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.
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.
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)?
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.
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.
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.
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.)
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!!!
“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.”
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.