login
Dear Gov. D-bag of WI: (Page 31)
-
No new posts
|
 2011-03-07 2:13 PM in reply to: #3386659 |
Iron Donkey 38643       , Wisconsin |  Subject: RE: Dear Gov. D-bag of WI:jszat - 2011-03-07 1:24 PM Brock Samson - 2011-03-07 1:05 PM with all due respect, i dont think this is a case of all unions being bad or unnecessary, but rest assured, i have heard of many situations with teachers unions and some that have been there merely biding there time til their pension kicks in vs having the best interests of students in mind, and this comes from others in the system. in some cases such as this, a union can overstep its bounds to where many would feel they are of assistance to the best interests of all vs being nothing more than self promoting and greedy. i get that they are looking out for their own interests but again, in this case, nobody is on the other side of the table.crusevegas - 2011-03-07 1:46 PM TriRSquared - 2011-03-07 10:30 AM Brock Samson - 2011-03-07 1:23 PM When police, public defenders, teachers, magistrates, prosecutors, para-legals get laid off as a result of budget cuts, there must necessarily be a deminuation of services.
...we become more efficient. When companies lay people off they often find that they really did not need some of them when the business turns around again. That's because they become lean and more efficient and do more with the same amount of resources. It is possible. Otherwise if you take your example to the extreme when populations are much much larger we end up with more and more and more public servants and can never go back and reduce this number. I think this is a false assumption.
Well actually based on the way things are currently with the Unions and their stanglehold at the negoating table I think Brock may be correct. With unions having such ineffecient rules, where the resources cannot be used as efficiently as possible. An example would be where a light bulb has burnt out and work has to stop until the proper light bulb changing person can be found to come and change the lightbulb so that work can continue. This if I understand what Gov. Walker is trying to do with the CBA is to have the flexibility for the different agencies to use their resources more efficiently and more cost effectively than what they are able to now due to the Union rules. I think another beneffit when walker gets this bill passed will be that they will be able to keep and reward the good workers and have the ability to disipline the slackers. My comments were specific to Florida, and we don't have unions in Florida, we're a right to work state. The union/inefficiency/efficiency argument I don't think holds much weight in the services I was talking about. Let's say a county prosecutors office has 2800 felony cases a year. They have 10 felony prosecutors. That's 280 cases per year per attorney. If you eliminate a position (which is one of the things that may happen as a result of the Governors budget) the prosecutors are now going to handle 311 cases per year per attorney. (This 311 cases per year is actually not an accurate number because this assumes that cases are resolved in the criminal system in one year. Which isn't the case. Attorney's will have cases hanging on for several years depending on the type of case and charges, therefore in addition to the 311 cases for year 2011 you may also have 10-20 cases hanging on from 2010, and 5 from 2009. This also doesn't include violations of probation which aren't counted as new cases and add about another 30% to a prosecutors office case load yearly.) I don't see the efficiency argument impact or the argument that unions make public sector less efficient. Especially in light of the fact that there are no unions in this area, and it's a matter of simple math. The statement about unions and efficiency is one of the problems I'm having with this debate. The proscription of someones perception of reality to the situation when that perception may not be accurate. What will be a result of fewer resources in this area will be, that because the system can't handle anymore inmates in the jails and prison, you will start having early release and parole. Additionally, individuals that might have been incarcerated previously will not be now. Additionally, more "intervention" services will happen, pre-trial diversion services. These services will be ineffectual because the first thing that will be cut from the budgets will be monies to these services. So more people will go into the pre-trial intervention programs but the programs themselves will have less money, and less staff. Ultimately, the public will become outraged that some burglar got diversion instead of going to prison. as far as folks being ok with services lost due to cuts, i think sometimes thats what it takes to see how much is needed. it is possible get where you have cut into the muscle but that can always be reversed whereas the status quo generally leans towards allowing things to operate at less than optimal levels. personally, i would rather we try and find that sweet spot when times are tough vs being fearful that things will fall apart. the pendulum generally starts to swing the other way and it ends up getting corrected. but speaking to the wisconsin situation, there is definitely fat to be trimmed. Starting with the legislature. |
| 2011-03-07 2:18 PM in reply to: #3357526 |
Veteran 478 Chicago Area | Subject: RE: Dear Gov. D-bag of WI: I think we can agree that there are definitly positions that should not be cut. But on the other side of it there are things that can and should be cut for sure and those cuts can not be made because of the Union rules. I worked in a Union hotel long enough to see people sitting around doing nothing because there job wasn't to sort silverware or to move a chair from one room to the next, we had to bring in other people and pay them to that. |
 2011-03-08 6:59 AM in reply to: #3357526 |
| Subject: ... This user's post has been ignored. |
