U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
 
Old 03-16-2011, 08:20 PM
 
1,337 posts, read 1,170,904 times
Reputation: 656

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tightwad View Post
Public sector workers are employed by the government, but they are private citizens.

Once a private citizen earns a dollar from the sweat of his or her brow, it no longer belongs to his or her employer. In the case of public workers, it is no longer a “taxpayer dollar”; it is a dollar held privately by an American citizen.
Argument assumes the prima facie legitimacy of government to begin with for the argument to have some degree of traction. For those who may not accept that claim a priori, the chain of logic does not hold, since the taking is viewed as an illegitimate expropriation at the outset (and hence, whoever becomes the 'down-wind' possessor of those funds, even if they think they earned it in some way, are still in receipt of expropriated property that must be returned to its original owner).

Even for those who do accept the legitimacy of government, the chain of logic still does not hold as a universal truth without the inclusion of a very specific qualifier [side-constraint] (which you may have left unstated, assuming it was your implicit meaning...but the qualifier should be stated, nonetheless, for sake of clarity). The qualifier being that the specific taking in question has to comport with being legitimate under the charter of that governance. If it's not, the chain of logic is then broken by the failure to meet the necessary side-constraint, and the argument collapses when it fails to meet all the prongs of the litmus test.


And of course, even the aforementioned makes implicit assumption(s) not stated, but a discussion of that is somewhat beyond the context of what is discussed here. Some people are of an entirely different mind on what constitutes legitimate possession, but those kinds of person are not likely found on this particular form and so we can perhaps overlook those permutations.

Last edited by FreedomThroughAnarchism; 03-16-2011 at 08:53 PM..
Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-16-2011, 08:22 PM
 
Location: Exeter, NH
5,204 posts, read 4,211,400 times
Reputation: 5454
The problem with public sector unions has nothing to do with membership being voluntary or not.

The problem is that these unions are negotiating with people on the same side: other public employees, like Town Managers and the like. And whatever great benefits are granted by the Town Manager in negotiations will be reflected his only salary and benefits--since he, naturally, must be compensated above the average fireman and cop.

The only people not represented in the negotiation are the taxpayers who must pay whatever the negotiators decide--and this amount has exploded so much with more and more public employees retiring in their 40s with pensions exceeding what successful managers with 30 years of experience can earn. States and localities are now facing bankruptcy and massive cuts in services (combined with skyrocketing taxes) as so many public retirees are added to the non-productive but highly-paid rolls.

NH right now is forcing retirees out of their paid-for homes, as taxes exceed $10,000 a year on an average house. At some point there will no longer be enough wealthy people to buy their homes, and then we will see property taxes wipe whatever retirees have managed to save.

Is this new aristocracy of lottery-winners really worth taxing everyone out of their homes? Flint Michigan shows exactly what becomes of towns/cities when local governments force large numbers of people abandon their homes because their taxes are insane. Add to the ill effects the banks and Fannie Mae (supported by federal taxpayers) bearing significant losses, and the housing market condemned to another 50 years of collapse.

With taxes at insane levels--and rising 10% every 6 months in some towns like mine--even a free house here would be financially disastrous to take title to. I doubt people will want to move to towns where a large number of the homes are falling into disrepair because the town can't get anyone to take them and pay the crazy annual taxes, and local officials will then raise taxes even more on the remaining property owners--since public sector pensions, unlike private sector pensions that can be easily and legally voided--MUST be paid, forever.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-16-2011, 08:37 PM
 
Location: Southcentral Kansas
44,924 posts, read 27,059,353 times
Reputation: 4269
Quote:
Originally Posted by lifelongMOgal View Post
Andrew Klaven does such a good job of explaining too many things but this time he topped even himself. Do it some more, girl.

Last edited by roysoldboy; 03-16-2011 at 09:23 PM..
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-16-2011, 08:39 PM
 
48,519 posts, read 81,130,238 times
Reputation: 17979
Wit the massive debt public employees just ahev to get sue to there not being as much money after apyment to empoloy people. Services will be cut alogn with employees for deacdes to come. Taxpayers can't afford ti nor can governamnt in the foressable future.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-16-2011, 10:13 PM
 
Location: Miami, Florida
391 posts, read 440,756 times
Reputation: 250
Quote:
Originally Posted by NHartphotog View Post
It doesn't matter that the actual union is not financed by taxpayers. The problem is that the Public Union has negotiated wages and benefits and working hours far better than those of the private sector workers whose taxes pay that compensation.

Why has this happened? Because the very idea of public unions is flawed. Unions arose so that workers could negotiate with business owners for a share of the business revenues. The total was limited by what the business brought in, minus expenses, and the business owner and union fought over the leftovers for an equitable distribution between capitalist/entrepreneur and worker (this has been skewed a bit with the Corporation and the Robber-Baron CEO, but that's the idea).

In a Public Union, however, the Government has taxing authority, and both the Public Union and those they are negotiating against, Government Administrators, are ON THE SAME SIDE. Consequently, the Government Officials are more than happy to award generous wages, benefits, working hours and perks, because their own salaries and benefits will reflect how well lower-level government workers are compensated. NOBODY in the negotiation represent the taxpayer--who must pay the bill, no matter how generous, and no matter how many local taxpayers are forced out of their paid-for homes by obscene property taxes.

