OT: Public pay & benefits

[jficquette]

[quote=CA renter][quote=jficquette]80 cents on the dollar for pay and benefits??? That’s bullshit. It has to stop asap.

“In California, where an estimated 80 cents out of every government dollar goes to employee pay and benefits, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R) has proposed a two-tier system of pensions that offers new state workers reduced benefits with tighter retirement formulas. He also wants state workers to kick in higher pension contributions to help deal with California’s staggering deficit.”

http://www.newmediajournal.us/government_politics/1006b.htm%5B/quote%5D

Exactly where do you think tax money is supposed to go? To trees? To rocks?

Everything the public sector provides (infrastructure, safety, education, etc.) is provided by PEOPLE. It shouldn’t be a surprise that most of the money goes toward salaries and benefits. What else should it go toward?

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]

That’s the point. Obviously the money is not going to services. It’s going to the public sector’s pockets.

We have a $19 Bill deficit now in Cali:

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Calif-budget-plan-relies-on-apf-2965860812.html?x=0&sec=topStories&pos=main&asset=&ccode=

That means $15Bil of that deficit is due to pay and benefits.The hell with that. Just fire them and problem solved or cut everyone pay and benefits by 20%. I say that because I think our budget is around $100Bill. Since 80% is for pay and benefits(what a joke), then all you have to do is cut pay by 20-25% and budget is fixed and no decrease in services to the illegals etc.

I don’t think you know the answer to this because I guess you work for the State but do you have idea how many businesses would stay in business with a payroll that was 80% of revenue??

Why can’t we run government like a business?

John

[jstoesz]

CAR I am a little confused by your response so let me clarify my analogy.

Not all tax money amounts to theft. Just the tax receipts spent on waste, fraud, and abuse. I would put some public employee compensation in one if not all three of these categories. But that I guess is where we differ.

I am not an opponent of the concept of taxes just the way they are currently implemented in this system.

[jstoesz]

CAR I am a little confused by your response so let me clarify my analogy.

Not all tax money amounts to theft. Just the tax receipts spent on waste, fraud, and abuse. I would put some public employee compensation in one if not all three of these categories. But that I guess is where we differ.

I am not an opponent of the concept of taxes just the way they are currently implemented in this system.

[jstoesz]

CAR I am a little confused by your response so let me clarify my analogy.

Not all tax money amounts to theft. Just the tax receipts spent on waste, fraud, and abuse. I would put some public employee compensation in one if not all three of these categories. But that I guess is where we differ.

I am not an opponent of the concept of taxes just the way they are currently implemented in this system.

[jstoesz]

CAR I am a little confused by your response so let me clarify my analogy.

Not all tax money amounts to theft. Just the tax receipts spent on waste, fraud, and abuse. I would put some public employee compensation in one if not all three of these categories. But that I guess is where we differ.

I am not an opponent of the concept of taxes just the way they are currently implemented in this system.

[jstoesz]

CAR I am a little confused by your response so let me clarify my analogy.

Not all tax money amounts to theft. Just the tax receipts spent on waste, fraud, and abuse. I would put some public employee compensation in one if not all three of these categories. But that I guess is where we differ.

I am not an opponent of the concept of taxes just the way they are currently implemented in this system.

[CA renter]

[quote=flu][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….[/quote]

Consuming less doesn’t really cut it because there are certain things that we NEED in order to live in our society (banks, insurance, food, gas, cars/transportation, etc.). I don’t mind paying for these things, it’s just that I resent having to pay for their advertising costs — especially when it means entertainers are paid millions of dollars for throwing balls around or “acting.”

Anyway, the taxes that go toward wars, bailouts, greedy dealmakers, etc. cannot be avoided by “consuming less.”

I do not agree with paying administrators for life after they’ve served just a few years, and I don’t support paying public safety personnel for life after just a few years, either.

Also, just because I support defined-benefit pensions for public (and private!) workers does not mean that there aren’t improvements/changes to be made. Yes, they are too generous in their current form, and **they are in the process of changing this.** It cannot happen overnight, but it is happening.

[CA renter]

[quote=flu][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….[/quote]

Consuming less doesn’t really cut it because there are certain things that we NEED in order to live in our society (banks, insurance, food, gas, cars/transportation, etc.). I don’t mind paying for these things, it’s just that I resent having to pay for their advertising costs — especially when it means entertainers are paid millions of dollars for throwing balls around or “acting.”

Anyway, the taxes that go toward wars, bailouts, greedy dealmakers, etc. cannot be avoided by “consuming less.”

I do not agree with paying administrators for life after they’ve served just a few years, and I don’t support paying public safety personnel for life after just a few years, either.

Also, just because I support defined-benefit pensions for public (and private!) workers does not mean that there aren’t improvements/changes to be made. Yes, they are too generous in their current form, and **they are in the process of changing this.** It cannot happen overnight, but it is happening.

