Discussion: All Things Union

[dnno1]

How can it come from state funds when they have no money???

You just aren't comprehending this...Wisconsin is wide open spaces. They have 5.6 million people in a big state. Milwauke, Wisconsin's biggest city, has only 605 thousand people. China's high speed rail, which has piled up debt, has a station in Beijing where 22 million people live. And it has still racked up debt.

I mean really? Are you really going to defend Wisconsin needing high speed trains and that it would bring them a profit?????????????????????

They do. Remember, they have a surpuls in their general fund right now and they can always secure a bond for the rest of the money (if they even need to get that). They would have had $800 million from the Feds, but they tuned that down.

 

[chaseter]

64 billion minus 800 million is quite a big discrepancy there.

 

[Kelly]

They do. Remember, they have a surpuls in their general fund right now and they can always secure a bond for the rest of the money (if they even need to get that). They would have had $800 million from the Feds, but they tuned that down.

Having the money to build it, and actually needing it are two different things. You are like a kid with $5 in his pocket...."I gotta spend it, I gotta spend it....I goooootttaaaa spend it.....

I would be PISSED if they dipped into a surplus to build something that it was OVERWHELMINGLY OBVIOUS was not needed....oooooh how I would be pissed. Oh wait, Houston is doing that right now with the extremely overpriced, underused light rail.....

No, that don't need it, and that is obvious....

 

[dnno1]

64 billion minus 800 million is quite a big discrepancy there.

California and Wisconsin are two different states. The labor rates are totally different. You just showed a video that claimed that the average salary of a teacher was $56,000 a year. It is $64,000 in California. Secondly the California project would be much larger (as I have said before) and would have to go through some mountains. According to a Business Insider report, the Midwest Rail Inititative would cost $82 million per mile for true high-speed rail. For $800 million, the State of Wisconsin could buy high speed trains from Spain for $48 million and assemble them in their state The remaining money could build about 9 miles of track that could be used for testing and prooving out technologies. Future years of finanical commitment would be needed to finish the remainder of the project. This is already being planned to last 30 to 50 years. In the mean time they have just turned away the opportunity to bring jobs to their state.

 

[chaseter]

Okay so they get to build 10 miles of track with the government money??? That is still ridiculous. Furthermore, it would lose money in Wisconsin. They don't have bustling metropolises where millions of people would love to use a high speed train.

Once again, Amtrak can't even make a profit from New York to Washington.

 

[dnno1]

Okay so they get to build 10 miles of track with the government money??? That is still ridiculous. Furthermore, it would lose money in Wisconsin. They don't have bustling metropolises where millions of people would love to use a high speed train.

Once again, Amtrak can't even make a profit from New York to Washington.

Like I have said before, we actually have no regulations for trains going 220 miles per hour. Unless you want the have the same problems that the Chinees are having, it would be rediculous to go whole hog and build thousands of miles of track without it. And I have already proven where it doesn't have to lose money for the state. This is going to happen in phases. Like I said before it will be decades (30 years or more) before this thing is completed.

 

[dnno1]

Having the money to build it, and actually needing it are two different things. You are like a kid with $5 in his pocket...."I gotta spend it, I gotta spend it....I goooootttaaaa spend it.....

I would be PISSED if they dipped into a surplus to build something that it was OVERWHELMINGLY OBVIOUS was not needed....oooooh how I would be pissed. Oh wait, Houston is doing that right now with the extremely overpriced, underused light rail.....

No, that don't need it, and that is obvious....

First of all, the unemployment rate in Wisconsin is 7.5%. Although this is not bad compared to other states and the national average (note that it was 3% in 2000), you still have a pending shortfall when it comes to Medicare that eventually needs to be address. If your goal is not to increase taxes (which would be a simple solution) then the other option would be to create more jobs. This would increase revenue while lowering the unemployment rate. It seems to me if you have people on medicaid to the point were you are slowly falling into debt, then you need to focus on creating jobs anyway. If someone is going to give you money to help create jobs, then why not do that?

 

[hippie_hunter]

Okay so they get to build 10 miles of track with the government money??? That is still ridiculous. Furthermore, it would lose money in Wisconsin. They don't have bustling metropolises where millions of people would love to use a high speed train.

Once again, Amtrak can't even make a profit from New York to Washington.

I thought that the Northeastern Corridor that connects Boston, New York, Philadelphia, Baltimore, and Washington D.C. was the only profitable rail for Amtrak while the rest were losing mad amounts of money.

 

[Denny67]

That is the problem with Public Servants today.....they don't know what service to the public means.....they have no pride in what they do, they don't see it as a service, they see it as a pay check.....

What facts are those based on exactly? Because to me is sounds a lot more like misguided envy.


That line of thought is a gross misrepresentation of facts and a totally uninformed stance.

