freeman2 wrote:Of course, the idea that hedge fund managers should pay only 15% of their income in taxes is ridiculous, that is why Steve responds that it won't be make a big deal with the deficit. Of course, Bush was largely responsible for creating that deficit but no matter...

I hate to interrupt this tirade with some facts, but . . .

1. I'm not defending the loophole.
2. It would not be a "big deal" with the deficit. Do the math. It's like offering a heart attack victim a glass of water--nice, but it really doesn't address the problem.
3. Bush, yeah, he spent too much. However, Obama has run up what, about $5T in less than three years? I'd say that's pretty good. Bush did not put a gun to Obama's head and make him waste $1T on the Stimulus. If Obama wanted that to work, he had to ignore State and local government and focus on infrastructure. He didn't. Bush didn't force Obama to raise any number of programs well above inflationary rates. The proposed budget for the State Department next year is up 10% in one year. Bush didn't tell Obama to force Obamacare through Congress, against the public's wishes. Which, by the way, is a massive tax hike--and not just on the rich:

Keep in mind that Mr. Obama has already signed the largest tax increase since 1993. While everyone focuses on the Bush tax rates that expire after 2012, other tax increases are already set to hit the economy thanks to the 2010 Affordable Care Act. As a refresher, here's a non-exhaustive list of ObamaCare's tax increases:

• Starting in 2013, the bill adds an additional 0.9% to the 2.9% Medicare tax for singles who earn more than $200,000 and couples making more than $250,000.

• For first time, the bill also applies Medicare's 2.9% payroll tax rate to investment income, including dividends, interest income and capital gains. Added to the 0.9% payroll surcharge, that means a 3.8-percentage point tax hike on "the rich." Oh, and these new taxes aren't indexed for inflation, so many middle-class families will soon be considered rich and pay the surcharge as their incomes rise past $250,000 due to tax-bracket creep. Remember how the Alternative Minimum Tax was supposed to apply only to a handful of millionaires?

Taxpayer cost over 10 years: $210 billion.

• Also starting in 2013 is a 2.3% excise tax on medical device manufacturers and importers. That's estimated to raise $20 billion.

• Already underway this year is the new annual fee on "branded" drug makers and importers, which will raise $27 billion.

• Another $15.2 billion will come from raising the floor on allowable medical deductions to 10% of adjusted gross income from 7.5%.

• Starting in 2018, the bill imposes a whopping 40% "excise tax" on high-cost health insurance plans. Though it only applies to two years in the 2010-2019 window of ObamaCare's original budget score, this tax would still raise $32 billion—and much more in future years.

• And don't forget a new annual fee on health insurance providers starting in 2014 and estimated to raise $60 billion. This tax, like many others on this list, will be passed along to consumers in higher health-care costs.

There are numerous other new taxes in the bill, all adding up to some $438 billion in new revenue over 10 years. But even that is understated because by 2019 the annual revenue increase is nearly $90 billion, or $900 billion in the 10 years after that. Yet Mr. Obama wants to add another $1 trillion in new taxes on top of this.

The economic ironies are also, well, rich. Mr. Obama is now pushing to reduce the payroll tax by two-percentage points for another year to boost the economy, but he's already built in a big increase in that same payroll tax for 2013. So if a payroll tax cut creates jobs this year, why doesn't a payroll tax increase destroy jobs after 2013?

I know it's inconvenient, but at some point, President Obama has to play the man and take a little responsibility for his own choices. Bush got us into the ditch. Obama got us out--and into a much steeper ditch. Well done. Now, stop whining about Bush and start helping the situation.

Allowing our U.S. companies to send out jobs overseas and make record profits while not hiring U.S. workers and when they do not increasing their wages is the real legacy that we should be seeking to avoid give to our children or grandchildren--not some made-up concern about budget deficits from a party (Republican) that when it was in power did not cut spending and put in tax cuts that were not paid for.

Again, if this is the problem, why didn't the Democrats address it when they had a hammerlock on government? Maybe it seemed too, I don't know, dictatorial, even for them? How do you "disallow" companies moving jobs as they see fit? Maybe nationalization?

Of course, Obama has for the most suck party not done much to aid the plight of the American worker (it is laughable and intellectually dishonest to say that Obama is a socialist given his business friendly policies or have you forgotten the records profits that U.S. businesses have been making?)