[CA renter]

[quote=flu][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….[/quote]

Consuming less doesn’t really cut it because there are certain things that we NEED in order to live in our society (banks, insurance, food, gas, cars/transportation, etc.). I don’t mind paying for these things, it’s just that I resent having to pay for their advertising costs — especially when it means entertainers are paid millions of dollars for throwing balls around or “acting.”

Anyway, the taxes that go toward wars, bailouts, greedy dealmakers, etc. cannot be avoided by “consuming less.”

I do not agree with paying administrators for life after they’ve served just a few years, and I don’t support paying public safety personnel for life after just a few years, either.

Also, just because I support defined-benefit pensions for public (and private!) workers does not mean that there aren’t improvements/changes to be made. Yes, they are too generous in their current form, and **they are in the process of changing this.** It cannot happen overnight, but it is happening.

[CA renter]

[quote=flu][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….[/quote]

Consuming less doesn’t really cut it because there are certain things that we NEED in order to live in our society (banks, insurance, food, gas, cars/transportation, etc.). I don’t mind paying for these things, it’s just that I resent having to pay for their advertising costs — especially when it means entertainers are paid millions of dollars for throwing balls around or “acting.”

Anyway, the taxes that go toward wars, bailouts, greedy dealmakers, etc. cannot be avoided by “consuming less.”

I do not agree with paying administrators for life after they’ve served just a few years, and I don’t support paying public safety personnel for life after just a few years, either.

Also, just because I support defined-benefit pensions for public (and private!) workers does not mean that there aren’t improvements/changes to be made. Yes, they are too generous in their current form, and **they are in the process of changing this.** It cannot happen overnight, but it is happening.

[CA renter]

[quote=flu][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….[/quote]

Consuming less doesn’t really cut it because there are certain things that we NEED in order to live in our society (banks, insurance, food, gas, cars/transportation, etc.). I don’t mind paying for these things, it’s just that I resent having to pay for their advertising costs — especially when it means entertainers are paid millions of dollars for throwing balls around or “acting.”

Anyway, the taxes that go toward wars, bailouts, greedy dealmakers, etc. cannot be avoided by “consuming less.”

I do not agree with paying administrators for life after they’ve served just a few years, and I don’t support paying public safety personnel for life after just a few years, either.

Also, just because I support defined-benefit pensions for public (and private!) workers does not mean that there aren’t improvements/changes to be made. Yes, they are too generous in their current form, and **they are in the process of changing this.** It cannot happen overnight, but it is happening.

[CA renter]

[quote=jficquette][quote=CA renter][quote=jficquette]80 cents on the dollar for pay and benefits??? That’s bullshit. It has to stop asap.

“In California, where an estimated 80 cents out of every government dollar goes to employee pay and benefits, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R) has proposed a two-tier system of pensions that offers new state workers reduced benefits with tighter retirement formulas. He also wants state workers to kick in higher pension contributions to help deal with California’s staggering deficit.”

http://www.newmediajournal.us/government_politics/1006b.htm%5B/quote%5D

Exactly where do you think tax money is supposed to go? To trees? To rocks?

Everything the public sector provides (infrastructure, safety, education, etc.) is provided by PEOPLE. It shouldn’t be a surprise that most of the money goes toward salaries and benefits. What else should it go toward?

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]

That’s the point. Obviously the money is not going to services. It’s going to the public sector’s pockets.

We have a $19 Bill deficit now in Cali:

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Calif-budget-plan-relies-on-apf-2965860812.html?x=0&sec=topStories&pos=main&asset=&ccode=

That means $15Bil of that deficit is due to pay and benefits.The hell with that. Just fire them and problem solved or cut everyone pay and benefits by 20%. I say that because I think our budget is around $100Bill. Since 80% is for pay and benefits(what a joke), then all you have to do is cut pay by 20-25% and budget is fixed and no decrease in services to the illegals etc.

I don’t think you know the answer to this because I guess you work for the State but do you have idea how many businesses would stay in business with a payroll that was 80% of revenue??

Why can’t we run government like a business?

John[/quote]

This is where I think you’re getting confused. What do you think “services” are? The govt is mostly in the business of providing services (as opposed to goods), and the majority of the costs of “services” will be spent on compensation for the people who provide those services. If you look at service providers in the private sector, I’ll bet the majority of their costs go toward pay/benefits as well.

[CA renter]

[quote=jficquette][quote=CA renter][quote=jficquette]80 cents on the dollar for pay and benefits??? That’s bullshit. It has to stop asap.

“In California, where an estimated 80 cents out of every government dollar goes to employee pay and benefits, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R) has proposed a two-tier system of pensions that offers new state workers reduced benefits with tighter retirement formulas. He also wants state workers to kick in higher pension contributions to help deal with California’s staggering deficit.”

http://www.newmediajournal.us/government_politics/1006b.htm%5B/quote%5D

Exactly where do you think tax money is supposed to go? To trees? To rocks?