| 2011-03-08 7:06 AM in reply to: #3357526 |
| Subject: ... This user's post has been ignored. Edited by Fred Doucette 2011-03-08 7:08 AM |
| 2011-03-08 7:48 AM in reply to: #3387734 |
| Master 1529 Living in the past | Subject: RE: Dear Gov. D-bag of WI: Fred Doucette - 2011-03-08 7:06 AM ETA: My prediction? Recall will be successful for the unions in either scarring some republicans to switch their vote or successful in removal of them. More state money will be spent running the recall elections and Wisconsin will continue to have an escalating budget deficit disaster. Truthfully I think the budget deficit will get fixed only when Wisconsin is unable to convince people to buy state bonds/lend them money. Until that point it's going to be a dramatically tough struggle to decrease spending or raise revenue. Too many (most?) are all for 'cuts' except when the cuts directly affect their job/life. If they can't raise money for a bond or can't get a loan, then they simply won't have the dollars to pay for their expenditures. I base this on the EU zone experience where countries like Greece (with far more worrisome deficit issues) only changed their spending habits when they could not convince investors to buy their bonds. I'm not sure when this day will happen for Wisconsin or California or whatever, but it will happen at some point when investors simply don't have the confidence in the state or the federal government to make good on the bond/debt/loan. I would be shocked if the threat of a recall caused any state senate republicans to switch their vote on the budget repair bill. I think these same senators should be far more concerned about being voted out by the same people who put them in if they switched their vote. |
| 2011-03-08 7:58 AM in reply to: #3387734 |
| Champion 6056 Menomonee Falls, WI | Subject: RE: Dear Gov. D-bag of WI: Fred Doucette - 2011-03-08 7:06 AM ETA: My prediction? Recall will be successful for the unions in either scarring some republicans to switch their vote or successful in removal of them. More state money will be spent running the recall elections and Wisconsin will continue to have an escalating budget deficit disaster. Truthfully I think the budget deficit will get fixed only when Wisconsin is unable to convince people to buy state bonds/lend them money. Until that point it's going to be a dramatically tough struggle to decrease spending or raise revenue. Too many (most?) are all for 'cuts' except when the cuts directly affect their job/life. If they can't raise money for a bond or can't get a loan, then they simply won't have the dollars to pay for their expenditures. I base this on the EU zone experience where countries like Greece (with far more worrisome deficit issues) only changed their spending habits when they could not convince investors to buy their bonds. I'm not sure when this day will happen for Wisconsin or California or whatever, but it will happen at some point when investors simply don't have the confidence in the state or the federal government to make good on the bond/debt/loan. Don't know if I agree with your recall prediction (several of the Democratic Senators hail from largely Republican-leaning districts, so they may be more vulnerable), BUT: It clearly shows how bad the entitlement and "everyone needs to give up something but me" mentality has become when we as a State can't even get our own house in order, doesn't it? (And despite a lawful election by the people.) Like the result or not, this has been a clear subversion of the democratic process, worse than with the Healthcare Reform Bill because this maneuver was clearly outside the rules of our legislature. If we go to recalls now, when will they end? Every time we disagree with a politician, we move to a recall? Funny that people complain that politicians are already in full-time campaign more-- wouldn't this push them even more in that direction? The depressing part is that as this financial crisis gets ever worse, politicians are going to be faced with making MORE unpopular decisions, not less. So where does this instant-recall mentality leave us? Are we just going to enter an era of perpetual elections? BTW, I still believe the Republicans will win this fight, even if they have to give up some minor concessions. |
| 2011-03-08 8:07 AM in reply to: #3357526 |
| Iron Donkey 38643 , Wisconsin | Subject: RE: Dear Gov. D-bag of WI: From an educator: " Incidentally, if you figure out the average uw professor pay and divide it out down to how much the state spends on each student per hour, I wonder how that would compare to how much tax payers spend on inmates? Hmmm.... I know that public school teachers make about $2.70 on average per student per hour in our lovely state. I am not an economist, but that is a HUGE bargain for taxpayers. I imagine that holds true for higher ed. too. I don't know about any of you but I pay my babysitters more than that an hour and we are professionals that do more than read stories and play games with our students. Does anyone know when they plan to go after the $1 billion in unpaid taxes in WI? Just curious." |
| 2011-03-08 8:11 AM in reply to: #3387831 |
| Expert 1002 | Subject: RE: Dear Gov. D-bag of WI: scoobysdad - 2011-03-08 7:58 AM "everyone needs to give up something but me" Uh-huh...these are some of the people that will be affected by this bill negatively...
Now can you please show me some examples of the wealthy being including in "everyone" or are they in the "but me" category?
Edited by UWMadTri 2011-03-08 8:12 AM |
| 2011-03-08 8:32 AM in reply to: #3387854 |
| Subject: RE: Dear Gov. D-bag of WI: UWMadTri - 2011-03-08 6:11 AM scoobysdad - 2011-03-08 7:58 AM "everyone needs to give up something but me" Uh-huh...these are some of the people that will be affected by this bill negatively...
Now can you please show me some examples of the wealthy being including in "everyone" or are they in the "but me" category?
