- This topic has 1,770 replies, 36 voices, and was last updated 13 years, 5 months ago by GH.
-
AuthorPosts
-
October 6, 2010 at 6:48 PM #614644October 6, 2010 at 6:53 PM #613590CA renterParticipant
[quote=pri_dk][quote=CA renter]I would gladly pay more in taxes to get the benefits that people in “socialist” countries get.[/quote]
How much do city firefighters in Sweden make?
How effective are their emergency services vs. ours?
I honestly don’t know the answer, but I’m guessing they make much less than those in the US and still do a fine job.
You are confounding two different questions:
1) What services should be provided by government vs. the private sector?
2) What is the right compensation for those providing government services?
In many cases it is optimal for government to be the provider – emergency services are certainly a good example of this. But it still needs to be done at a fair price.
Even if “socialism” is the best solution for some needs, the system will fail if the public pays too much for what it gets. Here in CA, the system is definitely failing.[/quote]
Realize that firefighers in Sweden (as well as most/all other employees) DO get govt-paid healthcare and pension/retirement benefits, in addition to a whole host of other benefits that we could only dream of here (paid maternity/paternity leave, free/heavily-subsidized, quality childcare, more vacation time, etc.). I’m not sure what they are paid, but would guess they are not living in poverty, and are treated fairly well.
October 6, 2010 at 6:53 PM #613677CA renterParticipant[quote=pri_dk][quote=CA renter]I would gladly pay more in taxes to get the benefits that people in “socialist” countries get.[/quote]
How much do city firefighters in Sweden make?
How effective are their emergency services vs. ours?
I honestly don’t know the answer, but I’m guessing they make much less than those in the US and still do a fine job.
You are confounding two different questions:
1) What services should be provided by government vs. the private sector?
2) What is the right compensation for those providing government services?
In many cases it is optimal for government to be the provider – emergency services are certainly a good example of this. But it still needs to be done at a fair price.
Even if “socialism” is the best solution for some needs, the system will fail if the public pays too much for what it gets. Here in CA, the system is definitely failing.[/quote]
Realize that firefighers in Sweden (as well as most/all other employees) DO get govt-paid healthcare and pension/retirement benefits, in addition to a whole host of other benefits that we could only dream of here (paid maternity/paternity leave, free/heavily-subsidized, quality childcare, more vacation time, etc.). I’m not sure what they are paid, but would guess they are not living in poverty, and are treated fairly well.
October 6, 2010 at 6:53 PM #614221CA renterParticipant[quote=pri_dk][quote=CA renter]I would gladly pay more in taxes to get the benefits that people in “socialist” countries get.[/quote]
How much do city firefighters in Sweden make?
How effective are their emergency services vs. ours?
I honestly don’t know the answer, but I’m guessing they make much less than those in the US and still do a fine job.
You are confounding two different questions:
1) What services should be provided by government vs. the private sector?
2) What is the right compensation for those providing government services?
In many cases it is optimal for government to be the provider – emergency services are certainly a good example of this. But it still needs to be done at a fair price.
Even if “socialism” is the best solution for some needs, the system will fail if the public pays too much for what it gets. Here in CA, the system is definitely failing.[/quote]
Realize that firefighers in Sweden (as well as most/all other employees) DO get govt-paid healthcare and pension/retirement benefits, in addition to a whole host of other benefits that we could only dream of here (paid maternity/paternity leave, free/heavily-subsidized, quality childcare, more vacation time, etc.). I’m not sure what they are paid, but would guess they are not living in poverty, and are treated fairly well.
October 6, 2010 at 6:53 PM #614336CA renterParticipant[quote=pri_dk][quote=CA renter]I would gladly pay more in taxes to get the benefits that people in “socialist” countries get.[/quote]
How much do city firefighters in Sweden make?
How effective are their emergency services vs. ours?
I honestly don’t know the answer, but I’m guessing they make much less than those in the US and still do a fine job.
You are confounding two different questions:
1) What services should be provided by government vs. the private sector?
2) What is the right compensation for those providing government services?
In many cases it is optimal for government to be the provider – emergency services are certainly a good example of this. But it still needs to be done at a fair price.
Even if “socialism” is the best solution for some needs, the system will fail if the public pays too much for what it gets. Here in CA, the system is definitely failing.[/quote]
Realize that firefighers in Sweden (as well as most/all other employees) DO get govt-paid healthcare and pension/retirement benefits, in addition to a whole host of other benefits that we could only dream of here (paid maternity/paternity leave, free/heavily-subsidized, quality childcare, more vacation time, etc.). I’m not sure what they are paid, but would guess they are not living in poverty, and are treated fairly well.