It's not laughable.

1. His EPA is killing jobs.
2. His anti-oil, anti-coal, anti-energy policies are killing jobs.
3. His approval of healthcare reform and the Frank/Dodd bill are creating tens of thousands of pages of new regulations, resulting in uncertainty.
4. He has repeatedly attacked business, Wall Street, etc.

But I will trade some spending cuts for ending the Bush tax cuts on the top 5%.

Awesome! I'll take $5T over the next ten years.

Now with this laissez-faire economy . . .

Prove this is what we have, since it is the lynchpin of the rest of your argument.

Here is what I see as the evidence of an economy that is becoming laissez-faire

1. Lower tax rates on individuals
2. Fewer regulations on business
3. Lower trade barriers
4. Reduced unionization
5. Lower taxes for businesses

Conservatives have advocated the above policies and since 1980 have been able to put all of these into effect. You may argue that it has not gone far enough, but you cannot argue we have gone a lot further to a laissez-faire economy since 1980

It seems to me that conservative should be able to make the argument that after they got their policies put into place that they favored that not only did it help businesses and the wealthy but that it helped workers as well. What did we get for all of this favoritism shown towards the rich and corporations? Middle-class income has not risen over the past 30 years. Meanwhile, businesses don't offer pensions any more--you get a 401K that is going to be worth less (you want to try and invest a 401K once you're retired?). And they are preparing for us for getting rid of social security and medicare. And given that good jobs are scarce the demand for spots in a good college has skyrocketed, so that schools are feeling free to up their tuition 10% or more a year. That's a nice way to impede social mobility.

I'' grant you the stimulus package was a joke--half ot it was tax cuts! A mistake on Obama's part to attempt to work with Republicans and conservative Democrats.

Obama may use tough rhetoric with businesses and Wall Street, but he doesn't back it up. It's not like he hired a bunch of liberals for economic team--his appointments placated Wall Street Your descriptions of his anti-business, anti jobs policies seem a bit vague. By the way, I don’t buy this notion that businesses are not hiring because of uncertainty over Obama’s policies. Why should they hire? They are making a ton of money and in a consumer economy why would they think consumer demand would pick up? If they’re going to hire anyone it’s going to be overseas--they have done that.

Obama is not going to do anything to offend business--the Democratic Party gets a ton of money from business interests. They understand he has to talk tough to his base and they don't care as long as he doesn't do anything substantive.

Most of the health care provisions don't even go into effect until Obama almost finished a second term so who knows if these are going to go into effect. Of course, we know he placated pharmaceutical companies and health insurance companies. Personally, I think we should experiment and let states choose whether they want a single-payer option, an Obama-care option, and maybe one or two other options. And then after five years we’ll compare notes to see which plan is most effective. Given the experience of other Westernized countries I am pretty sure everyone would go single-payer. Of course, that is why there will be no experimentation.

As to why Obama has not done anything about U.S companies going overseas and exporting to the U.S. (we can’t even end tax breaks for U.S companies who move their operations overseas---the most recent attempt to do that failed) , corporate money is going to both parties and Obama is not seeking any radical reforms His health care proposal and cap and trade ideas originally came from the Republican Party.

I don’t want to tell businesses what to do but at some point you have to nudge them in the right direction. They have carted off our manufacturing base overseas, Wall Street has come to take far too much of our country’s wealth, our workers’ incomes are staying flat while high-level executive compensation is skyrocketing (and put into company stock options they only have to pay 15% on it), and corporations are paying a far lower percentage of overall tax revenues than they used to. And of course we have a 694 billion defense budget under a so-called liberal president, which is about 10 times more than China and maybe more than the rest of the world combined Some of our policies make no sense and they make no sense because they were not made for the good of the country, but for the good of a few.

Meanwhile, how is the average worker doing.? Right now, he is lucky if he has a job. Real unemployment is probably nearing 15-20%. Of course, he gets little vacation. If he is a low-level manager he works 55-60 hours a week (a nice ploy of companies is to designate low-salaried employees as “managers” who they then use mostly in productive work rather than managing and they don’t have to pay overtime). Of course, he doesn’t get a pension and the way things are going no social security or medicare.

