• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The Wisconsin Lie Exposed – Taxpayers Actually Contribute Nothing To Public Employee

Re: The Wisconsin Lie Exposed – Taxpayers Actually Contribute Nothing To Public Emplo

Pulitzer Prize winning tax reporter, David Cay Johnston, has written a brilliant piece for tax.com exposing the truth about who really pays for the pension and benefits for public employees in Wisconsin.

Gov. Scott Walker says he wants state workers covered by collective bargaining agreements to “contribute more” to their pension and health insurance plans. Accepting Gov. Walker’ s assertions as fact, and failing to check, creates the impression that somehow the workers are getting something extra, a gift from taxpayers. They are not. Out of every dollar that funds Wisconsin’ s pension and health insurance plans for state workers, 100 cents comes from the state workers.

Via tax.com

How can this be possible?

Full Story

Which is more pathetic- the lie of the story or the zombie audience the lying author writes for?
 
Re: The Wisconsin Lie Exposed – Taxpayers Actually Contribute Nothing To Public Emplo

Pulitzer Prize winning tax reporter, David Cay Johnston, has written a brilliant piece for tax.com exposing the truth about who really pays for the pension and benefits for public employees in Wisconsin.

Gov. Scott Walker says he wants state workers covered by collective bargaining agreements to “contribute more” to their pension and health insurance plans. Accepting Gov. Walker’ s assertions as fact, and failing to check, creates the impression that somehow the workers are getting something extra, a gift from taxpayers. They are not. Out of every dollar that funds Wisconsin’ s pension and health insurance plans for state workers, 100 cents comes from the state workers.

Via tax.com

How can this be possible?

Full Story

I don't dispute anything that is written in the Tax.com piece. While the author may be 'technically' correct he is not shooting straight when it comes to who contributes.

The author states that the employee contributes 100% of his retirement, while true, nothing comes out of the teachers paychecks to fund their own retirement! (I think the author left this out on purpose) Listen the teacher's union negotiated a sweetheart deal; the state would fund the 100% of the teachers retirement benefits in the form of DEFERRED COMPENSATION! Key words being deferred compensation. Since the teachers believe this 'deferred compensation' to be part of their salary--fine, i'll bite. However, maybe the author would like to write a second article regarding the average Wisconsin teacher salary being approximately $100,000 per year (including deferred compensation of course).

Somehow, I don't think $100,000 a year salaries for teachers would sit very well with the Wisconsin voter--do you?
 
Re: The Wisconsin Lie Exposed – Taxpayers Actually Contribute Nothing To Public Emplo

Let the parroting begin....



........after that 100 cents is stolen from the taxpayers.

When you make statements without proof or links to evidence, you come off kind of trollish.
 
Re: The Wisconsin Lie Exposed – Taxpayers Actually Contribute Nothing To Public Emplo

Wisconsin public employees currently are only paying 6% toward their healthcare premiums. Governor Walkers proposal is implementing that they pay 12%, which is STILL nearly half the national average. To being with they're over compensated at it is, and average Wisconsin school teachers full compensation is $78,000 for a 180 day school year, which averages out to $433 dollars a day.

Why is that overcompensation?

These people need to realize that public unions have guaranteed them money that they simply do not have, and that although they are paid for by the government, they are also intact to cuts in the budget. A major contribution to state debts nation wide is public pensions, you would not believe the percentage in Illinois, somewhere around 30-35% :shock:

Well, they've have the money if they stop giving tax breaks to corporations. -- Yes, the part of the story Foxies don't get.
 
Re: The Wisconsin Lie Exposed – Taxpayers Actually Contribute Nothing To Public Emplo

Well, they've have the money if they stop giving tax breaks to corporations. -- Yes, the part of the story Foxies don't get.

What country do you live in? You do realize that America does have the highest corporate tax rates in the WORLD!!!!!!!!!!!!!! So if someone wants to give a tax break to our employers err corporations than so the hell what? If this 'tax break' costs the teachers in Wisconsin a reduction from $100,000 to $78,000 to $50,000 (including deferred compensation) then I am all for it and the private sector jobs that follow. You go on ahead and remain simplistic in your view on how the real world works, while I and those you think like me, are busy creating jobs and making money.
 
