out the tooth of a man that is his equal, his tooth shall be knocked out.

I think that I can hear you say, "Whoa! I never heard that bit about 'patrician' or 'equal' before. What's that all about?"

Well, I'll tell you.

The Code of Hammurabi explicitly set separate laws for patricians, a/k/a the 1%, and plebians, a/k/a the 99%. Patricians enjoyed the full protection of "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth." Plebians did not. Here is what they got:

198. If [a man] has knocked out the eye of a plebian . . . he shall pay one mina of silver.

199. If he has knocked out the eye of a patrician's servant . . . he shall pay half [of the servant's] value [to the patrician]. . . .

201. If [a patrician] has knocked out the tooth of a plebian, he shall pay one-third of a mina of silver.

(Today, a mina of silver would be worth about $600.)

Here is another example:

202-204. If a man has smitten the privates [ouch!!] of a man higher in rank than he, he shall be scourged with sixty blows of an ox-hide scourge, in the assembly. If a [patrician] has smitten the privates of a patrician of his own rank, he shall pay one mina of silver. If a plebian has smitten the privates of a plebian, he shall pay ten shekels of silver.

(A shekel of silver today would be worth about $10.)

And another one:

209-213. If a man has struck a free woman with child, and has caused her to miscarry, he shall pay ten shekels for her miscarriage . . . . If it be the daughter of a plebian that has miscarried through his blows, he shall pay five shekels of silver. . . . If he has struck a man's maid and caused her to miscarry, he shall pay two shekels of silver.

So here is the point: in the wrong hands, the law itself becomes a means - a very powerful means - of discrimination. And in many respects, it already is. Look at the tax code. Look at banking law. Look at abortion laws. Look at the laws on marriage equality. And look at the system itself: most people have the same access to the so-called "justice system" as they do to the Ritz-Carlton.

And whose hands are "the wrong hands"? How about the hands of a gentleman who has never had to dirty his hands at any time during his entire life? A gentleman "to the manor born"? The spiritual heir to Thurston Howell, III?

We already have reached a point where inequality is so extreme that the median wealth of whites is seven times higher than that of African-Americans, and African-Americans are seven times more likely to be incarcerated.

When we choose our legislators in a few days, let's remember this: the laws that they pass can be a force for equality, or a force against it. That's not only a big difference, it's the biggest difference of all.

Courage,
Logged

Butch Ragland
Butch Ragland
Global Moderator
*****
Offline

Posts: 877



WWW
« Reply #12 on: March 23, 2013, 08:35:57 PM »
Reply Split Topic

Capitalism will never deliver security for the worker.

Capitalism has repeatedly delivered booms and bust causing great hardship to society as a whole.

Capitalism created the great depression and our recent depression in 2008, putting great numbers of workers out of work and millions out of their homes.

Logged

Butch Ragland
Butch Ragland
Global Moderator
*****
Offline

Posts: 877



WWW
« Reply #13 on: April 08, 2013, 07:05:18 PM »
Reply Split Topic

The issue of wealth inequality across the United States is well known, but this video shows you the extent of that imbalance in dramatic and graphic fashion.
 
http://mashable.com/2013/03/02/wealth-inequality/
Logged

Pages: [1] |   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  



Share |




REGISTER FREE TODAY - BECOME INVOLVED
Join US WORLD POLITICS - THE TRUTH Newsletter: EMAIL Address


AMERICA'S SITE

KENTUCKY, INDIANA AND AMERICA'S FACTUAL SOURCE

Please Join Or Register - Free

BACK TO TOP


affiliate_link

Host your Web site with PowWeb!

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!


Google visited last this page October 23, 2014, 06:32:49 PM