Where does most of the tax revenue in WI come from? One of the problems we've created with all of the government social programs in WI and the rest of the country is we have those footing the bill and those with their hands out. Those with their hands out will NEVER want less and as long as they can, will demand more from those paying the bill. While all those you mentioned are truly needy I'm not sure why in our society they should be allowed to forcibly take from their neighbor for their own personal needs? When we get to the point where anyone in this country has more than half of their revenue/income confenscated by the government they are working more for the collective good than themselves and that is WRONG. Edited by crusevegas 2011-03-08 8:34 AM |
| 2011-03-08 8:32 AM in reply to: #3387831 |
| Subject: ... This user's post has been ignored. |
| 2011-03-08 8:57 AM in reply to: #3387847 |
| Extreme Veteran 799 | Subject: RE: Dear Gov. D-bag of WI: 1stTimeTri - 2011-03-08 8:07 AM From an educator: " Incidentally, if you figure out the average uw professor pay and divide it out down to how much the state spends on each student per hour, I wonder how that would compare to how much tax payers spend on inmates? Hmmm.... I know that public school teachers make about $2.70 on average per student per hour in our lovely state. I am not an economist, but that is a HUGE bargain for taxpayers. I imagine that holds true for higher ed. too. I don't know about any of you but I pay my babysitters more than that an hour and we are professionals that do more than read stories and play games with our students. I think teachers should be paid fair market value, just like everyone else. Unions do not allow the market to help good teachers. Once teacher positions are open to the market, teachers that get paid too little will leave and take up other professions. If the schools are not able to hire teachers at a level required by the tax payers, the schools will increase the compensation to attract those higher level teachers. |
| 2011-03-08 9:12 AM in reply to: #3387971 |
| Master 1895 | Subject: RE: Dear Gov. D-bag of WI: jmcconne - 2011-03-08 9:57 AM 1stTimeTri - 2011-03-08 8:07 AM From an educator: " Incidentally, if you figure out the average uw professor pay and divide it out down to how much the state spends on each student per hour, I wonder how that would compare to how much tax payers spend on inmates? Hmmm.... I know that public school teachers make about $2.70 on average per student per hour in our lovely state. I am not an economist, but that is a HUGE bargain for taxpayers. I imagine that holds true for higher ed. too. I don't know about any of you but I pay my babysitters more than that an hour and we are professionals that do more than read stories and play games with our students. I think teachers should be paid fair market value, just like everyone else. Unions do not allow the market to help good teachers. Once teacher positions are open to the market, teachers that get paid too little will leave and take up other professions. If the schools are not able to hire teachers at a level required by the tax payers, the schools will increase the compensation to attract those higher level teachers. Tax payers aren't paying for the JUST the teachers. They're paying for the maintenance staff, the electric bill, the water bill, the Principal/Vice Principals, books, supplies, buses/bus drivers (gas/maintenance for those buses), crossing guards, security, food, cafeteria workers, computers, counselors, etc, etc, etc..... |
| 2011-03-08 9:13 AM in reply to: #3386548 |
| Elite 2733 Venture Industries, | Subject: RE: Dear Gov. D-bag of WI: scoobysdad - 2011-03-07 1:35 PM Brock Samson - 2011-03-07 12:23 PM Here's the thing. You don't have to cut services or raise taxes if the public employee unions would simply contribute a little (less than half what FEDERAL employees contribute) to their healthcare and pensions and eliminate the DEFINED NON-WAGE BENEFITS in the CBA's. That's what Walker is proposing... holding the line of government spending with NO LAYOFFS. All he is asking-- all that the taxpayers are asking-- is for public employees to chip in a little bit to their own health and retirement and give up some their restrictive and onerous rules and benefits mandated in their CBA's. But the unions would rather protect their Old Guard members and throw their younger, less "tenured" union members under the bus and be laid off, then blame the "heartless Republicans". trinnas - 2011-03-07 1:11 PM Brock Samson - 2011-03-07 1:06 PM scoobysdad - 2011-03-07 12:44 PM Brock Samson - 2011-03-07 9:50 AM One of the things to think about when we are talking budget cuts is the degree of services, by that I mean will cutting budgets afford the same level of services as previous, and if not what level of service degredation is the public willing to accept for saving money? At some point budget cuts will require less services. You can't do the same, or more in some circumstances, with less. Interesting questions and I just happened to come across a couple of articles/polls that apply to these questions here in Wisconsin. The first article applies to the impact of Gov. Walker's budget and budget fix (in tandem) on the level of education we can provide around the State. Of course, the teachers, Teacher's Unions and related special interest groups constitute the bulk of protesters screaming bloody murder about what Walker and the "evil" Republicans budget cuts will do to education in the State. However, a Business Director for a major state school district who has actually looked at the numbers believes it's a "wash". http://www.thenorthwestern.com/article/20110306/OSH0105/110306001/-... In addition, Wisconsinites are in favor of having a lower level of services in exchange for lower taxes. http://www.wpri.org/polls/March2011/poll0311.htmlFrom the poll: Taxes: Slightly more than half of respondents (52 percent) said they would rather pay lower taxes and get fewer services than pay higher taxes and get more services while 42 percent said the opposite. In