As an employee of a Public Library (non-union) I can tell you that those “high paying” government jobs may hold true in very specific and limited cases (even then many have extenuation circumstances) but on the whole we are paid 10%-15% less than our privet sector counterparts. I
could be make a lot more money and have better benefits working for a privet company in the IT field but would not get nearly the sense of satisfaction I get from serving my community. Hell I have not had a rasie in 4 years and have taken a 10% cut on top of that. Same can be said of every other extremely bright and talented individual in my department and out management staff. We HAVE options but we serve. These are people who bust their ass to make every tax dollar count and put out the best possible product for the public, all with no freakin budget.

You also have to factor in jobs like say a librarian, or school teacher that require a master’s degree and don’t really have an equivalent privet sector counterpart. For their level of education and what they do $50,000 a year after they have put more than a decade in is over the line? Hell no its not. The trade of is they have a decent pension plan when they retire as a reward of a lifetime of service.

There are many cases where Union overstep and ask for too much. I will not deny that at all. One just needs to look at the Auto manufacturing industry.

That said there are improvements that need to be made by all; but taking away a Union group’s right to collective bargaining on a whole as a political weapon is unacceptable or at least it should be in America.
The perspective needed here is that these Unions agreed to every/single/concession that they were asked to make. Make no mistake, this is not a monetary issue this is 100% political.

Unions are the last big financial supporters of the Democratic Party. Once they are gone it is over and the Republicans will run the table from here on out and there will be even less of a line between government and their corporate handlers.

In that case be very careful what you wish for. You may not like it all that much when you get it. I have yet to a see a monopoly ever be a benevolent environment for those not firmly rooted at the top. Considering how wrong you’ve been about the core issue, you may want to rethink where this road ultimately leads, who is pulling the strings and why.

Don’t believe me? Easy enough. Every government office, job, whatever has what they do, how they do it and how much it costs recorded and made available as a matter of public record. Problem is, that people are too lazy or lack the capacity to look raw data and information up and exercise free and independent thought. They just blindly trust their favorite media outlet that reports according to their personal ideology. Problem is, they have a vested interest in all of this as well. They are for profit entities with a diverse investment portfolio and holdings after all.

 

[chaseter]

I thought that the Northeastern Corridor that connects Boston, New York, Philadelphia, Baltimore, and Washington D.C. was the only profitable rail for Amtrak while the rest were losing mad amounts of money.

I think the Northeast corridor is the only route that didn't run in the red in 2008. I know in 2008 41 of the 44 rail lines Amtrak runs lost money...and they are tax payer subsidized. I don't know what the 2009 or 2010 figures but I don't think it got better. I think Joe Biden boosted ridership on Amtrak as he always talked about it in 2009. HAHA he even said he would never ride in an airplane where a sick guy coughed and it passed around the entire plane when the big H1N1 scare was going around and then he endorsed Amtrak.

If no one is using the trains now, they aren't going to use them when a high speed rail is put in place with higher ticket prices. The only way a high speed rail line would work is if it is between two highly populated areas like Washington and NYC and there are no stops in between. It has to be faster and cheaper than a plane ride. That is why a country wide system will never be profitable. We invest so much money in our highway system that you can't do both. At this stage in our country, a national high speed rail system is a huge waste of tax payer money imo.

 

[dnno1]

You might have to be careful with what was reported for Amtrak. According to a GAO report, Amtrak did not include depreciation expense in their profit loss analysis. Depreciation is a concept that is implemented in the profit loss statements of most business, but Amtrak chose not to because their management felt that allocating such a large non-cash item is not helpful in determining the operational result of a route. Secondly, the profitability shown in the North East Corridor, which uses the Acela line only shows that high speed rail can improve demand and profitability of the service.

 

[hippie_hunter]

I think a high speed rail line will work if the train is almost as fast as a plane connecting major metropolitan centers like Boston, Washington, New York, etc. and provide a cheaper alternative to airplanes.

Right now, a national high speed rail system is a huge waste of tax payer money because there is no demand for it. I think that if a private company creates a rail system like the one in Shanghai, but not go cheap on it that has made it go slower, I think that they can really create the demand for it.

 

[dnno1]

I think a high speed rail line will work if the train is almost as fast as a plane connecting major metropolitan centers like Boston, Washington, New York, etc. and provide a cheaper alternative to airplanes.

Right now, a national high speed rail system is a huge waste of tax payer money because there is no demand for it. I think that if a private company creates a rail system like the one in Shanghai, but not go cheap on it that has made it go slower, I think that they can really create the demand for it.

