Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
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)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 02-25-2011, 04:03 PM
 
Location: the very edge of the continent
88,570 posts, read 44,294,084 times
Reputation: 13521

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by HistorianDude View Post
All taxpayers only pay a fraction of their salary in taxes.
Yes, it's a fraction - only because it's not 100%.

Property taxes, from which public employees are frequently paid, can be quite high. A home valued at $200,000 generally triggers a property tax bill of slightly more than $4,000 per year in WI.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-25-2011, 04:05 PM
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
90,316 posts, read 120,219,944 times
Reputation: 35920
Quote:
Originally Posted by SourD View Post
a school system employee is NOT paying that much for HC! Have you NOT been paying attention the past year or so?
You need to look at the link I provided. School system employees in my district are paying that much, right now, Feb. 25, 2011.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-25-2011, 04:21 PM
 
Location: Suburbia
8,802 posts, read 15,239,523 times
Reputation: 4497
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
It's less than I'm paying. It's also less than most other non-union families are paying, so, yes, that benefit is lavish.

1.5 years ago, families paid an average of $13,375 for health insurance. That's MORE than what you state the school system employee is paying now, and premiums have gone up since then.
Average family health insurance policy: $13,375, up 5% - USATODAY.com
Ok. So it is less than you are paying. I don't doubt it. I'm sure you could find a lot of people who have something "better" than you. I'd hardly say that it is a lavish benefit, but whatever... But do you see my point that not all school employees, as many would believe, are paying zilch towards their benefits and are actually paying what I consider to be substantial amounts? In the Bedford County link I provided, an employee pays $942/mo or $9420/year for a health care plan. So what would be an acceptable amount? Your premium plus $1? In your area, what do you feel would be an acceptable base salary for a starting teacher? Then, tell me how much that teacher should contribute towards benefits.

Humor me: What is your job position? Years of service? Salary? Monthly healthcare premium? Any benefits such as 401k? How about the cost of an average house in your neighborhood (ballpark it)?

Last edited by tgbwc; 02-25-2011 at 04:29 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-25-2011, 04:27 PM
 
Location: Suburbia
8,802 posts, read 15,239,523 times
Reputation: 4497
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana View Post
You need to look at the link I provided. School system employees in my district are paying that much, right now, Feb. 25, 2011.
Click on and actually look at a link? Now Katiana, don't expect them to go too far out of their way. They might see information that doesn't fit their argument and that wouldn't be good.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-25-2011, 04:30 PM
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
90,316 posts, read 120,219,944 times
Reputation: 35920
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
It's less than I'm paying. It's also less than most other non-union families are paying, so, yes, that benefit is lavish.

1.5 years ago, families paid an average of $13,375 for health insurance. That's MORE than what you state the school system employee is paying now, and premiums have gone up since then.
Average family health insurance policy: $13,375, up 5% - USATODAY.com
Now you certainly know that that is a distortion of the facts. The average total cost may by $13K, but in most cases (something like 85% I believe), part of that cost is borne by the employer. Many employees in large businesses pay nothing out of their own pockets for their health care, and a lot pay very little. From your own link:

The average employee with family coverage paid 26% of the premium, the study found, but 41% of companies said they are "very likely" or "somewhat likely" to increase the amount employees pay for coverage in the next year.

So again, this mythical "average" employee paid $3477.50 of that $13,375, or $290/mo.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-25-2011, 05:19 PM
 
Location: Littleton, CO
20,893 posts, read 16,015,174 times
Reputation: 3954
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
Yes, it's a fraction - only because it's not 100%.

Property taxes, from which public employees are frequently paid, can be quite high. A home valued at $200,000 generally triggers a property tax bill of slightly more than $4,000 per year in WI.
And that's true for the public employees too.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-26-2011, 08:56 AM
 
Location: Suburbia
8,802 posts, read 15,239,523 times
Reputation: 4497
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana View Post
You need to look at the link I provided. School system employees in my district are paying that much, right now, Feb. 25, 2011.

C'mon InformedConsent, SourD, others....we're awaiting your thoughts.

http://www.bedford.k12.va.us/personn...2011_rates.pdf

http://bvsd.org/benefits/Documents/2...ee%20Rates.pdf
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-26-2011, 09:20 AM
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
90,316 posts, read 120,219,944 times
Reputation: 35920
Quote:
Originally Posted by BentBow View Post
The ability to show a profit or a loss.
It would be nice if some conservatives would get over this profit-making mentality when thinking about schools. Public education is a service. It operates on a different set of rules. I have nothing against profits; I work for a for-profit company myself, but education is not the same thing, except in a few cases. (BTW, I was just reading an article about the U of Phoenix, that infamous for-profit school, which said that they are mostly preparing students for health careers that are difficult to find employment in. They also have way higher student loan defaults than the non-profit schools.)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-26-2011, 09:59 AM
 
Location: the very edge of the continent
88,570 posts, read 44,294,084 times
Reputation: 13521
Quote:
Originally Posted by tgbwc View Post
Ok. So it is less than you are paying. I don't doubt it. I'm sure you could find a lot of people who have something "better" than you. I'd hardly say that it is a lavish benefit, but whatever...
You're completely missing the point to save your own butt. The taxpayers cannot afford to pay for others to get better salaries and benefits than they have. The money just isn't there. Need I remind you of the Gallup poll that found that 71% of Americans DO NOT want to pay more of any kind of tax?

Think about that... 71%

How many Dem politicians are stupid enough to go against the 71% of Americans who do not want to pay any more in any kind of tax to pay for the public employee unions' greedy demands? How many Dem politicians are willing to fall on their swords for this?

They know damn well they'll take the blame for taxes increasing unless they stop reaming the taxpayers for the unions' greedy demands. The whole country is watching... 71% say NO MORE!!!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-26-2011, 10:05 AM
 
Location: Round Rock, Texas
12,866 posts, read 13,179,618 times
Reputation: 13815
F.D.R. Warned Us About Public Sector Unions - Room for Debate - NYTimes.com
Quote:
“It is impossible to bargain collectively with the government.”
That wasn’t Newt Gingrich, or Ron Paul, or Ronald Reagan talking. That was George Meany -- the former president of the A.F.L.-C.I.O -- in 1955. Government unions are unremarkable today, but the labor movement once thought the idea absurd.
Public sector unions insist on laws that serve their interests -- at the expense of the common good. .The founders of the labor movement viewed unions as a vehicle to get workers more of the profits they help create. Government workers, however, don’t generate profits. They merely negotiate for more tax money. When government unions strike, they strike against taxpayers. F.D.R. considered this “unthinkable and intolerable.”
Reply With Quote 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.


Reply
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

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - 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, 36, 37 - Top