Re: The Wisconsin Lie Exposed – Taxpayers Actually Contribute Nothing To Public Emplo

What country do you live in? You do realize that America does have the highest corporate tax rates in the WORLD!!!!!!!!!!!!!! So if someone wants to give a tax break to our employers err corporations than so the hell what? If this 'tax break' costs the teachers in Wisconsin a reduction from $100,000 to $78,000 to $50,000 (including deferred compensation) then I am all for it and the private sector jobs that follow. You go on ahead and remain simplistic in your view on how the real world works, while I and those you think like me, are busy creating jobs and making money.

...and what country do you live in? Here, in the United States, the tax rates on corporations appear quite high, but no one takes them seriously, as most large corporations do not pay taxes. In fact, the corporate contribution to overall receipts has been steadily dropping for years, replaced by payroll taxes. Payroll taxes are levied disproportionately on the lowest wage earns (the five figure crowd)....




You can go ahead and be naive and simplistic about how the real world works while a very damaging trend of bifrucating the US economy into some type of third world country that has rich and poor and nothing in between weakens the foundation of this country.
 
Re: The Wisconsin Lie Exposed – Taxpayers Actually Contribute Nothing To Public Emplo

What country do you live in? You do realize that America does have the highest corporate tax rates in the WORLD!!!!!!!!!!!!!! So if someone wants to give a tax break to our employers err corporations than so the hell what? If this 'tax break' costs the teachers in Wisconsin a reduction from $100,000 to $78,000 to $50,000 (including deferred compensation) then I am all for it and the private sector jobs that follow. You go on ahead and remain simplistic in your view on how the real world works, while I and those you think like me, are busy creating jobs and making money.

Do you have a link for any of that info? You can't just go around throwing miscellaneous stats around like they are fact. Here are some actual stats for you (not that you'll read them):

U.S. Uncut, "Progressive Tea Party," Demands Corporations Pay Their Taxes - Blogcritics Politics
The embryonic wave of activism is in part a response to the Tea Party's focus on budget cutting, which has led to proposals for drastic cuts in U.S. states and nationally, cuts which are seen as primarily impacting working people. The massive protests in the Midwest against moves to eliminate collective bargaining have been one response.image of US Uncut protest

U.S. Uncut wants to shift the budget focus to the billions of corporate taxes that go uncollected because of various deductions. According to a Forbes list, Bank of America, for example, with "a provision for credit losses of $49 billion, probably won't be paying taxes for a long time."

Companies like ExxonMobil and Chevron pay little or no U.S. income tax despite many billions of dollars in domestic sales. That's in contrast to Wal-Mart, which paid nearly a third of its profit in taxes in 2009, the kind of percentage a working family would be familiar with.

What The Top U.S. Companies Pay In Taxes - Forbes.com
Corporations are paying lower amounts of their profits in taxes now than in the past," says Douglas Shackelford, who teaches tax law at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. "Other countries have been lowering their rates, but not the U.S."
Go Tar Heels!

And Exxon says they don't need to disclose how much tax they pay to us:
Though Exxon's financial statement's don't show any net income tax liability owed to Uncle Sam, a company spokesman insists that once its final tax bill is figured, Exxon will owe a "substantial 2009 tax liability." How substantial? "That's not something we're required to disclose, nor do we."

And how about General Electric:
The most egregious example is General Electric ( GE - news - people ). Last year the conglomerate generated $10.3 billion in pretax income, but ended up owing nothing to Uncle Sam. In fact, it recorded a tax benefit of $1.1 billion. Avoiding taxes is nothing new for General Electric. In 2008 its effective tax rate was 5.3%; in 2007 it was 15%. The marginal U.S. corporate rate is 35%.

So, what world do you live in, sir?
 
Re: The Wisconsin Lie Exposed – Taxpayers Actually Contribute Nothing To Public Emplo

...and what country do you live in? Here, in the United States, the tax rates on corporations appear quite high, but no one takes them seriously, as most large corporations do not pay taxes. In fact, the corporate contribution to overall receipts has been steadily dropping for years, replaced by payroll taxes. Payroll taxes are levied disproportionately on the lowest wage earns (the five figure crowd)....

You can go ahead and be naive and simplistic about how the real world works while a very damaging trend of bifrucating the US economy into some type of third world country that has rich and poor and nothing in between weakens the foundation of this country.

