OT: Public pay & benefits

[Coronita]

[quote=CA renter][quote=sdrealtor][quote=CA renter][quote=EconProf]Folks, we gotta stop relying on special interest propaganda for our voting decisions and political stands. Because we see a newspaper photo of a fire or police person doing something heroic does not mean they automatically have a dangerous profession and should be paid oodles of money and retire at age 55 at 90% of last paycheck.
To see who is in far more dangerous occupations, and is NOT paid accordingly, google Most Dangerous Occupations. There you’ll see the real heroes: fishermen, tree trimers, taxi drivers, ironworkers, roofers. Their pay is not comensurate, and their bodies are used up and more deserving of a pension at 55, unlike the relatively sedentary police and fire personnel.
Piggs are supposed to be a skeptical bunch that digs for data. C’mon, we can do better![/quote]

Do those workers have the same liability as firefighters and cops? Does their work mean the difference between life and death for their customers?

After all, if we want to look at overcompensation, I’m sure we can come up with a whole host of occupations with far more egregious examples of “undeserved” compensation than what firefighters and cops get.[/quote]

Sorry but typical strawman argument. Yes their work is important, yes they are good guys/gals, and yes many other occupations are overpaid. But this is the public sector. These are not people that invested huge sums in higher education. These are not folks that take on entreprenuerial risk. I have met plenty with incomes of $150K per year and IMHO that is too much particularly when you factor in the pensions and other benefits.[/quote]

“Entrepreneurial risks” take by “highly educated” people are what got us into this mess in the first place. It’s not “greedy unions” that have caused the pension crisis; it’s all about financial bubbles, and the decisions made (by “highly educated” people) based on those bubbles, and the aftermath of those bubbles that have caused the pension crisis.

While you might value higher education and entrepreneurial risk, many of us value highly competent, well-trained law enforcement and safety personnel who lay the foundation for a civilized society…and create an environment in which those “highly-educated entrepreneurs” can take risks.

There are plenty of people with PhDs who don’t provide nearly the benefits to society that safety personnel do. I’m not sure why we should pay them more just because they spent a few more years in college (BTW, many police officers and firefighters have degrees).

You think that cops and firefighters are overpaid, while I think that middle-men (dealers and salespeople, administrators, etc.), athletes, entertainers, executives, “investors,” etc. are overpaid — a LOT more overpaid than any pubic saftey worker. Those safety personnel benefit society in a far greater way than the people in all those other positions.[/quote]

I think the argument goes though that those overpaid sales/etc/people however are not directly funded by the public tax dollars where if you don’t want to pay those exorbitant rates, you can simply opt out… (Yeah, I know about AIG/etc…That wasn’t right either…)….

I don’t think if folks would be complaining as much if there was a way to opt out and not pay taxes for those services. IF something as firefighting allowed for a private sector offering, I’m pretty sure cost would be fairly more competitive.

BTW: this was so fitting.

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2010/oct/06/despite-vote-taxpayers-will-pay-most-of-cost/

Despite vote, taxpayers will pay most of pension cost
Pension change is another Proposition D condition

I don’t know folks. But serving 8 years in city council and having almost $1million in retirement pension assuming again 30ish to 40ish.. Please tell me you think that isn’t outrageous… I mean, were are the arguments about these folks being “stressed out, and having a short life span because of stress on the job…”

Seriously, where do I sign up? Folks, after I sell my own company, will you folks please vote for me if i run for City Council, when I’m pseudo retired at 40???

San Diego…America’s Finest Pension….

[CA renter]

[quote=flu][quote=CA renter][quote=sdrealtor][quote=CA renter][quote=EconProf]Folks, we gotta stop relying on special interest propaganda for our voting decisions and political stands. Because we see a newspaper photo of a fire or police person doing something heroic does not mean they automatically have a dangerous profession and should be paid oodles of money and retire at age 55 at 90% of last paycheck.
To see who is in far more dangerous occupations, and is NOT paid accordingly, google Most Dangerous Occupations. There you’ll see the real heroes: fishermen, tree trimers, taxi drivers, ironworkers, roofers. Their pay is not comensurate, and their bodies are used up and more deserving of a pension at 55, unlike the relatively sedentary police and fire personnel.
Piggs are supposed to be a skeptical bunch that digs for data. C’mon, we can do better![/quote]

Do those workers have the same liability as firefighters and cops? Does their work mean the difference between life and death for their customers?

After all, if we want to look at overcompensation, I’m sure we can come up with a whole host of occupations with far more egregious examples of “undeserved” compensation than what firefighters and cops get.[/quote]

Sorry but typical strawman argument. Yes their work is important, yes they are good guys/gals, and yes many other occupations are overpaid. But this is the public sector. These are not people that invested huge sums in higher education. These are not folks that take on entreprenuerial risk. I have met plenty with incomes of $150K per year and IMHO that is too much particularly when you factor in the pensions and other benefits.[/quote]

“Entrepreneurial risks” take by “highly educated” people are what got us into this mess in the first place. It’s not “greedy unions” that have caused the pension crisis; it’s all about financial bubbles, and the decisions made (by “highly educated” people) based on those bubbles, and the aftermath of those bubbles that have caused the pension crisis.

While you might value higher education and entrepreneurial risk, many of us value highly competent, well-trained law enforcement and safety personnel who lay the foundation for a civilized society…and create an environment in which those “highly-educated entrepreneurs” can take risks.

There are plenty of people with PhDs who don’t provide nearly the benefits to society that safety personnel do. I’m not sure why we should pay them more just because they spent a few more years in college (BTW, many police officers and firefighters have degrees).

You think that cops and firefighters are overpaid, while I think that middle-men (dealers and salespeople, administrators, etc.), athletes, entertainers, executives, “investors,” etc. are overpaid — a LOT more overpaid than any pubic saftey worker. Those safety personnel benefit society in a far greater way than the people in all those other positions.[/quote]

I think the argument goes though that those overpaid sales/etc/people however are not directly funded by the public tax dollars where if you don’t want to pay those exorbitant rates, you can simply opt out… (Yeah, I know about AIG/etc…That wasn’t right either…)….