The same thing was said for subways. I think in this instance it is not a matter of demand, but rather what benefit to society will this bring. As time goes on and our population increases, there is going to be a strain on our current transportation system. Eventually, we are all going to find that implementing High Speed Rail will only serve to help the environment, add another alternative to the increasing cost of fuel and construction of freeways and airports that citizens are not all to happy to see built in their towns.

By the way:

More Than A Third Of Americans Aware Of High Speed Rail Projects In Their State

Nearly two-thirds support state or federal funding for High Speed Rail, including those that live in Florida; one in five oppose, 15% unsure

 

[chaseter]

Our borders being 100% secured will benefit our society greatly but it costs too much. Why not get union guys down at the border building fences?

 

[dnno1]

Our borders being 100% secured will benefit our society greatly but it costs too much. Why not get union guys down at the border building fences?

That's debatable. There are those within this country that want it to be porous just to allow cheap labor to cross over and counter unions.

 

[Kelly]

Do you have an example of someone saying that they want the border porous in order to allow cheap labor in to counter unions? Because honestly, I have never heard anyone say that....

 

[dnno1]

Do you have an example of someone saying that they want the border porous in order to allow cheap labor in to counter unions? Because honestly, I have never heard anyone say that....

Yeah, read this.

 

[Handsome Rob]

You might have to be careful with what was reported for Amtrak. According to a GAO report, Amtrak did not include depreciation expense in their profit loss analysis. Depreciation is a concept that is implemented in the profit loss statements of most business, but Amtrak chose not to because their management felt that allocating such a large non-cash item is not helpful in determining the operational result of a route. Secondly, the profitability shown in the North East Corridor, which uses the Acela line only shows that high speed rail can improve demand and profitability of the service.

So what you're saying is that Amtrak's financial performance is worse than the P/L they reported? Because that's what depreciation is: it's a charge to expense that reduces net income. And, if Amtrak owns capitalized property/plant/equipment still within its useful life, then it is incurring depreciation expense.

And, that means that if it was left out of the Acela line as well, then the profitability would be lower were depreciation included.

So, if anything, the inclusion of depreciation expense would strengthen hippie's and chase's argument.

 

[dnno1]

So what you're saying is that Amtrak's financial performance is worse than the P/L they reported? Because that's what depreciation is: it's a charge to expense that reduces net income. And, if Amtrak owns capitalized property/plant/equipment still within its useful life, then it is incurring depreciation expense.

And, that means that if it was left out of the Acela line as well, then the profitability would be lower were depreciation included.

So, if anything, the inclusion of depreciation expense would strengthen hippie's and chase's argument.

No, they indicated the entire expense for the asset. If they had depreciated it, they could have shown the expense as a smaller amount over a period of several years (which could possibly have made them show a profit in some years).

 

[Handsome Rob]

That's a trade you have to make between the maintenance costs versus the revenue gained by the increase in jobs required to support the system. Assuming a median railroad worker's salary is about $40K, at +10,000 jobs and a 6.5% income tax rate, that would give the state an added $26 million per year in tax revenue alone (that is not including sales taxes). If you look at the second page of this link you will see a table that lists the track maintenance cost factor for a sample case rail line from Watertown to Madison, WI and Burlington to Ft. Wayne, IN. The maintenance costs for a high speed rail line is about $80.30 per track mile for a 30 or more million gross tons of traffic annually. If the State of Wisconsin chose to build a high speed rail line from Madison to St. Paul, MN (about a 263 mile run), it would cost them a little more than $21 million per year in maintenance costs. In other words, they make about $5 million on the increased tax base alone and we still haven't addressed sales taxes. I would have to conclude that it was not a wise decision for the Governor to turn down the offer of $800 million to develop a high speed rail system because it would have brought in more revenue for the state.

Your math is wrong. In professing the $26 million in additional revenue, you're failing to take into account the progressive tax structure of WI as well as variances in filing requirements and deductions available. Since I had a few minutes, I decided to do a little research of my own. First, the 6.5% rate is only applicable between certain income levels--these levels depend on the filing status, and 6.5% would be the highest rate for someone making $40,443.

So, I went to the IRS website and pulled the 2008 figures to see the breakdown by filing status--I used national since I couldn't find just WI. Then, taking the percentage of each type, I applied it to the 10,000 workers. But, not all of their $40,443 salary would be taxable. The state of WI offers a standard deduction to reduce taxable income. So, I calculated the tax liability of 1 individual at each classification, with the taxable income reduced by the amount of the standard deduction available to each filing status. Then, I multiplied that number by the calculated number of workers at each filing status.

The net result: Income tax revenue from these 10,000 workers--if the nationwide demographics hold true and no other deductions are taken--amounts to: *drum roll*

$18.2 million. So, with $21 million in maintenance costs, you're running at a $2.8 million yearly loss not accounting for other sources of revenue.

