Election 2005

[Imran Siddiqui]

Prop 75

Should have been passed. The difference between union political contributions and corporate ones is that unions take the membership dues and use them for contributions. The corporation isn't really taking any of the workers' salaries (do you really believe if they couldn't donate to campaigns they'd give more money to the workers? ...or would they just keep that as profit?).

I've always been against union membership dues being used for political campaigning that the members themselves may disagree with. Some people don't pay dues to back a candidate they disagree with (ie, some union members may be socialists).

[Ramo]

The corporation isn't really taking any of the workers' salaries (do you really believe if they couldn't donate to campaigns they'd give more money to the workers? ...or would they just keep that as profit?).

The appropriate analogue would be stockholders, not workers.

[Ramo]

I almost always prefer union money being used (if not among members) on organizing other workers rather than politics, but this asymmenty just ain't fair.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Ramo

The corporation isn't really taking any of the workers' salaries (do you really believe if they couldn't donate to campaigns they'd give more money to the workers? ...or would they just keep that as profit?).

The appropriate analogue would be stockholders, not workers.

The difference here with Prop 75 is public employee unions are a closed shop. You have no say. You gotta be a member of the union to keep your job. There is no requirement to investing in a company.

Furthermore corporations make donations from profits while unions do so from dues. Dues are taken every month from the paychecks of the workers. The shareholders only pay the previous owner for their share. The profits that are used don't flow from that share.

[Ramo]

Of course you have a say. You can elect union leaders who don't want to contribute to Dem campaigns if you want, etc.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Ramo
Of course you have a say. You can elect union leaders who don't want to contribute to Dem campaigns if you want, etc.

Can you decide to only pay the dues for organizing programs and not for political issues?

[Ramo]

Furthermore corporations make donations from profits while unions do so from dues. Dues are taken every month from the paychecks of the workers. The shareholders only pay the previous owner for their share. The profits that are used don't flow from that share.

The profits are absolutely part of that share. If it didn't go to a political campaign, it'd be owned by the shareholders.

[Wycoff]

Originally posted by Ramo
We're talking about kids who lived in VA for years, graduated VA high schools, etc. (going by other states' bills) If you were in that situation, you would be VA resident and be eligible for in-state tuition. Quit whining.

That's complete bull****, and not the justification behind instate tuition anyway. The difference is that if my parents lived in Virginia, they'd be paying any and all Virginia taxes, be on the Virginian jury rolls, and do all the other civic obligations. The justification behind in-state tuition is that Virginia taxpayers pay for their schools with their tax money, so their children can get a tuition break.. after all, their taxes pay for the school. Illegals don't fulfil these civic obligations, and by the migratory nature of illegal immigrants, many of them probably haven't spent as much time in VA over thepast 6 years as I have. Stick your "whining" garbage up your ass.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Ramo
The profits are absolutely part of that share. If it didn't go to a political campaign, it'd be owned by the shareholders.

Please... so if the directors and officers decide that money gets reinvested in the company, you'd want a shareholder's vote on it?

Most stock do not have dividends (ie, where profits would go back to the shareholders).

[Ramo]

Can you decide to only pay the dues for organizing programs and not for political issues?

If the union is set up that way, maybe. I'd prefer that kind of setup, and that's how I'd structure a union. But people usually don't do what I say.

But generally, no. Just like a stockholder can't decide that his share of the profits can't go to political issues.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Ramo
Just like a stockholder can't decide that his share of the profits can't go to political issues.

If there are no dividends, the stockholder really doesn't have a share of the profits.

If you own 5% of a company, you can't ask for 5% of the profits in a given year.

In a contrary example, if the corporation has a debt one year, does a shareholder have to pay out of his pockets that amount to make it up? No.. because the assets and liabilities of a corporation are part of that corporation (it's a part of limited liability). You may get a share of profits if they decide to offer dividends. Otherwise, you just wait for the share price to increase so you can sell it at a profit.

[Ramo]

Please... so if the directors and officers decide that money gets reinvested in the company, you'd want a shareholder's vote on it?

Umm.. reinvesting in a company is not supporting a political campaign. And I'm not the one supporting prop 75.

Most stock do not have dividends (ie, where profits would go back to the shareholders).

When I sell my stock, I'd get more money if the said corp didn't contribute to Tom DeLay than otherwise. Maybe there would be long term benefits for the stock, but the same may be true for union contributions.

[lord of the mark]

the anarchist radical seems to understand corporate finance better than the capitalist lawyer

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modigliani-Miller_theorem

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Ramo
Umm.. reinvesting in a company is not supporting a political campaign. And I'm not the one supporting prop 75.

Of course it's not, but it is using the profits.

When I sell my stock, I'd get more money if the said corp didn't contribute to Tom DeLay than otherwise. Maybe there would be long term benefits for the stock, but the same may be true for union contributions.

How do you know you'd get more money when you sell your stock if the corporation didn't give to DeLay? Stock prices rise and fall based on supply and demand, which looks to the amount of profits and not at how those profits are used.

[Ramo]

That's complete bull****, and not the justification behind instate tuition anyway. The difference is that if my parents lived in Virginia, they'd be paying any and all Virginia taxes, be on the Virginian jury rolls, and do all the other civic obligations.

Illegal immigrants pay sales taxes, tolls, and excise taxes. They also pay property taxes, when renting (as is almost always the case with illegal immigrants).

AFAIK, VA does not have an income tax.

And no, jury duty is not the reason why in-state residents get lower tuition.