I don’t think if folks would be complaining as much if there was a way to opt out and not pay taxes for those services. IF something as firefighting allowed for a private sector offering, I’m pretty sure cost would be fairly more competitive.[/quote]

Believe me, I would love nothing more than to divide this country in two and have the “capitalists” live on one side with their “private industry” while the “socialists” could live on the other with public safety nets and a more egalitarian lifestyle. I would gladly pay more in taxes to get the benefits that people in “socialist” countries get. I wish we could have a way to “opt in”!

BTW, we all have to pay taxes for things we don’t like. I don’t like paying for wars, back-room deals between politicians and thieving pigs in the private industry who divert public monies for private gain (a much bigger waste of taxpayers’ dollars), inefficient administration, illegal immigration, and most of all, financial bailouts that have/will cost us TRILLIONS of dollars — far more than all the public pension deficits put together. Combined, these things cost far, far more than public safety personnel do. Since I don’t want to pay for it, do I get to opt out?

Also, I have to pay for exhorbitant salaries for entertainers/athletes every time I buy something at the grocery store or buy insurance, or use a bank, etc. Just try listing all the advertisers who advertise during sporting events or fund stadiums, etc. (whose customers are the ones paying those athletes’ salaries, not the fans). Why can’t I opt out of this? I get absolutely ZERO benefit from these athletes, while at least the taxpayers do get some benefit from public servants.

[CA renter]

[quote=flu][quote=CA renter][quote=sdrealtor][quote=CA renter][quote=EconProf]Folks, we gotta stop relying on special interest propaganda for our voting decisions and political stands. Because we see a newspaper photo of a fire or police person doing something heroic does not mean they automatically have a dangerous profession and should be paid oodles of money and retire at age 55 at 90% of last paycheck.
To see who is in far more dangerous occupations, and is NOT paid accordingly, google Most Dangerous Occupations. There you’ll see the real heroes: fishermen, tree trimers, taxi drivers, ironworkers, roofers. Their pay is not comensurate, and their bodies are used up and more deserving of a pension at 55, unlike the relatively sedentary police and fire personnel.
Piggs are supposed to be a skeptical bunch that digs for data. C’mon, we can do better![/quote]

Do those workers have the same liability as firefighters and cops? Does their work mean the difference between life and death for their customers?

After all, if we want to look at overcompensation, I’m sure we can come up with a whole host of occupations with far more egregious examples of “undeserved” compensation than what firefighters and cops get.[/quote]

Sorry but typical strawman argument. Yes their work is important, yes they are good guys/gals, and yes many other occupations are overpaid. But this is the public sector. These are not people that invested huge sums in higher education. These are not folks that take on entreprenuerial risk. I have met plenty with incomes of $150K per year and IMHO that is too much particularly when you factor in the pensions and other benefits.[/quote]

“Entrepreneurial risks” take by “highly educated” people are what got us into this mess in the first place. It’s not “greedy unions” that have caused the pension crisis; it’s all about financial bubbles, and the decisions made (by “highly educated” people) based on those bubbles, and the aftermath of those bubbles that have caused the pension crisis.

While you might value higher education and entrepreneurial risk, many of us value highly competent, well-trained law enforcement and safety personnel who lay the foundation for a civilized society…and create an environment in which those “highly-educated entrepreneurs” can take risks.

There are plenty of people with PhDs who don’t provide nearly the benefits to society that safety personnel do. I’m not sure why we should pay them more just because they spent a few more years in college (BTW, many police officers and firefighters have degrees).

You think that cops and firefighters are overpaid, while I think that middle-men (dealers and salespeople, administrators, etc.), athletes, entertainers, executives, “investors,” etc. are overpaid — a LOT more overpaid than any pubic saftey worker. Those safety personnel benefit society in a far greater way than the people in all those other positions.[/quote]

I think the argument goes though that those overpaid sales/etc/people however are not directly funded by the public tax dollars where if you don’t want to pay those exorbitant rates, you can simply opt out… (Yeah, I know about AIG/etc…That wasn’t right either…)….

I don’t think if folks would be complaining as much if there was a way to opt out and not pay taxes for those services. IF something as firefighting allowed for a private sector offering, I’m pretty sure cost would be fairly more competitive.[/quote]

Believe me, I would love nothing more than to divide this country in two and have the “capitalists” live on one side with their “private industry” while the “socialists” could live on the other with public safety nets and a more egalitarian lifestyle. I would gladly pay more in taxes to get the benefits that people in “socialist” countries get. I wish we could have a way to “opt in”!

BTW, we all have to pay taxes for things we don’t like. I don’t like paying for wars, back-room deals between politicians and thieving pigs in the private industry who divert public monies for private gain (a much bigger waste of taxpayers’ dollars), inefficient administration, illegal immigration, and most of all, financial bailouts that have/will cost us TRILLIONS of dollars — far more than all the public pension deficits put together. Combined, these things cost far, far more than public safety personnel do. Since I don’t want to pay for it, do I get to opt out?

Also, I have to pay for exhorbitant salaries for entertainers/athletes every time I buy something at the grocery store or buy insurance, or use a bank, etc. Just try listing all the advertisers who advertise during sporting events or fund stadiums, etc. (whose customers are the ones paying those athletes’ salaries, not the fans). Why can’t I opt out of this? I get absolutely ZERO benefit from these athletes, while at least the taxpayers do get some benefit from public servants.