Fla. the Governor has called for cutting the judicial budget by $39 million dollars. This equates to the loss of 574 full time positions across the state. The result of these losses is that hearing officers, para-legals, and magistrate positions will be cut. However, during this time there has been an increase in both civil and criminal cases state wide. Thus, there is a decrease in man power but an increase in work load. Because many of the functions of hearing officers, and magistrates are not going away, these functions and case loads must be passed onto judges. Thus, because of this the Supreme Court has called for the creation of 80 new judicial positions state wide. This is mainly due to the elimination of positions that would have previously done the work that will now, out of necessity, be passed onto the judges. The Governors budget will also call for cutting 137 psoitions from the State Attorney's Offices (prosecutors) In one circuit alone the Governors proposed budget cuts would require the elimination of 19 positions in the Public Defenders Office. I bring up the judicial aspect and the prosecutors and public defenders for two reasons. (1) I'm familiar with the system and (2) it's a public safety issue. So, my question is, as citizens where do you balance financial savings versus reduction of services? From experience I can say that eventually with the continued loss of personnel the efficacy of the system will reak down. Prosecutors case loads will increase, increase in case loads means that prosecutors will be able to spend less time per case. The end result is eventually, something will slip through the system. The ball will get dropped on some case. I have absolutely no problem with this mind set. If people are willing to accept less services then cuts are justified and warranted. The people in this argument that frustrate me are those that demand the exact same services, or in some case, even more services for less money. You mean like what the private sector has had to do for the last few years? Nope not at all. I'm not sure there is any "private sector" equivalent for prosecutors, police, and fire. That's what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the services to the public that public employees engage in...you know like putting out your house fires, arresting the people that committ crimes against you private sector employees, or prosecuting those criminals to ensure you private sector employees remain safe. I'm talking about cutting their budget, which as I've shown is going to necessarily result in diminished services. My question was a simple one, are you willing to give up services to save money. When police, public defenders, teachers, magistrates, prosecutors, para-legals get laid off as a result of budget cuts, there must necessarily be a deminuation of services. I agree with you about Wisconsin. And if we are limiting the debate to just your state of Wisconsin then I agree with the union/collective bargaining issue. However, one of the problems I have with this debate is that the same arguments being asserted in Wisconsin are being utilized in other states. I think this is evidenced by some of the posts on this board. The situation in Wisconsin with the pay/benefits of public employees and collective bargaining/unions is being overlayed as a template for the work situation for public employees in other states. And that's totally unfair. Especially, in my State, which is a right to work State, there are no unions in public employment and there is no collective bargaining. However, these broad stroke arguments to cut pay and benefits from public employees are being made across the nation, with very little attention to the differences in each State's specific situations. That's where the "perception" of reality becomes reality. People believe that public employees make more money than private employees, regardless of what the data actually shows, and they believe that a public employee has their job for life because of union contracts, regardless of the realities. Thus, there is a similar out cry in Florida to support the Wisconsin type cuts, despite the entire lack of unions and collective bargaining in this State. Perception has become reality. |
| 2011-03-08 9:17 AM in reply to: #3387847 |
| Pro 3906 Libertyville, IL | Subject: RE: Dear Gov. D-bag of WI: 1stTimeTri - 2011-03-08 8:07 AM i have seen variations of this and find it very charming that some educators see themselves as babysitters. why are these people getting into education in the first place if that is how they see their role? sure i know there are some turds in each class out there, but take a class of 20 x that 2.70 and you are looking at $54 an hour. That is a guesstimate and you can do the math from there. I am not beefing with that, moreso the mentality that someone thinks their role is babysitter vs educator. From an educator: " Incidentally, if you figure out the average uw professor pay and divide it out down to how much the state spends on each student per hour, I wonder how that would compare to how much tax payers spend on inmates? Hmmm.... I know that public school teachers make about $2.70 on average per student per hour in our lovely state. I am not an economist, but that is a HUGE bargain for taxpayers. I imagine that holds true for higher ed. too. I don't know about any of you but I pay my babysitters more than that an hour and we are professionals that do more than read stories and play games with our students. Does anyone know when they plan to go after the $1 billion in unpaid taxes in WI? Just curious." |
| 2011-03-08 9:20 AM in reply to: #3388017 |
