Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
GH
ParticipantI am fine with privatization, as long as I no longer also have to carry the tax burden. As for the $75 bit, fine, but they SHOULD have allowed him to pay full cost for the service. I suppose had a child been in the home they would have allowed the child to die as well?
What I am typically seeing is government services being cut in favor of toll roads, pay for service, school bus service being cut etc, but we are still expected to pay more and more regular taxes as well, most of which goes to service retirements for previous govt workers who were not required to contribute enough to cover their costs.
ParticipantI am fine with privatization, as long as I no longer also have to carry the tax burden. As for the $75 bit, fine, but they SHOULD have allowed him to pay full cost for the service. I suppose had a child been in the home they would have allowed the child to die as well?
What I am typically seeing is government services being cut in favor of toll roads, pay for service, school bus service being cut etc, but we are still expected to pay more and more regular taxes as well, most of which goes to service retirements for previous govt workers who were not required to contribute enough to cover their costs.
ParticipantI am fine with privatization, as long as I no longer also have to carry the tax burden. As for the $75 bit, fine, but they SHOULD have allowed him to pay full cost for the service. I suppose had a child been in the home they would have allowed the child to die as well?
What I am typically seeing is government services being cut in favor of toll roads, pay for service, school bus service being cut etc, but we are still expected to pay more and more regular taxes as well, most of which goes to service retirements for previous govt workers who were not required to contribute enough to cover their costs.
ParticipantI am fine with privatization, as long as I no longer also have to carry the tax burden. As for the $75 bit, fine, but they SHOULD have allowed him to pay full cost for the service. I suppose had a child been in the home they would have allowed the child to die as well?
What I am typically seeing is government services being cut in favor of toll roads, pay for service, school bus service being cut etc, but we are still expected to pay more and more regular taxes as well, most of which goes to service retirements for previous govt workers who were not required to contribute enough to cover their costs.
ParticipantI am fine with privatization, as long as I no longer also have to carry the tax burden. As for the $75 bit, fine, but they SHOULD have allowed him to pay full cost for the service. I suppose had a child been in the home they would have allowed the child to die as well?
What I am typically seeing is government services being cut in favor of toll roads, pay for service, school bus service being cut etc, but we are still expected to pay more and more regular taxes as well, most of which goes to service retirements for previous govt workers who were not required to contribute enough to cover their costs.
Participant[quote=Aecetia]You get what you pay for. If you want to pay bargain basement wages, you will get marginally qualified employees. The less qualified, the more problems, and the more law suits for the municipalities who are for the most part self-insured.[/quote]
I think the problem is not if these are the very finest people in all creation, but IF we can afford them. If we based our purchases only on buying the finest quality at the highest price, we would all drive Rolls Royce cars and live in massive mansions, eating only the finest cuisine and flying first class.
When it comes to OUR purchase decisions, we are required to do none of the above or be faced with certain financial doom, yet when the decision is being made for us by others we are required to purchase only the very finest possible labor regardless of consequences and are told we get what we pay for…
First, my experience with government workers does not generally support the quality argument, and second, govt pay and benefits must be bought in line with what we CAN afford. As for the retirement problem, retirees must be held accountable for the failure of their investments going bad just like the rest of us did, when our 401k’s tanked.
That said, if we absolutely do need to downsize our government, we should start at the top where the pay is most egregious and the return on investment is the least. I have yet to hear of a single management type being laid off anywhere in California, even when police, fire etc are downsized.
Participant[quote=Aecetia]You get what you pay for. If you want to pay bargain basement wages, you will get marginally qualified employees. The less qualified, the more problems, and the more law suits for the municipalities who are for the most part self-insured.[/quote]
I think the problem is not if these are the very finest people in all creation, but IF we can afford them. If we based our purchases only on buying the finest quality at the highest price, we would all drive Rolls Royce cars and live in massive mansions, eating only the finest cuisine and flying first class.
When it comes to OUR purchase decisions, we are required to do none of the above or be faced with certain financial doom, yet when the decision is being made for us by others we are required to purchase only the very finest possible labor regardless of consequences and are told we get what we pay for…
First, my experience with government workers does not generally support the quality argument, and second, govt pay and benefits must be bought in line with what we CAN afford. As for the retirement problem, retirees must be held accountable for the failure of their investments going bad just like the rest of us did, when our 401k’s tanked.
That said, if we absolutely do need to downsize our government, we should start at the top where the pay is most egregious and the return on investment is the least. I have yet to hear of a single management type being laid off anywhere in California, even when police, fire etc are downsized.
Participant[quote=Aecetia]You get what you pay for. If you want to pay bargain basement wages, you will get marginally qualified employees. The less qualified, the more problems, and the more law suits for the municipalities who are for the most part self-insured.[/quote]
I think the problem is not if these are the very finest people in all creation, but IF we can afford them. If we based our purchases only on buying the finest quality at the highest price, we would all drive Rolls Royce cars and live in massive mansions, eating only the finest cuisine and flying first class.