[CA renter]

[quote=flu][quote=CA renter][quote=sdrealtor][quote=CA renter][quote=EconProf]Folks, we gotta stop relying on special interest propaganda for our voting decisions and political stands. Because we see a newspaper photo of a fire or police person doing something heroic does not mean they automatically have a dangerous profession and should be paid oodles of money and retire at age 55 at 90% of last paycheck.
To see who is in far more dangerous occupations, and is NOT paid accordingly, google Most Dangerous Occupations. There you’ll see the real heroes: fishermen, tree trimers, taxi drivers, ironworkers, roofers. Their pay is not comensurate, and their bodies are used up and more deserving of a pension at 55, unlike the relatively sedentary police and fire personnel.
Piggs are supposed to be a skeptical bunch that digs for data. C’mon, we can do better![/quote]

Do those workers have the same liability as firefighters and cops? Does their work mean the difference between life and death for their customers?

After all, if we want to look at overcompensation, I’m sure we can come up with a whole host of occupations with far more egregious examples of “undeserved” compensation than what firefighters and cops get.[/quote]

Sorry but typical strawman argument. Yes their work is important, yes they are good guys/gals, and yes many other occupations are overpaid. But this is the public sector. These are not people that invested huge sums in higher education. These are not folks that take on entreprenuerial risk. I have met plenty with incomes of $150K per year and IMHO that is too much particularly when you factor in the pensions and other benefits.[/quote]

“Entrepreneurial risks” take by “highly educated” people are what got us into this mess in the first place. It’s not “greedy unions” that have caused the pension crisis; it’s all about financial bubbles, and the decisions made (by “highly educated” people) based on those bubbles, and the aftermath of those bubbles that have caused the pension crisis.

While you might value higher education and entrepreneurial risk, many of us value highly competent, well-trained law enforcement and safety personnel who lay the foundation for a civilized society…and create an environment in which those “highly-educated entrepreneurs” can take risks.

There are plenty of people with PhDs who don’t provide nearly the benefits to society that safety personnel do. I’m not sure why we should pay them more just because they spent a few more years in college (BTW, many police officers and firefighters have degrees).

You think that cops and firefighters are overpaid, while I think that middle-men (dealers and salespeople, administrators, etc.), athletes, entertainers, executives, “investors,” etc. are overpaid — a LOT more overpaid than any pubic saftey worker. Those safety personnel benefit society in a far greater way than the people in all those other positions.[/quote]

I think the argument goes though that those overpaid sales/etc/people however are not directly funded by the public tax dollars where if you don’t want to pay those exorbitant rates, you can simply opt out… (Yeah, I know about AIG/etc…That wasn’t right either…)….

I don’t think if folks would be complaining as much if there was a way to opt out and not pay taxes for those services. IF something as firefighting allowed for a private sector offering, I’m pretty sure cost would be fairly more competitive.[/quote]

Believe me, I would love nothing more than to divide this country in two and have the “capitalists” live on one side with their “private industry” while the “socialists” could live on the other with public safety nets and a more egalitarian lifestyle. I would gladly pay more in taxes to get the benefits that people in “socialist” countries get. I wish we could have a way to “opt in”!

BTW, we all have to pay taxes for things we don’t like. I don’t like paying for wars, back-room deals between politicians and thieving pigs in the private industry who divert public monies for private gain (a much bigger waste of taxpayers’ dollars), inefficient administration, illegal immigration, and most of all, financial bailouts that have/will cost us TRILLIONS of dollars — far more than all the public pension deficits put together. Combined, these things cost far, far more than public safety personnel do. Since I don’t want to pay for it, do I get to opt out?

Also, I have to pay for exhorbitant salaries for entertainers/athletes every time I buy something at the grocery store or buy insurance, or use a bank, etc. Just try listing all the advertisers who advertise during sporting events or fund stadiums, etc. (whose customers are the ones paying those athletes’ salaries, not the fans). Why can’t I opt out of this? I get absolutely ZERO benefit from these athletes, while at least the taxpayers do get some benefit from public servants.

[CA renter]

[quote=flu][quote=CA renter][quote=sdrealtor][quote=CA renter][quote=EconProf]Folks, we gotta stop relying on special interest propaganda for our voting decisions and political stands. Because we see a newspaper photo of a fire or police person doing something heroic does not mean they automatically have a dangerous profession and should be paid oodles of money and retire at age 55 at 90% of last paycheck.
To see who is in far more dangerous occupations, and is NOT paid accordingly, google Most Dangerous Occupations. There you’ll see the real heroes: fishermen, tree trimers, taxi drivers, ironworkers, roofers. Their pay is not comensurate, and their bodies are used up and more deserving of a pension at 55, unlike the relatively sedentary police and fire personnel.
Piggs are supposed to be a skeptical bunch that digs for data. C’mon, we can do better![/quote]

Do those workers have the same liability as firefighters and cops? Does their work mean the difference between life and death for their customers?

After all, if we want to look at overcompensation, I’m sure we can come up with a whole host of occupations with far more egregious examples of “undeserved” compensation than what firefighters and cops get.[/quote]

Sorry but typical strawman argument. Yes their work is important, yes they are good guys/gals, and yes many other occupations are overpaid. But this is the public sector. These are not people that invested huge sums in higher education. These are not folks that take on entreprenuerial risk. I have met plenty with incomes of $150K per year and IMHO that is too much particularly when you factor in the pensions and other benefits.[/quote]

“Entrepreneurial risks” take by “highly educated” people are what got us into this mess in the first place. It’s not “greedy unions” that have caused the pension crisis; it’s all about financial bubbles, and the decisions made (by “highly educated” people) based on those bubbles, and the aftermath of those bubbles that have caused the pension crisis.

While you might value higher education and entrepreneurial risk, many of us value highly competent, well-trained law enforcement and safety personnel who lay the foundation for a civilized society…and create an environment in which those “highly-educated entrepreneurs” can take risks.

There are plenty of people with PhDs who don’t provide nearly the benefits to society that safety personnel do. I’m not sure why we should pay them more just because they spent a few more years in college (BTW, many police officers and firefighters have degrees).