| Iron Donkey 38643 , Wisconsin | Subject: RE: Dear Gov. D-bag of WI: jszat - 2011-03-08 9:17 AM 1stTimeTri - 2011-03-08 8:07 AM i have seen variations of this and find it very charming that some educators see themselves as babysitters. why are these people getting into education in the first place if that is how they see their role? sure i know there are some turds in each class out there, but take a class of 20 x that 2.70 and you are looking at $54 an hour. That is a guesstimate and you can do the math from there. I am not beefing with that, moreso the mentality that someone thinks their role is babysitter vs educator. From an educator: " Incidentally, if you figure out the average uw professor pay and divide it out down to how much the state spends on each student per hour, I wonder how that would compare to how much tax payers spend on inmates? Hmmm.... I know that public school teachers make about $2.70 on average per student per hour in our lovely state. I am not an economist, but that is a HUGE bargain for taxpayers. I imagine that holds true for higher ed. too. I don't know about any of you but I pay my babysitters more than that an hour and we are professionals that do more than read stories and play games with our students. Does anyone know when they plan to go after the $1 billion in unpaid taxes in WI? Just curious." I don't think that the person was stating that they were a babysitter, but that other persons were portraying them as a babysitter. |
| 2011-03-08 9:23 AM in reply to: #3386536 |
| Elite 2733 Venture Industries, | Subject: RE: Dear Gov. D-bag of WI: trinnas - 2011-03-07 1:31 PM Brock Samson - 2011-03-07 1:23 PM trinnas - 2011-03-07 1:11 PM Brock Samson - 2011-03-07 1:06 PM scoobysdad - 2011-03-07 12:44 PM Brock Samson - 2011-03-07 9:50 AM One of the things to think about when we are talking budget cuts is the degree of services, by that I mean will cutting budgets afford the same level of services as previous, and if not what level of service degredation is the public willing to accept for saving money? At some point budget cuts will require less services. You can't do the same, or more in some circumstances, with less. Interesting questions and I just happened to come across a couple of articles/polls that apply to these questions here in Wisconsin. The first article applies to the impact of Gov. Walker's budget and budget fix (in tandem) on the level of education we can provide around the State. Of course, the teachers, Teacher's Unions and related special interest groups constitute the bulk of protesters screaming bloody murder about what Walker and the "evil" Republicans budget cuts will do to education in the State. However, a Business Director for a major state school district who has actually looked at the numbers believes it's a "wash". http://www.thenorthwestern.com/article/20110306/OSH0105/110306001/-... In addition, Wisconsinites are in favor of having a lower level of services in exchange for lower taxes. http://www.wpri.org/polls/March2011/poll0311.htmlFrom the poll: Taxes: Slightly more than half of respondents (52 percent) said they would rather pay lower taxes and get fewer services than pay higher taxes and get more services while 42 percent said the opposite. In Fla. the Governor has called for cutting the judicial budget by $39 million dollars. This equates to the loss of 574 full time positions across the state. The result of these losses is that hearing officers, para-legals, and magistrate positions will be cut. However, during this time there has been an increase in both civil and criminal cases state wide. Thus, there is a decrease in man power but an increase in work load. Because many of the functions of hearing officers, and magistrates are not going away, these functions and case loads must be passed onto judges. Thus, because of this the Supreme Court has called for the creation of 80 new judicial positions state wide. This is mainly due to the elimination of positions that would have previously done the work that will now, out of necessity, be passed onto the judges. The Governors budget will also call for cutting 137 psoitions from the State Attorney's Offices (prosecutors) In one circuit alone the Governors proposed budget cuts would require the elimination of 19 positions in the Public Defenders Office. I bring up the judicial aspect and the prosecutors and public defenders for two reasons. (1) I'm familiar with the system and (2) it's a public safety issue. So, my question is, as citizens where do you balance financial savings versus reduction of services? From experience I can say that eventually with the continued loss of personnel the efficacy of the system will reak down. Prosecutors case loads will increase, increase in case loads means that prosecutors will be able to spend less time per case. The end result is eventually, something will slip through the system. The ball will get dropped on some case. I have absolutely no problem with this mind set. If people are willing to accept less services then cuts are justified and warranted. The people in this argument that frustrate me are those that demand the exact same services, or in some case, even more services for less money. You mean like what the private sector has had to do for the last few years? Nope not at all. I'm not sure there is any "private sector" equivalent for prosecutors, police, and fire. That's what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the services to the public that public employees engage in...you know like putting out your house fires, arresting the people that committ crimes against you private sector employees, or prosecuting those criminals to ensure you private sector employees remain safe. I'm talking about cutting their budget, which as I've shown is going to necessarily result in diminished services. My question was a simple one, are you willing to give up services to save money. When police, public defenders, teachers, magistrates, prosecutors, para-legals get laid off as a result of budget cuts, there must necessarily be a deminuation of services. So because the jobs aren't identical they cannot be done more efficiently? That is a specious argument. What do you think has happened in the private sector. Budgets were cut and staff was expected to do more with less. Why should governments workers be immune to this pressure? You see in the private sector when people get laid off the ones that are left get to work harder to keep their jobs. But I guess that doesn't happen in the public sector where