There should never have been public unions; they are not needed and should be illlegal, as they are in specific cases. Now that the inevitable results have played out in the real world, resulting in debts for the taxpayer that simply exceed what they are able to pay and retain the homes they paid for already, we must deal with the problem.

Public workers should NOT be compensated at levels far beyond the private sector workers who pay their salaries. Those who would argue that public workers pay taxes too, forget that they are being given so much excess money that they still are far ahead of the game after accounting for the taxes.

What excess money to private workers get to pay the bankrupting taxes caused by over-generous compensation of those who often work only 20 or 25 years to get full retirement?
Really, property taxes are the reason people are loosing thier houses? I know you said paid-for, but, really? And all the excess money? I... I... words escape me...
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-16-2011, 10:24 PM
 
Location: Miami, Florida
391 posts, read 440,756 times
Reputation: 250
OK I live in a right to work state. We don't have to join the union, but, the union negociates our contract for eveyone. So, how much power do they really have. Less than half the teachers join the union and STILL the government wants to try and dissolve the union. I also would like to add that we are loosing funding hand over fist.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-17-2011, 12:09 AM
 
920 posts, read 1,471,898 times
Reputation: 955
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
It's forced in WI. Public employee union dues are taken out of government (school district, etc.) paychecks. Public employees have no choice.
That's nonsense. Votes were taken and the numbers came out for a union. If they want to, they can take another vote if the union isn't representing them well. It's been done with locals and nationals in that they have been at odds periodically.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-17-2011, 12:16 AM
 
920 posts, read 1,471,898 times
Reputation: 955
Quote:
Originally Posted by NHartphotog View Post
The problem with public sector unions has nothing to do with membership being voluntary or not.

The problem is that these unions are negotiating with people on the same side: other public employees, like Town Managers and the like. And whatever great benefits are granted by the Town Manager in negotiations will be reflected his only salary and benefits--since he, naturally, must be compensated above the average fireman and cop.

The only people not represented in the negotiation are the taxpayers who must pay whatever the negotiators decide--and this amount has exploded so much with more and more public employees retiring in their 40s with pensions exceeding what successful managers with 30 years of experience can earn. States and localities are now facing bankruptcy and massive cuts in services (combined with skyrocketing taxes) as so many public retirees are added to the non-productive but highly-paid rolls.

NH right now is forcing retirees out of their paid-for homes, as taxes exceed $10,000 a year on an average house. At some point there will no longer be enough wealthy people to buy their homes, and then we will see property taxes wipe whatever retirees have managed to save.

Is this new aristocracy of lottery-winners really worth taxing everyone out of their homes? Flint Michigan shows exactly what becomes of towns/cities when local governments force large numbers of people abandon their homes because their taxes are insane. Add to the ill effects the banks and Fannie Mae (supported by federal taxpayers) bearing significant losses, and the housing market condemned to another 50 years of collapse.

With taxes at insane levels--and rising 10% every 6 months in some towns like mine--even a free house here would be financially disastrous to take title to. I doubt people will want to move to towns where a large number of the homes are falling into disrepair because the town can't get anyone to take them and pay the crazy annual taxes, and local officials will then raise taxes even more on the remaining property owners--since public sector pensions, unlike private sector pensions that can be easily and legally voided--MUST be paid, forever.
Let me see if I get this right. Public unions lobbying for member benefits is taking money from taxpayers which works against their benefit. But if a large developer/contractor/supplier, who gets paid by the state to build public works, uses that money to finance political campaigns, or as in my state of Oregon, actually sat on a public works commission, which decides the merit of public outlays which will directly benefit him/them, all that we ignore because that's just the way business works. By your logic, no public work should ever be built by a private contractor who finances ANY political campaign. They should NEVER be allowed to sit on any body which makes any decisions which would directly benefit their pocketbook.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-17-2011, 12:20 AM
 
Location: Unperson Everyman Land
29,007 posts, read 19,031,716 times
Reputation: 7773
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil306 View Post
No, you are a liar. I live in California and belong to a "union." I DO NOT have too. I can opt out, if I chose. Therefore, you BS is just that; BS. You are wrond.

In Michigan you have no choice about joining a union. If you go to work at a union shop, you have to join the union.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-17-2011, 01:48 AM
 
Location: Atlanta metro
5,645 posts, read 3,976,803 times
Reputation: 982
Quote:
Originally Posted by ibarrio View Post
Membership was/is not forced for the Teacher's Union in California. I know this to be fact! How about your experience? Or are you going by hearsay? Did you read it in an email forward? See it on the interwebs? Or do you know from real life experience?
Have you not been following what is going on in WI right now and for the last month? Here, it is mandatory for them to be a member of the union and pay dues (via direct payroll withdrawal) to the unions. The unions then give the money to supporting activities by Democrat candidates.

OP, see above, and that is my response to you as well. Your article is biased and not factual.
Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


 
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:
Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top