You think that cops and firefighters are overpaid, while I think that middle-men (dealers and salespeople, administrators, etc.), athletes, entertainers, executives, “investors,” etc. are overpaid — a LOT more overpaid than any pubic saftey worker. Those safety personnel benefit society in a far greater way than the people in all those other positions.[/quote]

I think the argument goes though that those overpaid sales/etc/people however are not directly funded by the public tax dollars where if you don’t want to pay those exorbitant rates, you can simply opt out… (Yeah, I know about AIG/etc…That wasn’t right either…)….

I don’t think if folks would be complaining as much if there was a way to opt out and not pay taxes for those services. IF something as firefighting allowed for a private sector offering, I’m pretty sure cost would be fairly more competitive.[/quote]

Believe me, I would love nothing more than to divide this country in two and have the “capitalists” live on one side with their “private industry” while the “socialists” could live on the other with public safety nets and a more egalitarian lifestyle. I would gladly pay more in taxes to get the benefits that people in “socialist” countries get. I wish we could have a way to “opt in”!

BTW, we all have to pay taxes for things we don’t like. I don’t like paying for wars, back-room deals between politicians and thieving pigs in the private industry who divert public monies for private gain (a much bigger waste of taxpayers’ dollars), inefficient administration, illegal immigration, and most of all, financial bailouts that have/will cost us TRILLIONS of dollars — far more than all the public pension deficits put together. Combined, these things cost far, far more than public safety personnel do. Since I don’t want to pay for it, do I get to opt out?

Also, I have to pay for exhorbitant salaries for entertainers/athletes every time I buy something at the grocery store or buy insurance, or use a bank, etc. Just try listing all the advertisers who advertise during sporting events or fund stadiums, etc. (whose customers are the ones paying those athletes’ salaries, not the fans). Why can’t I opt out of this? I get absolutely ZERO benefit from these athletes, while at least the taxpayers do get some benefit from public servants.

[CA renter]

[quote=flu][quote=CA renter][quote=sdrealtor][quote=CA renter][quote=EconProf]Folks, we gotta stop relying on special interest propaganda for our voting decisions and political stands. Because we see a newspaper photo of a fire or police person doing something heroic does not mean they automatically have a dangerous profession and should be paid oodles of money and retire at age 55 at 90% of last paycheck.
To see who is in far more dangerous occupations, and is NOT paid accordingly, google Most Dangerous Occupations. There you’ll see the real heroes: fishermen, tree trimers, taxi drivers, ironworkers, roofers. Their pay is not comensurate, and their bodies are used up and more deserving of a pension at 55, unlike the relatively sedentary police and fire personnel.
Piggs are supposed to be a skeptical bunch that digs for data. C’mon, we can do better![/quote]

Do those workers have the same liability as firefighters and cops? Does their work mean the difference between life and death for their customers?

After all, if we want to look at overcompensation, I’m sure we can come up with a whole host of occupations with far more egregious examples of “undeserved” compensation than what firefighters and cops get.[/quote]

Sorry but typical strawman argument. Yes their work is important, yes they are good guys/gals, and yes many other occupations are overpaid. But this is the public sector. These are not people that invested huge sums in higher education. These are not folks that take on entreprenuerial risk. I have met plenty with incomes of $150K per year and IMHO that is too much particularly when you factor in the pensions and other benefits.[/quote]

“Entrepreneurial risks” take by “highly educated” people are what got us into this mess in the first place. It’s not “greedy unions” that have caused the pension crisis; it’s all about financial bubbles, and the decisions made (by “highly educated” people) based on those bubbles, and the aftermath of those bubbles that have caused the pension crisis.

While you might value higher education and entrepreneurial risk, many of us value highly competent, well-trained law enforcement and safety personnel who lay the foundation for a civilized society…and create an environment in which those “highly-educated entrepreneurs” can take risks.

There are plenty of people with PhDs who don’t provide nearly the benefits to society that safety personnel do. I’m not sure why we should pay them more just because they spent a few more years in college (BTW, many police officers and firefighters have degrees).

You think that cops and firefighters are overpaid, while I think that middle-men (dealers and salespeople, administrators, etc.), athletes, entertainers, executives, “investors,” etc. are overpaid — a LOT more overpaid than any pubic saftey worker. Those safety personnel benefit society in a far greater way than the people in all those other positions.[/quote]

I think the argument goes though that those overpaid sales/etc/people however are not directly funded by the public tax dollars where if you don’t want to pay those exorbitant rates, you can simply opt out… (Yeah, I know about AIG/etc…That wasn’t right either…)….

I don’t think if folks would be complaining as much if there was a way to opt out and not pay taxes for those services. IF something as firefighting allowed for a private sector offering, I’m pretty sure cost would be fairly more competitive.[/quote]

Believe me, I would love nothing more than to divide this country in two and have the “capitalists” live on one side with their “private industry” while the “socialists” could live on the other with public safety nets and a more egalitarian lifestyle. I would gladly pay more in taxes to get the benefits that people in “socialist” countries get. I wish we could have a way to “opt in”!

BTW, we all have to pay taxes for things we don’t like. I don’t like paying for wars, back-room deals between politicians and thieving pigs in the private industry who divert public monies for private gain (a much bigger waste of taxpayers’ dollars), inefficient administration, illegal immigration, and most of all, financial bailouts that have/will cost us TRILLIONS of dollars — far more than all the public pension deficits put together. Combined, these things cost far, far more than public safety personnel do. Since I don’t want to pay for it, do I get to opt out?

Also, I have to pay for exhorbitant salaries for entertainers/athletes every time I buy something at the grocery store or buy insurance, or use a bank, etc. Just try listing all the advertisers who advertise during sporting events or fund stadiums, etc. (whose customers are the ones paying those athletes’ salaries, not the fans). Why can’t I opt out of this? I get absolutely ZERO benefit from these athletes, while at least the taxpayers do get some benefit from public servants.