you have a job for life and you will never go out of business. I've kept my comments to Florida and primarly to the justice system because its what I know. I wouldn't be so bold as to speak about another system, state, or job area that I have no experience in. But to address your question directly, your perception of the public sector is distorted and does not reflect reality, at least in Florida where I worked in the public sector. First, prosecutors handle on average about two and a half times as many cases a year as their private practive counter parts. Second, the starting pay for a prosecutor is set by Florida statute and I believe right now it is approximately $42,000/year. Contrast this to the average starting pay for an attorney across the state which is $50,000/year. Third, Florida is a right to work state, and as such there are no unions that effect pay scales in the justice system. Fourth, because Florida is a right to work State there is no collective bargaining in the justice system. Fifth, where I worked pay was determined not based upon mandatory raises based upon time of service, but rather pay was based upon merit. Sixth, my employment contract was an at will employment contract, that meant I was subject to retention of my employment at the will of my employer. This means that non-performing, or under performing individuals could be fired, at any time. Your arguments are exactly what I think is unfair about this entire debate. Assumptions about public sector work are made due to what people hear in the press. And typically this is only the bad, the abuses. This perception then becomes the reality, and this perceived reality becomes the reality across the board. Even in light of facts to the contrary, people still hold to their beliefs, their perception. The situation in Wisconsin is not the situation in Florida, the situation in Florida is not the situation with Federal employees.... You perceive waste or abuses in on geographic area, and assert that is the situation with public employees in another area. Or you see waste or abuses in one particular job category and assert that all public employee job categories must be experienceing the same waste/abuse. Edited by Brock Samson 2011-03-08 9:27 AM |
| 2011-03-08 9:25 AM in reply to: #3388024 |
| Subject: ... This user's post has been ignored. |
| 2011-03-08 9:28 AM in reply to: #3387904 |
| Expert 1002 | Subject: RE: Dear Gov. D-bag of WI: crusevegas - 2011-03-08 8:32 AM About 38% of tax revenue comes from the top 1% and pretty much all of it comes from the top 50% (~98%)Where does most of the tax revenue in WI come from? One of the problems we've created with all of the government social programs in WI and the rest of the country is we have those footing the bill and those with their hands out. Those with their hands out will NEVER want less and as long as they can, will demand more from those paying the bill. This statement is so wrong on so many levels, I can't even figure out where to begin. Essentially, for your statement to be correct, no one that is in the middle class has ever been poor and those that are poor want nothing more than to suckle on the teat of the government to sustain their lavish lifestyles of "wanting more." Cruse, I say this with as much respect as I can muster, but you haven't got a clue. Your views on the poor in this country are so completely absurd that my only guess is that you've lived in Beverly Hills your entire life and never descended from said hills. Google poverty trap. While all those you mentioned are truly needy I'm not sure why in our society they should be allowed to forcibly take from their neighbor for their own personal needs? "Personal needs." Please see everything I just said above. Why did the American taxpayers bailout huge banks, only to see their top executives get enormous bonuses on our bailout money? Why do large corporations get enormous subsidies and grants that come from taxpayer money? If you're going to ask why people's "personal needs" for basic food, shelter and health care are more important than their neighbor's purchasing an extra TV, or a new tri-bike, or a new wing to their house, or how about a whole new house, or maybe a stable full of cars...I think we will never ever ever ever see eye-to-eye. The way that I was raised, if your neighbor can't afford to immunize their children, we probably should not be flaunting our new car in front of them. When we get to the point where anyone in this country has more than half of their revenue/income confenscated by the government they are working more for the collective good than themselves and that is WRONG. Oh yes, let's use that example. Let's use the example of those "top earners" (we'll say for this purpose >5%) who pay >50% of all income tax in this country. God bless those heroes! Their tax rates must be through the roof! Hmm, turns out it's around 35-40%. That's pretty high, isn't it? Well, yeah, but...and I'm giving this a separate line, bolded, italicized, capitalized and underlined so that you read it, In the last year that they reported this, 2002, the Office of Tax Analysis shows that THE TOP 5% ONLY REPORTED ONE THIRD OF THEIR INCOME. Now, that was a while ago and I apologize for being completely unable to find that information, but I did find a Forbes article on this topic: http://www.forbes.com/2008/10/21/taxes-irs-wealth-biz-beltway-cz_jn_1021beltway.html The main reason for the income-related cheating disparity: Higher income folks receive more of their income from sources that are easier to hide, including self-employment earnings; income from rents, partnerships and S corporations; and capital gains. In its 2001 tax gap study, the IRS estimated that individuals underreported business income by 43% overall. Sole proprietors, who report self-employment income on schedule C of their tax returns, underreported their income a stunning 57%. By contrast, the IRS found, 99% of all wages were reported by individual tax filers. The obvious explanation is that workers have no choice--their employers report their earnings to the IRS and withhold taxes on them. They estimated the "tax gap" to be about 1/3 of a trillion in 2001. I don't feel particularly bad for those people when they're effective tax rate is actually around 10-15% So, does that effectively answer your question? Edited by UWMadTri 2011-03-08 9:29 AM |