Everything the public sector provides (infrastructure, safety, education, etc.) is provided by PEOPLE. It shouldn’t be a surprise that most of the money goes toward salaries and benefits. What else should it go toward?

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]

That’s the point. Obviously the money is not going to services. It’s going to the public sector’s pockets.

We have a $19 Bill deficit now in Cali:

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Calif-budget-plan-relies-on-apf-2965860812.html?x=0&sec=topStories&pos=main&asset=&ccode=

That means $15Bil of that deficit is due to pay and benefits.The hell with that. Just fire them and problem solved or cut everyone pay and benefits by 20%. I say that because I think our budget is around $100Bill. Since 80% is for pay and benefits(what a joke), then all you have to do is cut pay by 20-25% and budget is fixed and no decrease in services to the illegals etc.

I don’t think you know the answer to this because I guess you work for the State but do you have idea how many businesses would stay in business with a payroll that was 80% of revenue??

Why can’t we run government like a business?

John[/quote]

This is where I think you’re getting confused. What do you think “services” are? The govt is mostly in the business of providing services (as opposed to goods), and the majority of the costs of “services” will be spent on compensation for the people who provide those services. If you look at service providers in the private sector, I’ll bet the majority of their costs go toward pay/benefits as well.

[CA renter]

[quote=jficquette][quote=CA renter][quote=jficquette]80 cents on the dollar for pay and benefits??? That’s bullshit. It has to stop asap.

“In California, where an estimated 80 cents out of every government dollar goes to employee pay and benefits, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R) has proposed a two-tier system of pensions that offers new state workers reduced benefits with tighter retirement formulas. He also wants state workers to kick in higher pension contributions to help deal with California’s staggering deficit.”

http://www.newmediajournal.us/government_politics/1006b.htm%5B/quote%5D

Exactly where do you think tax money is supposed to go? To trees? To rocks?

Everything the public sector provides (infrastructure, safety, education, etc.) is provided by PEOPLE. It shouldn’t be a surprise that most of the money goes toward salaries and benefits. What else should it go toward?

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]

That’s the point. Obviously the money is not going to services. It’s going to the public sector’s pockets.

We have a $19 Bill deficit now in Cali:

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Calif-budget-plan-relies-on-apf-2965860812.html?x=0&sec=topStories&pos=main&asset=&ccode=

That means $15Bil of that deficit is due to pay and benefits.The hell with that. Just fire them and problem solved or cut everyone pay and benefits by 20%. I say that because I think our budget is around $100Bill. Since 80% is for pay and benefits(what a joke), then all you have to do is cut pay by 20-25% and budget is fixed and no decrease in services to the illegals etc.

I don’t think you know the answer to this because I guess you work for the State but do you have idea how many businesses would stay in business with a payroll that was 80% of revenue??

Why can’t we run government like a business?

John[/quote]

This is where I think you’re getting confused. What do you think “services” are? The govt is mostly in the business of providing services (as opposed to goods), and the majority of the costs of “services” will be spent on compensation for the people who provide those services. If you look at service providers in the private sector, I’ll bet the majority of their costs go toward pay/benefits as well.

[CA renter]

[quote=jficquette][quote=CA renter][quote=jficquette]80 cents on the dollar for pay and benefits??? That’s bullshit. It has to stop asap.

“In California, where an estimated 80 cents out of every government dollar goes to employee pay and benefits, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R) has proposed a two-tier system of pensions that offers new state workers reduced benefits with tighter retirement formulas. He also wants state workers to kick in higher pension contributions to help deal with California’s staggering deficit.”

http://www.newmediajournal.us/government_politics/1006b.htm%5B/quote%5D

Exactly where do you think tax money is supposed to go? To trees? To rocks?

Everything the public sector provides (infrastructure, safety, education, etc.) is provided by PEOPLE. It shouldn’t be a surprise that most of the money goes toward salaries and benefits. What else should it go toward?

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]

That’s the point. Obviously the money is not going to services. It’s going to the public sector’s pockets.

We have a $19 Bill deficit now in Cali:

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Calif-budget-plan-relies-on-apf-2965860812.html?x=0&sec=topStories&pos=main&asset=&ccode=

That means $15Bil of that deficit is due to pay and benefits.The hell with that. Just fire them and problem solved or cut everyone pay and benefits by 20%. I say that because I think our budget is around $100Bill. Since 80% is for pay and benefits(what a joke), then all you have to do is cut pay by 20-25% and budget is fixed and no decrease in services to the illegals etc.

I don’t think you know the answer to this because I guess you work for the State but do you have idea how many businesses would stay in business with a payroll that was 80% of revenue??

Why can’t we run government like a business?

John[/quote]

This is where I think you’re getting confused. What do you think “services” are? The govt is mostly in the business of providing services (as opposed to goods), and the majority of the costs of “services” will be spent on compensation for the people who provide those services. If you look at service providers in the private sector, I’ll bet the majority of their costs go toward pay/benefits as well.

[Author]

Posts