[Coronita]

[quote=CA renter][quote=flu][quote=CA renter][quote=sdrealtor][quote=CA renter][quote=EconProf]Folks, we gotta stop relying on special interest propaganda for our voting decisions and political stands. Because we see a newspaper photo of a fire or police person doing something heroic does not mean they automatically have a dangerous profession and should be paid oodles of money and retire at age 55 at 90% of last paycheck.
To see who is in far more dangerous occupations, and is NOT paid accordingly, google Most Dangerous Occupations. There you’ll see the real heroes: fishermen, tree trimers, taxi drivers, ironworkers, roofers. Their pay is not comensurate, and their bodies are used up and more deserving of a pension at 55, unlike the relatively sedentary police and fire personnel.
Piggs are supposed to be a skeptical bunch that digs for data. C’mon, we can do better![/quote]

Do those workers have the same liability as firefighters and cops? Does their work mean the difference between life and death for their customers?

After all, if we want to look at overcompensation, I’m sure we can come up with a whole host of occupations with far more egregious examples of “undeserved” compensation than what firefighters and cops get.[/quote]

Sorry but typical strawman argument. Yes their work is important, yes they are good guys/gals, and yes many other occupations are overpaid. But this is the public sector. These are not people that invested huge sums in higher education. These are not folks that take on entreprenuerial risk. I have met plenty with incomes of $150K per year and IMHO that is too much particularly when you factor in the pensions and other benefits.[/quote]

“Entrepreneurial risks” take by “highly educated” people are what got us into this mess in the first place. It’s not “greedy unions” that have caused the pension crisis; it’s all about financial bubbles, and the decisions made (by “highly educated” people) based on those bubbles, and the aftermath of those bubbles that have caused the pension crisis.

While you might value higher education and entrepreneurial risk, many of us value highly competent, well-trained law enforcement and safety personnel who lay the foundation for a civilized society…and create an environment in which those “highly-educated entrepreneurs” can take risks.

There are plenty of people with PhDs who don’t provide nearly the benefits to society that safety personnel do. I’m not sure why we should pay them more just because they spent a few more years in college (BTW, many police officers and firefighters have degrees).

You think that cops and firefighters are overpaid, while I think that middle-men (dealers and salespeople, administrators, etc.), athletes, entertainers, executives, “investors,” etc. are overpaid — a LOT more overpaid than any pubic saftey worker. Those safety personnel benefit society in a far greater way than the people in all those other positions.[/quote]

I think the argument goes though that those overpaid sales/etc/people however are not directly funded by the public tax dollars where if you don’t want to pay those exorbitant rates, you can simply opt out… (Yeah, I know about AIG/etc…That wasn’t right either…)….

I don’t think if folks would be complaining as much if there was a way to opt out and not pay taxes for those services. IF something as firefighting allowed for a private sector offering, I’m pretty sure cost would be fairly more competitive.[/quote]

Believe me, I would love nothing more than to divide this country in two and have the “capitalists” live on one side with their “private industry” while the “socialists” could live on the other with public safety nets and a more egalitarian lifestyle. I would gladly pay more in taxes to get the benefits that people in “socialist” countries get. I wish we could have a way to “opt in”!

BTW, we all have to pay taxes for things we don’t like. I don’t like paying for wars, back-room deals between politicians and thieving pigs in the private industry who divert public monies for private gain (a much bigger waste of taxpayers’ dollars), inefficient administration, illegal immigration, and most of all, financial bailouts that have/will cost us TRILLIONS of dollars — far more than all the public pension deficits put together. Combined, these things cost far, far more than public safety personnel do. Since I don’t want to pay for it, do I get to opt out?

Also, I have to pay for exhorbitant salaries for entertainers/athletes every time I buy something at the grocery store or buy insurance, or use a bank, etc. Just try listing all the advertisers who advertise during sporting events or fund stadiums, etc. (whose customers are the ones paying those athletes’ salaries, not the fans). Why can’t I opt out of this? I get absolutely ZERO benefit from these athletes, while at least the taxpayers do get some benefit from public servants.[/quote]

No you don’t. You simply can choose to consume less. You can’t choose to pay less taxes (legally)…

I really would like a good explanation of why someone on city council tha serves 8 years would be compensated with a rest of the life pension where 75% of it is funded by the taxpayers….

Stress?
Hard work?
Contribution to society?
Dangerous/hazardous?
Requires lots of years of training?
Experience?

I won’t even go into what folks at the dept of water get….

[Coronita]

[quote=CA renter][quote=flu][quote=CA renter][quote=sdrealtor][quote=CA renter][quote=EconProf]Folks, we gotta stop relying on special interest propaganda for our voting decisions and political stands. Because we see a newspaper photo of a fire or police person doing something heroic does not mean they automatically have a dangerous profession and should be paid oodles of money and retire at age 55 at 90% of last paycheck.
To see who is in far more dangerous occupations, and is NOT paid accordingly, google Most Dangerous Occupations. There you’ll see the real heroes: fishermen, tree trimers, taxi drivers, ironworkers, roofers. Their pay is not comensurate, and their bodies are used up and more deserving of a pension at 55, unlike the relatively sedentary police and fire personnel.
Piggs are supposed to be a skeptical bunch that digs for data. C’mon, we can do better![/quote]

Do those workers have the same liability as firefighters and cops? Does their work mean the difference between life and death for their customers?

After all, if we want to look at overcompensation, I’m sure we can come up with a whole host of occupations with far more egregious examples of “undeserved” compensation than what firefighters and cops get.[/quote]

Sorry but typical strawman argument. Yes their work is important, yes they are good guys/gals, and yes many other occupations are overpaid. But this is the public sector. These are not people that invested huge sums in higher education. These are not folks that take on entreprenuerial risk. I have met plenty with incomes of $150K per year and IMHO that is too much particularly when you factor in the pensions and other benefits.[/quote]

“Entrepreneurial risks” take by “highly educated” people are what got us into this mess in the first place. It’s not “greedy unions” that have caused the pension crisis; it’s all about financial bubbles, and the decisions made (by “highly educated” people) based on those bubbles, and the aftermath of those bubbles that have caused the pension crisis.