| 2011-03-08 9:28 AM in reply to: #3388034 |
| Subject: ... This user's post has been ignored. |
| 2011-03-08 9:29 AM in reply to: #3387847 |
| Pro 4675 Wisconsin near the Twin Cities metro | Subject: RE: Dear Gov. D-bag of WI: 1stTimeTri - 2011-03-08 8:07 AM From an educator: " Incidentally, if you figure out the average uw professor pay and divide it out down to how much the state spends on each student per hour, I wonder how that would compare to how much tax payers spend on inmates? Hmmm.... I know that public school teachers make about $2.70 on average per student per hour in our lovely state. I am not an economist, but that is a HUGE bargain for taxpayers. I imagine that holds true for higher ed. too. I don't know about any of you but I pay my babysitters more than that an hour and we are professionals that do more than read stories and play games with our students. Does anyone know when they plan to go after the $1 billion in unpaid taxes in WI? Just curious." This logic is so flawed its not even approaching funny. Dividing pay by the number of students is not what we are paying teachers by the hour. We are paying them in the amount of their total gross paycheck divided by the number of hours they are paid to work. I fully admit there are likely tons of hours of work they do at home (grading paper, etc?) that they don't get paid for...comes with the territory in MANY other professions as well...so let's not get off on that tangent. But to divide their pay by the number of students and try to argue that as their actual hourly wage is disingenous at best. |
| 2011-03-08 9:31 AM in reply to: #3388045 |
| Subject: ... This user's post has been ignored. Edited by Fred Doucette 2011-03-08 9:32 AM |
| 2011-03-08 9:34 AM in reply to: #3388046 |
| Elite 2733 Venture Industries, | Subject: RE: Dear Gov. D-bag of WI: Fred Doucette - 2011-03-08 10:28 AM Brock Samson - 2011-03-08 10:23 AM trinnas - 2011-03-07 1:31 PM Brock Samson - 2011-03-07 1:23 PM trinnas - 2011-03-07 1:11 PM Brock Samson - 2011-03-07 1:06 PM scoobysdad - 2011-03-07 12:44 PM Brock Samson - 2011-03-07 9:50 AM One of the things to think about when we are talking budget cuts is the degree of services, by that I mean will cutting budgets afford the same level of services as previous, and if not what level of service degredation is the public willing to accept for saving money? At some point budget cuts will require less services. You can't do the same, or more in some circumstances, with less. Interesting questions and I just happened to come across a couple of articles/polls that apply to these questions here in Wisconsin. The first article applies to the impact of Gov. Walker's budget and budget fix (in tandem) on the level of education we can provide around the State. Of course, the teachers, Teacher's Unions and related special interest groups constitute the bulk of protesters screaming bloody murder about what Walker and the "evil" Republicans budget cuts will do to education in the State. However, a Business Director for a major state school district who has actually looked at the numbers believes it's a "wash". http://www.thenorthwestern.com/article/20110306/OSH0105/110306001/-... In addition, Wisconsinites are in favor of having a lower level of services in exchange for lower taxes. http://www.wpri.org/polls/March2011/poll0311.htmlFrom the poll: Taxes: Slightly more than half of respondents (52 percent) said they would rather pay lower taxes and get fewer services than pay higher taxes and get more services while 42 percent said the opposite. In Fla. the Governor has called for cutting the judicial budget by $39 million dollars. This equates to the loss of 574 full time positions across the state. The result of these losses is that hearing officers, para-legals, and magistrate positions will be cut. However, during this time there has been an increase in both civil and criminal cases state wide. Thus, there is a decrease in man power but an increase in work load. Because many of the functions of hearing officers, and magistrates are not going away, these functions and case loads must be passed onto judges. Thus, because of this the Supreme Court has called for the creation of 80 new judicial positions state wide. This is mainly due to the elimination of positions that would have previously done the work that will now, out of necessity, be passed onto the judges. The Governors budget will also call for cutting 137 psoitions from the State Attorney's Offices (prosecutors) In one circuit alone the Governors proposed budget cuts would require the elimination of 19 positions in the Public Defenders Office. I bring up the judicial aspect and the prosecutors and public defenders for two reasons. (1) I'm familiar with the system and (2) it's a public safety issue. So, my question is, as citizens where do you balance financial savings versus reduction of services? From experience I can say that eventually with the continued loss of personnel the efficacy of the system will reak down. Prosecutors case loads will increase, increase in case loads means that prosecutors will be able to spend less time per case. The end result is eventually, something will slip through the system. The ball will get dropped on some case. I have absolutely no problem with this mind set. If people are willing to accept less services then cuts are justified and warranted. The people in this argument that frustrate me are those that demand the exact same services, or in some case, even more services for less money. You mean like what the private sector has had to do for the last few years? Nope not at all. I'm not sure there is any "private sector" equivalent for prosecutors, police, and fire. That's what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the services to the public that public