Anyone following what's going on in Wisconsin?

[TheSpecialist]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

"Take one in CT. at a lower wage than the status quo"

The wages are NOT lower than the status quo. Can you stop making stuff up?

"pay more for your health insurance, and pension,"

Everyone pays more than they did a few years ago. The WI proposal didn't ask the unionized employees to pay anywhere near as much as what they'd have to pay in the private sector. Do you understand that? Do you get that 13% is less than 30%?

"you say you have the highest property taxes in the nation, what is your house assessed at?"

First of all, I never said I have the highest property taxes in the nation, no idea where you got that. I'm not sure what my "assessed" value is. Market value is around $450,000, and I pay $8200 in property taxes.

"what do you think I pay in property taxes?"

No idea. But you need to consider all taxes, not just property taxes.

Umm all you talk about is property taxes, if you want to talk about all taxes, then spill it. We pay excise taxes on our vehicles that we paid sales tax on.

What is the status quo for a teacher in Connecticut?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by TheSpecialist

Umm all you talk about is property taxes, if you want to talk about all taxes, then spill it. We pay excise taxes on our vehicles that we paid sales tax on.

What is the status quo for a teacher in Connecticut?

Fair question...I looked it up..

In CT, the average teacher salary is $59,304.

In CT, the average salary overall is $51,000.

When you throw in benefits (particularly healthcare and retirement), that difference widens considerably.

Public servents should not make that much more than everyone else. If the benefits are so rich that current tax levels fall far short of fubnding them, then the benefits are not reasonable.

[RIROCKHOUND]

All this talk of taxes...

Interesting, that in Wisconsin the corperate tax cuts recently enacted is in the same order of magnitude as the budget shortfall that predecated these cuts...

just saying....
have a good debate guys, I've wasted enough time on it.

[TheSpecialist]

http://epi.3cdn.net/9e237c56096a8e4904_rkm6b9hn1.pdf

Take a look at chart 2 and 3 anyone with a High School diploma or better working in the public sector makes less money than in the private sector in Wisconsin. This includes all total compensation( Paid Day's off, vacation, benefits etc.)

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by TheSpecialist

http://epi.3cdn.net/9e237c56096a8e4904_rkm6b9hn1.pdf

Take a look at chart 2 and 3 anyone with a High School diploma or better working in the public sector makes less money than in the private sector in Wisconsin. This includes all total compensation( Paid Day's off, vacation, benefits etc.)

Specialist, I can provide 100 studies that show that public employees make more than average private scetor employees. WHo knows what's in those numbers. Here is one study...

Government Workers Make 45 Percent More Than Private Sector Employees | OrthodoxNet.com Blog

So how do we know which to believe? I don't know. I do know that a couple on my streeat are in their mid 40's, both are public teachers, combined salary is about $150,000, with benefits that dwarf anything available in the private sector.

I do know that in CT, cops can retire after 20 years with no age minimum, my cousin retired at 43. His pension reflects his best 3 years including overtime. I know that is completely insane and indefensible.

I also know that just about every city and state in the country has massive unfunded liabilities to public employees, and those liabilities are NOT UNFUNDED because the government forgot to collect the taxes. They are unfunded bacause as high as taxes are, they aren't nearly enough to pay for the benefits demanded. That tells me that the benefits promised were very, very rich.

What do you think?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

All this talk of taxes...

Interesting, that in Wisconsin the corperate tax cuts recently enacted is in the same order of magnitude as the budget shortfall that predecated these cuts...

just saying....
have a good debate guys, I've wasted enough time on it.

Rockhound/Specialist, could one of you fill in the blank to my statement below? To me, this is all that matters in this issue...

Nationally, people pay on average 30% of their health insurance premiums. The governor of Wisconsin is askingh unionized mployees to pay 13% of that cost, which is less than half of the national average. I think that what the governor is asking is unfair because _____________________________.

I'm a very reasonable guy. Please tell us why you think the governor is being unreasonable...

[RIROCKHOUND]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Rockhound/Specialist, could one of you fill in the blank to my statement below? To me, this is all that matters in this issue...

Nationally, people pay on average 30% of their health insurance premiums. The governor of Wisconsin is askingh unionized mployees to pay 13% of that cost, which is less than half of the national average. I think that what the governor is asking is unfair because _____________________________.

I'm a very reasonable guy. Please tell us why you think the governor is being unreasonable...

I think that what the governor is asking is unfair because he has recieved these terms and is moving forward with trying to end the teachers union.

You didn't see me say it was unfair to ask them to pay a share, although IMHO the combination of corp. tax cuts and the sudden increase to the teachers could have been handled better...