I am not proposing radical solutions but you have to do something to equalize this situation. I know we can figure out policies that reward those who work hard for their money. I have nothing against people getting rich. But you can’t manipulate things so only a people get massively rich and most people are just getting by. Maybe you think the policies of the post-World War II era were too far to the left but the middle-class was doing great. And by the way they were not lazy, undeserving people. Many of them fought in a war and got their education through the GI bill. One of the biggest infrastructure accomplishments was the interstate highway bill--signed by Eisenhower ( A Republican, of course)

As to Obama, well, if there were someone advocating a real change to stop this massive giveaway to corporations and Wall Street I would vote for them in a second. Since that won’t happen I guess I will vote for him. I wish he would have done better than he has, but I certainly don’t think that there is any Republican out there who has any solution for the economic mess that we are in. When I was growing up the Republican Party was a force in California. They were many Californians who were moderate on social issues, but fiscally conservative in that they wanted spending to be controlled and taxes to be reasonable. But this Republican Party which just constantly calls for tax cuts, wants give-away to their corporate friends through privatizing of government, and then does nothing about spending, and wants huge defense budgets and an intervention foreign policy--well, that is not the same party and the Republican Party has lost those moderates.

I realize something has to be done about the deficit, but my price is that the benefits need to start being spread out a bit more then they are right now. Make the rich pay a higher rate, make businesses pay more, make unionization a lot easier so that workers can get more of the wealth created by them, and stop allowing U.S. businesses to go overseas and then sell back to the U.S. No other country does it,;why are we doing it?


We need reasonable moderate steps to get the structure of our economy on a firmer bases. Once we do that
We can address the deficit. But I am not inclined to be overly worried about spending when the American worker is doing so badly and a steep drop in government spending could cause a double dip recession The Republicans talk about this debt being handed off to our children--and that is a legitimate concern. However, they don’t explain how an anemic economy is going to react NOW to a massive drop in government spending. My guess--not too well.

freeman2 wrote:Here is what I see as the evidence of an economy that is becoming laissez-faire

1. Lower tax rates on individuals
2. Fewer regulations on business
3. Lower trade barriers
4. Reduced unionization
5. Lower taxes for businesses

First, as I'm sure you know, that's not the definition of laissez-faire:

the theory or system of government that upholds the autonomous character of the economic order, believing that government should intervene as little as possible in the direction of economic affairs.

How can you suggest this resembles the country we live in? The Fed controls interest rates and the supply of money. The EPA is a regulation-generating machine. The Federal government is supporting some industries (so-called "green energy") and penalizing others. It has also banned the sale of incandescent light bulbs. Our government is involved in most every aspect of life. When does the "laissez-faire" kick in?

Second, Democrats had control of Congress for 4 years, up to this January. So, please, note well, the next paragraph is irrelevant. It's not like the GOP, or heaven forbid, actual conservatives had control of the levers of government.

Conservatives have advocated the above policies and since 1980 have been able to put all of these into effect. You may argue that it has not gone far enough, but you cannot argue we have gone a lot further to a laissez-faire economy since 1980

Yes, yes, I can argue that: No Child Left Behind, Medicare Part D, Bank bailouts, Auto bailouts, Stimulus, 140% increase in National Debt over the last 10 years.

Read that again and convince me about our "laissez-faire" government. I would hate to see what an "activist government" would do. Do we have to add a hammer and sickle to the flag to avoid being "laissez-faire?"

And they are preparing for us for getting rid of social security and medicare. And given that good jobs are scarce the demand for spots in a good college has skyrocketed, so that schools are feeling free to up their tuition 10% or more a year. That's a nice way to impede social mobility.

No one is going to get rid of SS and Medicare. We would be better off if they would, but they won't. The truth is we promise people an endless supply of hamburgers if they buy one month's worth. It can't work and it's not. It's a house of cards at best and a glorified Ponzi scheme at worst.

They do want to modify entitlements, which anyone can tell you is mandatory--unless you want to saddle future generations with ever-higher taxation. I'm below 55 and would gladly take the hit. Not because I'm rich--I'm not, but because I believe in personal responsibility, not in forcing future generations to care for me.

If the government would stay out of college, the standards would be higher. Today's BA or BS is a farce compared to what was earned a century ago. People who don't know what to do with their lives are now going to college on the government (taxpayer). They major in "important" fields like "gender and ethnic studies."

How does something like that prepare one for a real career?