Well, Upside, your post made me do some homework --

2008 Federal Revenue

12% Corporate Taxes
45% Individual Income Tax
36% Payroll Taxes (this is NOT income tax withholding but is SS, Medicare, RR Retirement, Fed Worker Pensions, Unemp Ins.)
3% Excise Taxes
4% Other

I must admit I'm very surprised that corporate taxes represent only 12% of the Fed's revenue. I don't know how to put it into context, though. I think that most smaller corporations make sure they don't show a profit in their corporations by taking all of the income out as personal salaries. But still, thinking about the Fortune 500 companies, I would have expected them to pay more than 12%. Huh.
 
Re: The Wisconsin Lie Exposed – Taxpayers Actually Contribute Nothing To Public Emplo

...and what country do you live in? Here, in the United States, the tax rates on corporations appear quite high, but no one takes them seriously, as most large corporations do not pay taxes. In fact, the corporate contribution to overall receipts has been steadily dropping for years, replaced by payroll taxes. Payroll taxes are levied disproportionately on the lowest wage earns (the five figure crowd)....




You can go ahead and be naive and simplistic about how the real world works while a very damaging trend of bifrucating the US economy into some type of third world country that has rich and poor and nothing in between weakens the foundation of this country.

I intended this graph to go with my post:

Numbers_Figure-2_What-are-federal-govt-sources-of-revenue_1.jpg
 
Last edited:
Re: The Wisconsin Lie Exposed – Taxpayers Actually Contribute Nothing To Public Emplo

What country do you live in? You do realize that America does have the highest corporate tax rates in the WORLD!!!!!!!!!!!!!! So if someone wants to give a tax break to our employers err corporations than so the hell what? If this 'tax break' costs the teachers in Wisconsin a reduction from $100,000 to $78,000 to $50,000 (including deferred compensation) then I am all for it and the private sector jobs that follow. You go on ahead and remain simplistic in your view on how the real world works, while I and those you think like me, are busy creating jobs and making money.
and i thought japan had the highest corporate tax rate. i am certain you will provide a cite to prove your position
sarcasm-2.gif


but what does the tax rate really mean if the tax code provides ample loopholes to exclude revenues from becoming taxable income
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d08957.pdf
such that over half of corporations pay no income tax

or let's examine what segment of society is actually carrying the load (and which is being relieved of its burden to support government spending)
shareofrevenuebysourceg.png
[/URL] Uploaded with ImageShack.us[/IMG]
 
Re: The Wisconsin Lie Exposed – Taxpayers Actually Contribute Nothing To Public Emplo

...and what country do you live in? Here, in the United States, the tax rates on corporations appear quite high, but no one takes them seriously, as most large corporations do not pay taxes. In fact, the corporate contribution to overall receipts has been steadily dropping for years, replaced by payroll taxes. Payroll taxes are levied disproportionately on the lowest wage earns (the five figure crowd)....




You can go ahead and be naive and simplistic about how the real world works while a very damaging trend of bifrucating the US economy into some type of third world country that has rich and poor and nothing in between weakens the foundation of this country.

Why do ya'll keep saying that? The only way for a corporation not to pay any taxes it to not report any profit.
 
Re: The Wisconsin Lie Exposed – Taxpayers Actually Contribute Nothing To Public Emplo

Well, Upside, your post made me do some homework --

2008 Federal Revenue

12% Corporate Taxes
45% Individual Income Tax
36% Payroll Taxes (this is NOT income tax withholding but is SS, Medicare, RR Retirement, Fed Worker Pensions, Unemp Ins.)
3% Excise Taxes
4% Other

I must admit I'm very surprised that corporate taxes represent only 12% of the Fed's revenue. I don't know how to put it into context, though. I think that most smaller corporations make sure they don't show a profit in their corporations by taking all of the income out as personal salaries. But still, thinking about the Fortune 500 companies, I would have expected them to pay more than 12%. Huh.

What percentage of this figure are matching funds, paid by employers?
 
Re: The Wisconsin Lie Exposed – Taxpayers Actually Contribute Nothing To Public Emplo

Let the parroting begin....



........after that 100 cents is stolen from the taxpayers.
.
.
.
.
.
After the workers labor is stolen by the state?
Or are these people being paid to do work?
 
Re: The Wisconsin Lie Exposed – Taxpayers Actually Contribute Nothing To Public Emplo

What percentage of this figure are matching funds, paid by employers?