If he had proposed that that 13% be stepped up over 3 or 4 years, I would say it was pretty fair. but right now, one of the teachers I saw on the news said it was a sudden, $500/mo decrease in his paycheck.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

All this talk of taxes...

Interesting, that in Wisconsin the corperate tax cuts recently enacted is in the same order of magnitude as the budget shortfall that predecated these cuts...

You didn't see me say it was unfair to ask them to pay a share, although IMHO the combination of corp. tax cuts and the sudden increase to the teachers could have been handled better...

one has no effect on the other as Rachel Maddow and others have been trumpeting

Politifact :Our conclusion: Maddow and the others are wrong.

There is, indeed, a projected deficit that required attention, and Walker and GOP lawmakers did not create it.

More on that second point in a bit.

The confusion, it appears, stems from a section in Lang’s memo that -- read on its own -- does project a $121 million surplus in the state’s general fund as of June 30, 2011.

But the remainder of the routine memo -- consider it the fine print -- outlines $258 million in unpaid bills or expected shortfalls in programs such as Medicaid services for the needy ($174 million alone), the public defender’s office and corrections. Additionally, the state owes Minnesota $58.7 million under a discontinued tax reciprocity deal.

The result, by our math and Lang’s, is the $137 million shortfall.

It would be closer to the $340 million figure if the figure included the $200 million owed to the state’s patient compensation fund, a debt courts have declared resulted from an illegal raid on the fund under former Gov. Jim Doyle.

A court ruling is pending in that matter, so the money might not have to be transferred until next budget year.

To be sure, the projected shortfall is a modest one by the standards of the last decade, which saw a $600 million repair bill one year as the economy and national tax collections slumped.

But ignoring it would have meant turning away eligible Medicaid clients, which was not an option, Lang said.

This same situation has happened in the past, including during the tenure of Doyle, a Democrat. In January 2005, a fiscal bureau memo showed a similar surplus, but lawmakers approved a major fix of a Medicaid shortfall that would have eaten up that projected surplus.

Reporters who cover the Capitol are used to doing the math to come up with the bottom-line surplus or deficit, but average readers are not. (The Journal Sentinel’s Stein addressed these and other budget questions in a follow-up story.)

So why does Lang write his biennial memo in a way that invites confusion?

Lang, a veteran and respected civil servant working in a nonpartisan job, told us he does not want to presume what legislative or other action will be taken to address the potential shortfalls he lists.

Admittedly, the approach this time created the opportunity for a snappy -- and powerful -- political attack.

But it is an inaccurate one.

Meanwhile, what about Maddow’s claim -- also repeated across the liberal blogosphere -- that Walker’s tax-cut bills approved in January are responsible for the $137 million deficit?

Lang’s fiscal bureau report and news accounts addressed that issue as well.

The tax cuts will cost the state a projected $140 million in tax revenue -- but not until the next two-year budget, from July 2011 to June 2013. The cuts are not even in effect yet, so they cannot be part of the current problem.

Here’s the bottom line:

There is fierce debate over the approach Walker took to address the short-term budget deficit. But there should be no debate on whether or not there is a shortfall. While not historically large, the shortfall in the current budget needed to be addressed in some fashion. Walker’s tax cuts will boost the size of the projected deficit in the next budget, but they’re not part of this problem and did not create it.

We rate Maddow’s take False.

[RIROCKHOUND]

Fair enough. I like politifact as a source.

So, for this year, it doesn't matter.

Next year, if and when the Gov proposes another 185mil in teacher/police/fire cuts, then the point might be valid.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

Fair enough. I like politifact as a source.

So, for this year, it doesn't matter.

Next year, if and when the Gov proposes another 185mil in teacher/police/fire cuts, then the point might be valid.

UNBELIEVEABLE

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

Fair enough. I like politifact as a source.

So, for this year, it doesn't matter.

Next year, if and when the Gov proposes another 185mil in teacher/police/fire cuts, then the point might be valid.

But isn't there at least a possibility that those tax cuts will be stimulative? What I mean is, just because corporate tax rates are cut, does not mean that corporate tax dollars collected will decrease. If you cut the corporate tax rate by x%, but corporate profits grow by more than X%, then tax dollars collected will be higher, even though the rate is lower.

Put another way. If I own a Honda dealership, would I be correct in assuming that if I charge $1 zillion for a Honda Accord, I'll be rich? No, because I won't sell any. Because there is something called the "demand" curve, which despite what liberals hold so dear, is not a flat line. Demand moves inversely with price. I don't think liberals understand this, which is why they see no ramifications with perpetual tax increases. The problem with that is, like the guy charging $1 zillion for an Accord, eventually, you stifle demand...

Walker cuts the corporate tax rate, maybe some corporations move to Wisconsin from states with higher tax rates...