While you might value higher education and entrepreneurial risk, many of us value highly competent, well-trained law enforcement and safety personnel who lay the foundation for a civilized society…and create an environment in which those “highly-educated entrepreneurs” can take risks.

There are plenty of people with PhDs who don’t provide nearly the benefits to society that safety personnel do. I’m not sure why we should pay them more just because they spent a few more years in college (BTW, many police officers and firefighters have degrees).

You think that cops and firefighters are overpaid, while I think that middle-men (dealers and salespeople, administrators, etc.), athletes, entertainers, executives, “investors,” etc. are overpaid — a LOT more overpaid than any pubic saftey worker. Those safety personnel benefit society in a far greater way than the people in all those other positions.[/quote]

I think the argument goes though that those overpaid sales/etc/people however are not directly funded by the public tax dollars where if you don’t want to pay those exorbitant rates, you can simply opt out… (Yeah, I know about AIG/etc…That wasn’t right either…)….

I don’t think if folks would be complaining as much if there was a way to opt out and not pay taxes for those services. IF something as firefighting allowed for a private sector offering, I’m pretty sure cost would be fairly more competitive.[/quote]

Believe me, I would love nothing more than to divide this country in two and have the “capitalists” live on one side with their “private industry” while the “socialists” could live on the other with public safety nets and a more egalitarian lifestyle. I would gladly pay more in taxes to get the benefits that people in “socialist” countries get. I wish we could have a way to “opt in”!

BTW, we all have to pay taxes for things we don’t like. I don’t like paying for wars, back-room deals between politicians and thieving pigs in the private industry who divert public monies for private gain (a much bigger waste of taxpayers’ dollars), inefficient administration, illegal immigration, and most of all, financial bailouts that have/will cost us TRILLIONS of dollars — far more than all the public pension deficits put together. Combined, these things cost far, far more than public safety personnel do. Since I don’t want to pay for it, do I get to opt out?

Also, I have to pay for exhorbitant salaries for entertainers/athletes every time I buy something at the grocery store or buy insurance, or use a bank, etc. Just try listing all the advertisers who advertise during sporting events or fund stadiums, etc. (whose customers are the ones paying those athletes’ salaries, not the fans). Why can’t I opt out of this? I get absolutely ZERO benefit from these athletes, while at least the taxpayers do get some benefit from public servants.[/quote]

No you don’t. You simply can choose to consume less. You can’t choose to pay less taxes (legally)…

I really would like a good explanation of why someone on city council tha serves 8 years would be compensated with a rest of the life pension where 75% of it is funded by the taxpayers….

Stress?
Hard work?
Contribution to society?
Dangerous/hazardous?
Requires lots of years of training?
Experience?

I won’t even go into what folks at the dept of water get….

[Coronita]

[quote=CA renter][quote=flu][quote=CA renter][quote=sdrealtor][quote=CA renter][quote=EconProf]Folks, we gotta stop relying on special interest propaganda for our voting decisions and political stands. Because we see a newspaper photo of a fire or police person doing something heroic does not mean they automatically have a dangerous profession and should be paid oodles of money and retire at age 55 at 90% of last paycheck.
To see who is in far more dangerous occupations, and is NOT paid accordingly, google Most Dangerous Occupations. There you’ll see the real heroes: fishermen, tree trimers, taxi drivers, ironworkers, roofers. Their pay is not comensurate, and their bodies are used up and more deserving of a pension at 55, unlike the relatively sedentary police and fire personnel.
Piggs are supposed to be a skeptical bunch that digs for data. C’mon, we can do better![/quote]

Do those workers have the same liability as firefighters and cops? Does their work mean the difference between life and death for their customers?

After all, if we want to look at overcompensation, I’m sure we can come up with a whole host of occupations with far more egregious examples of “undeserved” compensation than what firefighters and cops get.[/quote]

Sorry but typical strawman argument. Yes their work is important, yes they are good guys/gals, and yes many other occupations are overpaid. But this is the public sector. These are not people that invested huge sums in higher education. These are not folks that take on entreprenuerial risk. I have met plenty with incomes of $150K per year and IMHO that is too much particularly when you factor in the pensions and other benefits.[/quote]

“Entrepreneurial risks” take by “highly educated” people are what got us into this mess in the first place. It’s not “greedy unions” that have caused the pension crisis; it’s all about financial bubbles, and the decisions made (by “highly educated” people) based on those bubbles, and the aftermath of those bubbles that have caused the pension crisis.

While you might value higher education and entrepreneurial risk, many of us value highly competent, well-trained law enforcement and safety personnel who lay the foundation for a civilized society…and create an environment in which those “highly-educated entrepreneurs” can take risks.

There are plenty of people with PhDs who don’t provide nearly the benefits to society that safety personnel do. I’m not sure why we should pay them more just because they spent a few more years in college (BTW, many police officers and firefighters have degrees).

You think that cops and firefighters are overpaid, while I think that middle-men (dealers and salespeople, administrators, etc.), athletes, entertainers, executives, “investors,” etc. are overpaid — a LOT more overpaid than any pubic saftey worker. Those safety personnel benefit society in a far greater way than the people in all those other positions.[/quote]

I think the argument goes though that those overpaid sales/etc/people however are not directly funded by the public tax dollars where if you don’t want to pay those exorbitant rates, you can simply opt out… (Yeah, I know about AIG/etc…That wasn’t right either…)….

I don’t think if folks would be complaining as much if there was a way to opt out and not pay taxes for those services. IF something as firefighting allowed for a private sector offering, I’m pretty sure cost would be fairly more competitive.[/quote]

Believe me, I would love nothing more than to divide this country in two and have the “capitalists” live on one side with their “private industry” while the “socialists” could live on the other with public safety nets and a more egalitarian lifestyle. I would gladly pay more in taxes to get the benefits that people in “socialist” countries get. I wish we could have a way to “opt in”!