October 6, 2010 at 6:53 PM #614649CA renterParticipant[quote=pri_dk][quote=CA renter]I would gladly pay more in taxes to get the benefits that people in “socialist” countries get.[/quote]
How much do city firefighters in Sweden make?
How effective are their emergency services vs. ours?
I honestly don’t know the answer, but I’m guessing they make much less than those in the US and still do a fine job.
You are confounding two different questions:
1) What services should be provided by government vs. the private sector?
2) What is the right compensation for those providing government services?
In many cases it is optimal for government to be the provider – emergency services are certainly a good example of this. But it still needs to be done at a fair price.
Even if “socialism” is the best solution for some needs, the system will fail if the public pays too much for what it gets. Here in CA, the system is definitely failing.[/quote]
Realize that firefighers in Sweden (as well as most/all other employees) DO get govt-paid healthcare and pension/retirement benefits, in addition to a whole host of other benefits that we could only dream of here (paid maternity/paternity leave, free/heavily-subsidized, quality childcare, more vacation time, etc.). I’m not sure what they are paid, but would guess they are not living in poverty, and are treated fairly well.
October 6, 2010 at 7:28 PM #613620paramountParticipantMost of these comments are noise, that’s it.
The REAL problem IS the public employee unions.
The City Manager of Temecula makes approx. 400k/year – absolutely sickening.
Why do we need a city manager AND a mayor.
It’s complete BS.
The public sector is out of control, period.
October 6, 2010 at 7:28 PM #613706paramountParticipantMost of these comments are noise, that’s it.
The REAL problem IS the public employee unions.
The City Manager of Temecula makes approx. 400k/year – absolutely sickening.
Why do we need a city manager AND a mayor.
It’s complete BS.
The public sector is out of control, period.
October 6, 2010 at 7:28 PM #614251paramountParticipantMost of these comments are noise, that’s it.
The REAL problem IS the public employee unions.
The City Manager of Temecula makes approx. 400k/year – absolutely sickening.
Why do we need a city manager AND a mayor.
It’s complete BS.
The public sector is out of control, period.
October 6, 2010 at 7:28 PM #614366paramountParticipantMost of these comments are noise, that’s it.
The REAL problem IS the public employee unions.
The City Manager of Temecula makes approx. 400k/year – absolutely sickening.
Why do we need a city manager AND a mayor.
It’s complete BS.
The public sector is out of control, period.
October 6, 2010 at 7:28 PM #614678paramountParticipantMost of these comments are noise, that’s it.
The REAL problem IS the public employee unions.
The City Manager of Temecula makes approx. 400k/year – absolutely sickening.
Why do we need a city manager AND a mayor.
It’s complete BS.
The public sector is out of control, period.
October 6, 2010 at 8:09 PM #613630jficquetteParticipant[quote=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:
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.[/quote]
Education for instance. Cali pays $15k per student per year which means $12k of that is for wages and benefits. To put this prespective consider the family with 4 kids in school. That is $60k spent for that family per year. A family could hire a private teacher full time for that.
Give a private company $10k per year per student and I promise you the schools would be much better than they are now.
John
October 6, 2010 at 8:09 PM #613716jficquetteParticipant[quote=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:
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.[/quote]
Education for instance. Cali pays $15k per student per year which means $12k of that is for wages and benefits. To put this prespective consider the family with 4 kids in school. That is $60k spent for that family per year. A family could hire a private teacher full time for that.
Give a private company $10k per year per student and I promise you the schools would be much better than they are now.
John
October 6, 2010 at 8:09 PM #614261jficquetteParticipant[quote=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:
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.[/quote]
Education for instance. Cali pays $15k per student per year which means $12k of that is for wages and benefits. To put this prespective consider the family with 4 kids in school. That is $60k spent for that family per year. A family could hire a private teacher full time for that.
Give a private company $10k per year per student and I promise you the schools would be much better than they are now.
John
October 6, 2010 at 8:09 PM #614376jficquetteParticipant[quote=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:
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.[/quote]
Education for instance. Cali pays $15k per student per year which means $12k of that is for wages and benefits. To put this prespective consider the family with 4 kids in school. That is $60k spent for that family per year. A family could hire a private teacher full time for that.
Give a private company $10k per year per student and I promise you the schools would be much better than they are now.
John
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.