 

[Handsome Rob]

No, they indicated the entire expense for the asset. If they had depreciated it, they could have shown the expense as a smaller amount over a period of several years (which could possibly have made them show a profit in some years).

I'm afraid you're going to have to explain what the bolded portion means--maybe you should link to the GAO report you reported from.

 

[hippie_hunter]

The same thing was said for subways. I think in this instance it is not a matter of demand, but rather what benefit to society will this bring.

Seriously? In order to build something, there needs to be a demand for it. Building a high speed rail system without any demand for it is just going to be a waste of taxpayer dollars and be an inefficient drain for them.

 

[dnno1]

Your math is wrong. In professing the $26 million in additional revenue, you're failing to take into account the progressive tax structure of WI as well as variances in filing requirements and deductions available. Since I had a few minutes, I decided to do a little research of my own. First, the 6.5% rate is only applicable between certain income levels--these levels depend on the filing status, and 6.5% would be the highest rate for someone making $40,443.

So, I went to the IRS website and pulled the 2008 figures to see the breakdown by filing status--I used national since I couldn't find just WI. Then, taking the percentage of each type, I applied it to the 10,000 workers. But, not all of their $40,443 salary would be taxable. The state of WI offers a standard deduction to reduce taxable income. So, I calculated the tax liability of 1 individual at each classification, with the taxable income reduced by the amount of the standard deduction available to each filing status. Then, I multiplied that number by the calculated number of workers at each filing status.

The net result: Income tax revenue from these 10,000 workers--if the nationwide demographics hold true and no other deductions are taken--amounts to: *drum roll*

$18.2 million. So, with $21 million in maintenance costs, you're running at a $2.8 million yearly loss not accounting for other sources of revenue.

Just for the record the standard deduction for a person making $40,443 is $6079 for if single or head of household and $12,512 if married filing jointly, and $1758 if married filing separately. That's coming from the Wisconsin Department of Revenue (see page 45). First of all, my calculation is based on an average and does not take into account any standard deduction whatsoever. I figure that since the pay structure for the 10000 jobs will vary anyway, the standard deduction more than likely will wash out due to the fact that people making more than $79,000 will not be getting that deduction. Your illustration is fine but it does not take into account the fact that the distribution has taxpayers that will not get the deduction at all. I more than likely would be a more conservative approach to just use the average salary and assume no deduction at all in my opinion since most tax systems are progressive with the higher incomes paying more in taxes. Furthermore, like I said before, we are not also taking into account the added revenue from sales tax as a result of the increased tax base. I still stand by my numbers.

 

[Handsome Rob]

Just for the record the standard deduction for a person making $40,443 is $6079 for if single or head of household and $12,512 if married filing jointly, and $1758 if married filing separately. That's coming from the Wisconsin Department of Revenue (see page 45). First of all, my calculation is based on an average and does not take into account any standard deduction whatsoever. I figure that since the pay structure for the 10000 jobs will vary anyway, the standard deduction more than likely will wash out due to the fact that people making more than $79,000 will not be getting that deduction. Your illustration is fine but it does not take into account the fact that the distribution has taxpayers that will not get the deduction at all. I more than likely would be a more conservative approach to just use the average salary and assume no deduction at all in my opinion since most tax systems are progressive with the higher incomes paying more in taxes. Furthermore, like I said before, we are not also taking into account the added revenue from sales tax as a result of the increased tax base. I still stand by my numbers.

And I stand by mine . . . well, for the most part. Turns out I used the wrong deduction for MFS , so fixing that bumps the revenue up to $18.277 million.

You can't just entirely disregard the standard deduction--a substantial majority of filers will be eligible to take it. That's why they call it a standard deduction. But, it is the standard deduction that reduces the tax liability the most between my calculation and your calculation, so it's no surprise you would disregard it in order to inflate your revenue as much as possible.

And, you note that there will be filers who make more and will bear a larger tax liability. True. But because $40,443 is the median salary, that also means half will make less than $40,443. And I'm not sure where your "fact" for the $79,000 limitation comes from (can you show me the page, because I couldn't find it?), because according to your own link, a standard deduction is still available for most individuals up to $91,001--phasing out first at $49k for MFS--and doesn't completely disappear until $103,511 for MFJ filers.

Neither of our calculations take into effect exemptions, WI earned income tax credit, rent/property tax credits, etc., all of which will reduce the tax liability for some taxpayers.

And, I'm sorry, but the more conservative approach is mine. Conservatism (see #10 on the link for a decent explanation), when talking about revenue, means that when there is uncertainty about the calculation of an amount, the process resulting in the lower amount of revenue should be used instead of the higher one.

 

[hippie_hunter]

Missing Senators are facing a $100/day fine along with requiring them to reimburse the Senate for costs incurred during attempts to force them to return.