BTW, we all have to pay taxes for things we don’t like. I don’t like paying for wars, back-room deals between politicians and thieving pigs in the private industry who divert public monies for private gain (a much bigger waste of taxpayers’ dollars), inefficient administration, illegal immigration, and most of all, financial bailouts that have/will cost us TRILLIONS of dollars — far more than all the public pension deficits put together. Combined, these things cost far, far more than public safety personnel do. Since I don’t want to pay for it, do I get to opt out?

Also, I have to pay for exhorbitant salaries for entertainers/athletes every time I buy something at the grocery store or buy insurance, or use a bank, etc. Just try listing all the advertisers who advertise during sporting events or fund stadiums, etc. (whose customers are the ones paying those athletes’ salaries, not the fans). Why can’t I opt out of this? I get absolutely ZERO benefit from these athletes, while at least the taxpayers do get some benefit from public servants.[/quote]

No you don’t. You simply can choose to consume less. You can’t choose to pay less taxes (legally)…

I really would like a good explanation of why someone on city council tha serves 8 years would be compensated with a rest of the life pension where 75% of it is funded by the taxpayers….

Stress?
Hard work?
Contribution to society?
Dangerous/hazardous?
Requires lots of years of training?
Experience?

I won’t even go into what folks at the dept of water get….

[Coronita]

[quote=CA renter][quote=flu][quote=CA renter][quote=sdrealtor][quote=CA renter][quote=EconProf]Folks, we gotta stop relying on special interest propaganda for our voting decisions and political stands. Because we see a newspaper photo of a fire or police person doing something heroic does not mean they automatically have a dangerous profession and should be paid oodles of money and retire at age 55 at 90% of last paycheck.
To see who is in far more dangerous occupations, and is NOT paid accordingly, google Most Dangerous Occupations. There you’ll see the real heroes: fishermen, tree trimers, taxi drivers, ironworkers, roofers. Their pay is not comensurate, and their bodies are used up and more deserving of a pension at 55, unlike the relatively sedentary police and fire personnel.
Piggs are supposed to be a skeptical bunch that digs for data. C’mon, we can do better![/quote]

Do those workers have the same liability as firefighters and cops? Does their work mean the difference between life and death for their customers?

After all, if we want to look at overcompensation, I’m sure we can come up with a whole host of occupations with far more egregious examples of “undeserved” compensation than what firefighters and cops get.[/quote]

Sorry but typical strawman argument. Yes their work is important, yes they are good guys/gals, and yes many other occupations are overpaid. But this is the public sector. These are not people that invested huge sums in higher education. These are not folks that take on entreprenuerial risk. I have met plenty with incomes of $150K per year and IMHO that is too much particularly when you factor in the pensions and other benefits.[/quote]

“Entrepreneurial risks” take by “highly educated” people are what got us into this mess in the first place. It’s not “greedy unions” that have caused the pension crisis; it’s all about financial bubbles, and the decisions made (by “highly educated” people) based on those bubbles, and the aftermath of those bubbles that have caused the pension crisis.

While you might value higher education and entrepreneurial risk, many of us value highly competent, well-trained law enforcement and safety personnel who lay the foundation for a civilized society…and create an environment in which those “highly-educated entrepreneurs” can take risks.

There are plenty of people with PhDs who don’t provide nearly the benefits to society that safety personnel do. I’m not sure why we should pay them more just because they spent a few more years in college (BTW, many police officers and firefighters have degrees).

You think that cops and firefighters are overpaid, while I think that middle-men (dealers and salespeople, administrators, etc.), athletes, entertainers, executives, “investors,” etc. are overpaid — a LOT more overpaid than any pubic saftey worker. Those safety personnel benefit society in a far greater way than the people in all those other positions.[/quote]

I think the argument goes though that those overpaid sales/etc/people however are not directly funded by the public tax dollars where if you don’t want to pay those exorbitant rates, you can simply opt out… (Yeah, I know about AIG/etc…That wasn’t right either…)….

I don’t think if folks would be complaining as much if there was a way to opt out and not pay taxes for those services. IF something as firefighting allowed for a private sector offering, I’m pretty sure cost would be fairly more competitive.[/quote]

Believe me, I would love nothing more than to divide this country in two and have the “capitalists” live on one side with their “private industry” while the “socialists” could live on the other with public safety nets and a more egalitarian lifestyle. I would gladly pay more in taxes to get the benefits that people in “socialist” countries get. I wish we could have a way to “opt in”!

BTW, we all have to pay taxes for things we don’t like. I don’t like paying for wars, back-room deals between politicians and thieving pigs in the private industry who divert public monies for private gain (a much bigger waste of taxpayers’ dollars), inefficient administration, illegal immigration, and most of all, financial bailouts that have/will cost us TRILLIONS of dollars — far more than all the public pension deficits put together. Combined, these things cost far, far more than public safety personnel do. Since I don’t want to pay for it, do I get to opt out?

Also, I have to pay for exhorbitant salaries for entertainers/athletes every time I buy something at the grocery store or buy insurance, or use a bank, etc. Just try listing all the advertisers who advertise during sporting events or fund stadiums, etc. (whose customers are the ones paying those athletes’ salaries, not the fans). Why can’t I opt out of this? I get absolutely ZERO benefit from these athletes, while at least the taxpayers do get some benefit from public servants.[/quote]

No you don’t. You simply can choose to consume less. You can’t choose to pay less taxes (legally)…

I really would like a good explanation of why someone on city council tha serves 8 years would be compensated with a rest of the life pension where 75% of it is funded by the taxpayers….

Stress?
Hard work?
Contribution to society?
Dangerous/hazardous?
Requires lots of years of training?
Experience?

I won’t even go into what folks at the dept of water get….