I'' grant you the stimulus package was a joke--half ot it was tax cuts! A mistake on Obama's part to attempt to work with Republicans and conservative Democrats.

That's just not right. http://projects.nytimes.com/44th_president/stimulus

If you look down that list, what are generously called "tax cuts" are often incentives for some ill-conceived Obamaventure, like green energy, temporary incentives, and even parking help.

The Stimulus was nothing but pork for friends of Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and Barack Obama.

Obama may use tough rhetoric with businesses and Wall Street, but he doesn't back it up. It's not like he hired a bunch of liberals for economic team--his appointments placated Wall Street Your descriptions of his anti-business, anti jobs policies seem a bit vague.

Amazingly, all but Geithner have resigned. Why do you suppose that is?

Look, I know Obama has disappointed the far-Left, but he's done plenty of damage as far as the rest of us are concerned.

By the way, I don’t buy this notion that businesses are not hiring because of uncertainty over Obama’s policies. Why should they hire?

They are the capitalist pigs you so despise. If they could make more profit by hiring, they would.

They are making a ton of money and in a consumer economy why would they think consumer demand would pick up? If they’re going to hire anyone it’s going to be overseas--they have done that.

So, you think Obamacare, the EPA regulations, Dodd-Frank, and any number of other things are good for the economy? Why don't the capitalist pigs agree with you? What are they missing?

I'm still waiting for your ideas on how the government forces businesses to stop moving jobs overseas. My idea? Make it more profitable to hire here than "over there."

I know. Crazy. Better to just punish them . . . all the way to Indonesia! We'll show them by making them all move!

Most of the health care provisions don't even go into effect until Obama almost finished a second term so who knows if these are going to go into effect.

Taxes begin in 2014. Regulations have already started--and tens of thousands of pages of them are being written. It's all part of that "laissez-faire" thing.

Of course, we know he placated pharmaceutical companies and health insurance companies. Personally, I think we should experiment and let states choose whether they want a single-payer option, an Obama-care option, and maybe one or two other options.

It's working so well here in MA! We have the highest medical costs in the nation, and the longest doctor waits. It's brilliant. I think, iirc, we have triple the number on Masscare they predicted. Central government works!

As to why Obama has not done anything about U.S companies going overseas and exporting to the U.S. (we can’t even end tax breaks for U.S companies who move their operations overseas---the most recent attempt to do that failed) , corporate money is going to both parties and Obama is not seeking any radical reforms His health care proposal and cap and trade ideas originally came from the Republican Party.

Thankfully, the Republican Party came to its senses. Cap and Trade is impoverishing. The best energy would be free. The worst energy is the most expensive because we live in an energy-dependent economy. Again, the government is dictating this--another portion of that "laissez-faire" thing.

I don’t want to tell businesses what to do but at some point you have to nudge them in the right direction.

Not an answer. How do you stop businesses from moving their operations overseas? Do they hate the US or are they just going where they can make more money? If the latter, wouldn't it make sense to create an environment that would induce them NOT to move? We can't punish them enough to force them to stay, so maybe we should make it worth their while?

I know. Crazy talk.

Meanwhile, how is the average worker doing.? Right now, he is lucky if he has a job. Real unemployment is probably nearing 15-20%.

The President has the answer! More spending!

You agree, certainly?

Maybe you think the policies of the post-World War II era were too far to the left but the middle-class was doing great. And by the way they were not lazy, undeserving people. Many of them fought in a war and got their education through the GI bill. One of the biggest infrastructure accomplishments was the interstate highway bill--signed by Eisenhower ( A Republican, of course)

So, what happened?

Hint: it wasn't "laissez-faire" economics.

Answer: Medicare, Medicaid, public housing, massive Federal expansion into education, support of State governments, Food Stamps, welfare.

As the reliance on the State grew, so did the tax burden (how's that Sales Tax working for you in CA?). Look at your own State. It's a disaster and it's not just Republicans. Democrats have a stranglehold on the legislature and you've had a RINO governor until just recently.

In our State, completely controlled by liberals, with Romneycare, our governor taxed the rich.

Oh wait. No, he raised the sales tax, raised the tolls, raised other fees that impact the middle and lower income brackets. Good lookin' out, Governor Patrick!

Since that won’t happen I guess I will vote for him. I wish he would have done better than he has, but I certainly don’t think that there is any Republican out there who has any solution for the economic mess that we are in.