When it comes to OUR purchase decisions, we are required to do none of the above or be faced with certain financial doom, yet when the decision is being made for us by others we are required to purchase only the very finest possible labor regardless of consequences and are told we get what we pay for…
First, my experience with government workers does not generally support the quality argument, and second, govt pay and benefits must be bought in line with what we CAN afford. As for the retirement problem, retirees must be held accountable for the failure of their investments going bad just like the rest of us did, when our 401k’s tanked.
That said, if we absolutely do need to downsize our government, we should start at the top where the pay is most egregious and the return on investment is the least. I have yet to hear of a single management type being laid off anywhere in California, even when police, fire etc are downsized.
Participant[quote=Aecetia]You get what you pay for. If you want to pay bargain basement wages, you will get marginally qualified employees. The less qualified, the more problems, and the more law suits for the municipalities who are for the most part self-insured.[/quote]
I think the problem is not if these are the very finest people in all creation, but IF we can afford them. If we based our purchases only on buying the finest quality at the highest price, we would all drive Rolls Royce cars and live in massive mansions, eating only the finest cuisine and flying first class.
When it comes to OUR purchase decisions, we are required to do none of the above or be faced with certain financial doom, yet when the decision is being made for us by others we are required to purchase only the very finest possible labor regardless of consequences and are told we get what we pay for…
First, my experience with government workers does not generally support the quality argument, and second, govt pay and benefits must be bought in line with what we CAN afford. As for the retirement problem, retirees must be held accountable for the failure of their investments going bad just like the rest of us did, when our 401k’s tanked.
That said, if we absolutely do need to downsize our government, we should start at the top where the pay is most egregious and the return on investment is the least. I have yet to hear of a single management type being laid off anywhere in California, even when police, fire etc are downsized.
Participant[quote=Aecetia]You get what you pay for. If you want to pay bargain basement wages, you will get marginally qualified employees. The less qualified, the more problems, and the more law suits for the municipalities who are for the most part self-insured.[/quote]
I think the problem is not if these are the very finest people in all creation, but IF we can afford them. If we based our purchases only on buying the finest quality at the highest price, we would all drive Rolls Royce cars and live in massive mansions, eating only the finest cuisine and flying first class.
When it comes to OUR purchase decisions, we are required to do none of the above or be faced with certain financial doom, yet when the decision is being made for us by others we are required to purchase only the very finest possible labor regardless of consequences and are told we get what we pay for…
First, my experience with government workers does not generally support the quality argument, and second, govt pay and benefits must be bought in line with what we CAN afford. As for the retirement problem, retirees must be held accountable for the failure of their investments going bad just like the rest of us did, when our 401k’s tanked.
That said, if we absolutely do need to downsize our government, we should start at the top where the pay is most egregious and the return on investment is the least. I have yet to hear of a single management type being laid off anywhere in California, even when police, fire etc are downsized.
ParticipantNOPE, by contrast to common sense our government has caved to the AARp and Unions (gasp) as is supporting a policy of deflation. Wages are down, home prices are down and the liquid money supply is virtually gone.
The current policy appears to be to allow loans to default then quietly mop up the mess. The equivalent of building a hospital at the bottom of a cliff rather than a fence at the top.
Our demands for 8% returns on investments combined with zero percent inflation have created a pressure cooker economy. Right now the pressure is being relieved through loan defaults. This is FINE until it hits MY pension plan which apparently loaned all this money at high risk to get the 8% I was guaranteed.
ParticipantNOPE, by contrast to common sense our government has caved to the AARp and Unions (gasp) as is supporting a policy of deflation. Wages are down, home prices are down and the liquid money supply is virtually gone.
The current policy appears to be to allow loans to default then quietly mop up the mess. The equivalent of building a hospital at the bottom of a cliff rather than a fence at the top.
Our demands for 8% returns on investments combined with zero percent inflation have created a pressure cooker economy. Right now the pressure is being relieved through loan defaults. This is FINE until it hits MY pension plan which apparently loaned all this money at high risk to get the 8% I was guaranteed.
ParticipantNOPE, by contrast to common sense our government has caved to the AARp and Unions (gasp) as is supporting a policy of deflation. Wages are down, home prices are down and the liquid money supply is virtually gone.
The current policy appears to be to allow loans to default then quietly mop up the mess. The equivalent of building a hospital at the bottom of a cliff rather than a fence at the top.
Our demands for 8% returns on investments combined with zero percent inflation have created a pressure cooker economy. Right now the pressure is being relieved through loan defaults. This is FINE until it hits MY pension plan which apparently loaned all this money at high risk to get the 8% I was guaranteed.
ParticipantNOPE, by contrast to common sense our government has caved to the AARp and Unions (gasp) as is supporting a policy of deflation. Wages are down, home prices are down and the liquid money supply is virtually gone.
The current policy appears to be to allow loans to default then quietly mop up the mess. The equivalent of building a hospital at the bottom of a cliff rather than a fence at the top.
Our demands for 8% returns on investments combined with zero percent inflation have created a pressure cooker economy. Right now the pressure is being relieved through loan defaults. This is FINE until it hits MY pension plan which apparently loaned all this money at high risk to get the 8% I was guaranteed.
-
AuthorPosts