employees engage in...you know like putting out your house fires, arresting the people that committ crimes against you private sector employees, or prosecuting those criminals to ensure you private sector employees remain safe. I'm talking about cutting their budget, which as I've shown is going to necessarily result in diminished services. My question was a simple one, are you willing to give up services to save money. When police, public defenders, teachers, magistrates, prosecutors, para-legals get laid off as a result of budget cuts, there must necessarily be a deminuation of services. So because the jobs aren't identical they cannot be done more efficiently? That is a specious argument. What do you think has happened in the private sector. Budgets were cut and staff was expected to do more with less. Why should governments workers be immune to this pressure? You see in the private sector when people get laid off the ones that are left get to work harder to keep their jobs. But I guess that doesn't happen in the public sector where you have a job for life and you will never go out of business. I've kept my comments to Florida and primarly to the justice system because its what I know. I wouldn't be so bold as to speak about another system, state, or job area that I have no experience in. But to address your question directly, your perception of the public sector is distorted and does not reflect reality, at least in Florida where I worked in the public sector. First, prosecutors handle on average about two and a half times as many cases a year as their private practive counter parts. Second, the starting pay for a prosecutor is set by Florida statute and I believe right now it is approximately $42,000/year. Contrast this to the average starting pay for an attorney across the state which is $50,000/year. Third, Florida is a right to work state, and as such there are no unions that effect pay scales in the justice system. Fourth, because Florida is a right to work State there is no collective bargaining in the justice system. Fifth, where I worked pay was determined not based upon mandatory raises based upon time of service, but rather pay was based upon merit. Sixth, my employment contract was an at will employment contract, that meant I was subject to retention of my employment at the will of my employer. This means that non-performing, or under performing individuals could be fired, at any time. Your arguments are exactly what I think is unfair about this entire debate. Assumptions about public sector work are made due to what people hear in the press. And typically this is only the bad, the abuses. This perception then becomes the reality, and this perceived reality becomes the reality across the board. Even in light of facts to the contrary, people still hold to their beliefs, their perception. The situation in Wisconsin is not the situation in Florida, the situation in Florida is not the situation with Federal employees.... Brock, you make a good point. There is no doubt the job you do is VERY important and very difficult. It will be hard to get good people to do the job if the pay drops and the work load increases too much. You are right as well about WI/Fla. ie; people in Florida are going to feel the same about their public employees regardless of fairness or union status. This is wrong. Bottom line is budgets are in crisis in most states. The solutions(s) will be painful. I agree. Cuts have to be made. People will lose their jobs. The frustrating thing is, having been in public sector long enough, I've seen these cuts before. (although nothing to this extent). And what will happen, inevitably, is cuts will be made, and then services will be reduced, and then there will be a public out cry that services were cut. (Example: in our county to trim money from the budget, waste managment employees were cut. This meant that there weren't enough drivers to do all the garbage routes. So instead of garbage pick up twice a week, the county went to pick up only once a week. People lost their minds about this. People were outraged that the county was cutting services.) And this will happen again. (another example, in Florida is the class size Amendment) |
| 2011-03-08 9:36 AM in reply to: #3357526 |
| Subject: ... This user's post has been ignored. Edited by Fred Doucette 2011-03-08 9:37 AM |
| 2011-03-08 9:37 AM in reply to: #3388051 |
| Iron Donkey 38643 , Wisconsin | Subject: RE: Dear Gov. D-bag of WI: Birkierunner - 2011-03-08 9:29 AM 1stTimeTri - 2011-03-08 8:07 AM From an educator: " Incidentally, if you figure out the average uw professor pay and divide it out down to how much the state spends on each student per hour, I wonder how that would compare to how much tax payers spend on inmates? Hmmm.... I know that public school teachers make about $2.70 on average per student per hour in our lovely state. I am not an economist, but that is a HUGE bargain for taxpayers. I imagine that holds true for higher ed. too. I don't know about any of you but I pay my babysitters more than that an hour and we are professionals that do more than read stories and play games with our students. Does anyone know when they plan to go after the $1 billion in unpaid taxes in WI? Just curious." This logic is so flawed its not even approaching funny. Dividing pay by the number of students is not what we are paying teachers by the hour. We are paying them in the amount of their total gross paycheck divided by the number of hours they are paid to work. I fully admit there are likely tons of hours of work they do at home (grading paper, etc?) that they don't get paid for...comes with the territory in MANY other professions as well...so let's not get off on that tangent. But to divide their pay by the number of students and try to argue that as their actual hourly wage is disingenous at best. Don't shoot the messenger, dude. |
| 2011-03-08 9:38 AM in reply to: #3388054 |
| Expert 1002 | Subject: RE: Dear Gov. D-bag of WI: |
|
|
|
|
View profile
Add to friends
Go to training log
Go to race log
Send a message
View album
CONNECT WITH FACEBOOK