That's the spirit! Four more years of out of control spending! Borrowing 40% of what we spend is perfectly reasonable, right? Oh yeah, Obama will lower that to 39.999999% by closing a few loopholes. That's very responsible!

I realize something has to be done about the deficit, but my price is that the benefits need to start being spread out a bit more then they are right now. Make the rich pay a higher rate, make businesses pay more, make unionization a lot easier so that workers can get more of the wealth created by them, and stop allowing U.S. businesses to go overseas and then sell back to the U.S. No other country does it,;why are we doing it?

If you took ALL the money the rich make, it would not close the deficit. Unionization is plenty easy now. All they have to do is convince a majority of workers to vote for them in a secret ballot. Is that too high of a threshold?

Again, you say "stop allowing U.S. businesses to go overseas and then sell back to the U.S." Are you proposing protectionism? If not, what? How will tariffs benefit the middle class? How will more money in the Government's hands benefit the middle class?

Note well: the Obamacare taxes are not indexed for inflation, so someday everyone will be "rich" enough to pay them.

The Republicans talk about this debt being handed off to our children--and that is a legitimate concern. However, they don’t explain how an anemic economy is going to react NOW to a massive drop in government spending. My guess--not too well.

Sure they do. You just are not listening. This is the worst recovery since the Great Depression. Why is that? It's because of the environment Obama is creating. The reason you don't believe that is evident: you think he's a moderate.

freeman2 wrote:Here is some info showing that it is a distortion to speak of the bottom 50% as paying no taxes. http://www.ctj.org/pdf/taxday2011.pdf.

Thanks. That link was great.

geojanes wrote:

freeman2 wrote:Here is some info showing that it is a distortion to speak of the bottom 50% as paying no taxes. http://www.ctj.org/pdf/taxday2011.pdf.

Thanks. That link was great.

Actually, what would make it "great" is if it showed States like mine that are run with 90% Democratic majorities and a Democratic governor, yet consistently stick it to the working man. That would be great.

It would be great to see the same chart by state. Anybody?

Thank you Freeman for the link. I have a question, though. How many people are in each category? That would give you the amount that each person is paying as a percentage of the budget.

If one man is the top wage earner, and he pays 20%, is that the same as the bottom 20% of wage earners paying 2% If the bottom 25% is 100 million people, the cost per person is rather wide. Am I reading that correctly?

As I read it, the groups are broken up into quntiles, which by definition means the same number of for each group, with the exception of the top, where the highest quintile is broken up into smaller parts.

So if there are 100mil taxpayers the first four groups are 20mil each. last quintile is split into groups of 10, 5, 4 and 1, which sum to 20mil.

I'm not sure what you mean in your second question, but maybe that explanation helps.

Off-topic, but I'm sorry the whole "laissez-faire" thing really sticks in my craw. How's this for "free market," "hands-off," "choose no winners" government:

House Democrats on Monday indicated strong opposition to a controversial bill to repeal federal lightbulb standards, which could lead to the defeat of the measure in an expected Tuesday vote.

The Better Use of Light Bulbs Act, H.R. 2417 would end federal bulb standards passed in 2007 that Republicans have since held up as a prime example of federal overreach. House Republicans brought up the bill under a suspension of the rules, which requires two-thirds of voting members to support it.

Federal light bulb standards?

Keep in mind this passed under Bush--with Democratic support--as part of an "energy" bill. There really isn't much our government doesn't think it can "improve."

They won't stop helping me until I'm broke and suffering from mercury poisoning.

Thank you, Federal government!

I agree with the quintile explanation. With the US population at 300 million each quint is 60 million. Here is what each quint pays:

0-20% $12,500 times 16.2% which equals $2025 per person
20-40% $25,300 times 20.7% which equals $5237.1 per person
40-60% $40,700 times 25.1% which equals $10,215.70 per person
60-80% $66,300 times 28.5% which equals $18895.50 per person
80-90% $100,000 times 30% which equals $30000 per person
90-95% $140,000 times 31.1% which equals $43540 per person
95-99% $241,000 times 31.3% which equals $75433 per person
99-100% $1,254,000 time 30% which equals $376200 per person (!)