[Coronita]

[quote=CA renter][quote=flu][quote=CA renter][quote=sdrealtor][quote=CA renter][quote=EconProf]Folks, we gotta stop relying on special interest propaganda for our voting decisions and political stands. Because we see a newspaper photo of a fire or police person doing something heroic does not mean they automatically have a dangerous profession and should be paid oodles of money and retire at age 55 at 90% of last paycheck.
To see who is in far more dangerous occupations, and is NOT paid accordingly, google Most Dangerous Occupations. There you’ll see the real heroes: fishermen, tree trimers, taxi drivers, ironworkers, roofers. Their pay is not comensurate, and their bodies are used up and more deserving of a pension at 55, unlike the relatively sedentary police and fire personnel.
Piggs are supposed to be a skeptical bunch that digs for data. C’mon, we can do better![/quote]

Do those workers have the same liability as firefighters and cops? Does their work mean the difference between life and death for their customers?

After all, if we want to look at overcompensation, I’m sure we can come up with a whole host of occupations with far more egregious examples of “undeserved” compensation than what firefighters and cops get.[/quote]

Sorry but typical strawman argument. Yes their work is important, yes they are good guys/gals, and yes many other occupations are overpaid. But this is the public sector. These are not people that invested huge sums in higher education. These are not folks that take on entreprenuerial risk. I have met plenty with incomes of $150K per year and IMHO that is too much particularly when you factor in the pensions and other benefits.[/quote]

“Entrepreneurial risks” take by “highly educated” people are what got us into this mess in the first place. It’s not “greedy unions” that have caused the pension crisis; it’s all about financial bubbles, and the decisions made (by “highly educated” people) based on those bubbles, and the aftermath of those bubbles that have caused the pension crisis.

While you might value higher education and entrepreneurial risk, many of us value highly competent, well-trained law enforcement and safety personnel who lay the foundation for a civilized society…and create an environment in which those “highly-educated entrepreneurs” can take risks.

There are plenty of people with PhDs who don’t provide nearly the benefits to society that safety personnel do. I’m not sure why we should pay them more just because they spent a few more years in college (BTW, many police officers and firefighters have degrees).

You think that cops and firefighters are overpaid, while I think that middle-men (dealers and salespeople, administrators, etc.), athletes, entertainers, executives, “investors,” etc. are overpaid — a LOT more overpaid than any pubic saftey worker. Those safety personnel benefit society in a far greater way than the people in all those other positions.[/quote]

I think the argument goes though that those overpaid sales/etc/people however are not directly funded by the public tax dollars where if you don’t want to pay those exorbitant rates, you can simply opt out… (Yeah, I know about AIG/etc…That wasn’t right either…)….

I don’t think if folks would be complaining as much if there was a way to opt out and not pay taxes for those services. IF something as firefighting allowed for a private sector offering, I’m pretty sure cost would be fairly more competitive.[/quote]

Believe me, I would love nothing more than to divide this country in two and have the “capitalists” live on one side with their “private industry” while the “socialists” could live on the other with public safety nets and a more egalitarian lifestyle. I would gladly pay more in taxes to get the benefits that people in “socialist” countries get. I wish we could have a way to “opt in”!

BTW, we all have to pay taxes for things we don’t like. I don’t like paying for wars, back-room deals between politicians and thieving pigs in the private industry who divert public monies for private gain (a much bigger waste of taxpayers’ dollars), inefficient administration, illegal immigration, and most of all, financial bailouts that have/will cost us TRILLIONS of dollars — far more than all the public pension deficits put together. Combined, these things cost far, far more than public safety personnel do. Since I don’t want to pay for it, do I get to opt out?

Also, I have to pay for exhorbitant salaries for entertainers/athletes every time I buy something at the grocery store or buy insurance, or use a bank, etc. Just try listing all the advertisers who advertise during sporting events or fund stadiums, etc. (whose customers are the ones paying those athletes’ salaries, not the fans). Why can’t I opt out of this? I get absolutely ZERO benefit from these athletes, while at least the taxpayers do get some benefit from public servants.[/quote]

No you don’t. You simply can choose to consume less. You can’t choose to pay less taxes (legally)…

I really would like a good explanation of why someone on city council tha serves 8 years would be compensated with a rest of the life pension where 75% of it is funded by the taxpayers….

Stress?
Hard work?
Contribution to society?
Dangerous/hazardous?
Requires lots of years of training?
Experience?

I won’t even go into what folks at the dept of water get….

[jstoesz]

[quote]BTW, those salaries/benefits are recycled back into the economy as these employees spend their money. It is far better than “investments” by rich people that have a debt offset (require repayment PLUS interest/dividends).[/quote]

You are comparing apples and oranges. The money that the public sector is paid is from taxes. It is not organically grown from productive enterprises. Your argument amounts to a thief taking money from a cash register and then spending it in that very business as some sort of repayment.

[jstoesz]

[quote]BTW, those salaries/benefits are recycled back into the economy as these employees spend their money. It is far better than “investments” by rich people that have a debt offset (require repayment PLUS interest/dividends).[/quote]

You are comparing apples and oranges. The money that the public sector is paid is from taxes. It is not organically grown from productive enterprises. Your argument amounts to a thief taking money from a cash register and then spending it in that very business as some sort of repayment.

[jstoesz]

[quote]BTW, those salaries/benefits are recycled back into the economy as these employees spend their money. It is far better than “investments” by rich people that have a debt offset (require repayment PLUS interest/dividends).[/quote]

You are comparing apples and oranges. The money that the public sector is paid is from taxes. It is not organically grown from productive enterprises. Your argument amounts to a thief taking money from a cash register and then spending it in that very business as some sort of repayment.

[jstoesz]

[quote]BTW, those salaries/benefits are recycled back into the economy as these employees spend their money. It is far better than “investments” by rich people that have a debt offset (require repayment PLUS interest/dividends).[/quote]

You are comparing apples and oranges. The money that the public sector is paid is from taxes. It is not organically grown from productive enterprises. Your argument amounts to a thief taking money from a cash register and then spending it in that very business as some sort of repayment.

[Author]

Posts