That is my concern. Based upon a 300 million population) the total income per quint is as follows:
0-20 $121.5 Billion
20-40 $314.226 Billion
40-60 $612.942 Billion
60-80 $1.13 Trillion (TRILLION!!!)
80-90 $900 Billion
90-95 $653.1 Billion
95-99 $905.2 Billion
99-100 $1.13 Trillion (TRILLION!!!)

Grand total for income from the masses, (not including, excise, gas, inheritance, tariff etc....):
5.776 Trillion for 300 million people.

That is $19,253 per person (Per year!)

What (equal across the board) tax percentage would equal the amount needed for our current budget?

We can all come up with interesting figures based on those stats.

It would appear that most of those groups are paying not far off the same proportion of taxes as they have of income, to within +- 2 %points. Which doesn't seem too far from what I guess you would see as 'fair', Brad?

What is interesting is that the poorest get clobbered by state taxes proportionately more. Which is why I think it's of value to compare the effect of all taxation on income, not just one particular tax. If Income Tax were to be equalised and other taxes were unchanged, then the poorest would start paying proportionately more.

Here is a listing of state and local taxes by state. http://www.itepnet.org/state_reports/wh ... sheets.php

And Steve I don't have a problem with U.S. companies going overseas to get cheaper workers and then selling products around the world. Great for them. I do have a problem with their going overseas to make their products and then selling them back in the U.S. I may be wrong, but I don't think other countries allow their companies to do that, at least not nearly on the scale that we do that. I think it is national economic suicide to allow our companies to make their product overseas and then sell back into the U.S. market. How are we going to have enough jobs for American workers when U.S. companies have hired what 21 million workers overseas? Imagine what our unemployment rate would look like if half those jobs came home

And given their high profits I doubt U.S. companies could not employ more U.S. workers and make a profit. But why should they when can pay workers overseas that can work for a fraction of the cost of an American worker. While it make great economic sense on a macro level to let capital to go around the world and find the cheapest labor force, what happens to the incomes of American workers when they are asked to compete with Indian, Chiinese and other workers who will charge for 1/10 or 1/20 of what an American worker makes? Are we resigned that American workers will be forced to take substantial reductions in their standard of living so that American companies can make maximum profits?. We should be at least asking these questions instead of blithely assuming that somehow with globalization American workers are going to do ok when asked to compete with billion of workers who charge very low amounts for their labor.

And with all these anti-business policies of the Obama administration business profits still look great and Wall Street compensation was 144 billion dollars last year...

Bu the way Brad, I believe there are 150 million workers or so. I would divide the quintiles by total workers, not by total population.

Surely you'd exclude minors at the very least, Brad, from your 300M.

And what of senior citizens. They will be living on pensions and are not going to be in a position to be 'incentivised' to earn much more at that point. How much tax should they be paying?

freeman2 wrote:Here is a listing of state and local taxes by state. http://www.itepnet.org/state_reports/wh ... sheets.php

And Steve I don't have a problem with U.S. companies going overseas to get cheaper workers and then selling products around the world. Great for them. I do have a problem with their going overseas to make their products and then selling them back in the U.S. I may be wrong, but I don't think other countries allow their companies to do that, at least not nearly on the scale that we do that. I think it is national economic suicide to allow our companies to make their product overseas and then sell back into the U.S. market. How are we going to have enough jobs for American workers when U.S. companies have hired what 21 million workers overseas? Imagine what our unemployment rate would look like if half those jobs came home

And given their high profits I doubt U.S. companies could not employ more U.S. workers and make a profit. But why should they when can pay workers overseas that can work for a fraction of the cost of an American worker. While it make great economic sense on a macro level to let capital to go around the world and find the cheapest labor force, what happens to the incomes of American workers when they are asked to compete with Indian, Chiinese and other workers who will charge for 1/10 or 1/20 of what an American worker makes? Are we resigned that American workers will be forced to take substantial reductions in their standard of living so that American companies can make maximum profits?. We should be at least asking these questions instead of blithely assuming that somehow with globalization American workers are going to do ok when asked to compete with billion of workers who charge very low amounts for their labor.

And with all these anti-business policies of the Obama administration business profits still look great and Wall Street compensation was 144 billion dollars last year...

You haven't explained:

1. How you would stop corporations from moving jobs offshore then selling goods in the US.
2. How you would propose to make our wages more fair. Unionization, unless forced, is not going to happen. Would you institute wage caps? Fix wages?