I would assume that 18% (half of the 36% of payroll taxes) or thereabouts is paid by employers. If you're saying, then, that business pays 12% plus 18%, or 30%, I can see your point. But when people are talking about corporations paying taxes, I think they are generally talking about them paying income tax on their profits -- which is what that 12% represents.
 
Re: The Wisconsin Lie Exposed – Taxpayers Actually Contribute Nothing To Public Emplo

Mr. Johnston's argument is a stretch for several reasons.

1. The compensation (deferred or not) is made possible from the state government's income. That income is primarily comprised of tax revenue.
2. The present value portion of compensation that is "deferred" falls far short of what would be required to provide the defined benefits promised later.
3. Assumed plan returns on the order of 8.5% annually are wildly inflated and, because there is a chronic gap between historic market returns and the returns required to make the promised defined benefit pension payments possible, that financing gap would need to be closed. Unless workers saw the present value of that gap deducted from their paychecks, taxpayers would, in fact, be expected to pick up the tab.
 
Re: The Wisconsin Lie Exposed – Taxpayers Actually Contribute Nothing To Public Emplo

I would assume that 18% (half of the 36% of payroll taxes) or thereabouts is paid by employers. If you're saying, then, that business pays 12% plus 18%, or 30%, I can see your point. But when people are talking about corporations paying taxes, I think they are generally talking about them paying income tax on their profits -- which is what that 12% represents.

Which means they are only telling half the story.

Also, what percentage of that 45% of pesonal income taxes is made up of s-corp filings?

I think once we shake out the real corporate tax numbers, we'll find out that corporations pay a helluva lot more than our Leftist friends would have us believe.
 
Re: The Wisconsin Lie Exposed – Taxpayers Actually Contribute Nothing To Public Emplo

Mr. Johnston's argument is a stretch for several reasons.

1. The compensation (deferred or not) is made possible from the state government's income. That income is primarily comprised of tax revenue.
and that tax revenue is then used to pay the state's obligations
when i pay my bills with my income i do not insist that i am paying with my employer's resources
and it is disingenuous to then pretend that taxes paid are being mis-allocated because they pay contracted obligations to the state employees

2. The present value portion of compensation that is "deferred" falls far short of what would be required to provide the defined benefits promised later.
not saying that is not the case but neither do i see anything which shows this to be a factual argument. how about ponying up a cite to establish the basis for your presentation

3. Assumed plan returns on the order of 8.5% annually are wildly inflated and, because there is a chronic gap between historic market returns and the returns required to make the promised defined benefit pension payments possible, that financing gap would need to be closed. Unless workers saw the present value of that gap deducted from their paychecks, taxpayers would, in fact, be expected to pick up the tab.
and this is where the union needs to get real. if the underlying assumptions are now found to be invalid then the projected outcomes - the benefits due and expected by the state employees - cannot be realized. a fiscal shortfall is sure to result. but this is why the state and the union need to negotiate a solution. and whichever one is found more compelling and credible is the one the impasse panel would certify should the parties not be able to reach agreement at the negotiation table
 
Re: The Wisconsin Lie Exposed – Taxpayers Actually Contribute Nothing To Public Emplo

What country do you live in? You do realize that America does have the highest corporate tax rates in the WORLD!!!!!!!!!!!!!! So if someone wants to give a tax break to our employers err corporations than so the hell what? If this 'tax break' costs the teachers in Wisconsin a reduction from $100,000 to $78,000 to $50,000 (including deferred compensation) then I am all for it and the private sector jobs that follow. You go on ahead and remain simplistic in your view on how the real world works, while I and those you think like me, are busy creating jobs and making money.

Reality seems to be getting in the way of your ideology:

The Gap Between Statutory and Real Corporate Tax Rates

Ostensibly, the U.S. federal tax code requires corporations to pay 35 percent of their profits in income taxes.

But of the 275 Fortune 500 companies that made a profit each year from 2001 to 2003 and for which adequate information to draw conclusions is publicly available, only a small proportion paid federal income taxes anywhere near that statutory 35 percent tax rate. The vast majority paid considerably less.

In fact, in 2002 and 2003, the average effective tax rate for all of these 275 companies was less than half the statutory 35 percent rate. Over the 2001-2003 period, effective tax rates ranged from a low of -59.6 percent for Pepco Holdings to a high of 34.5 percent for CVS.

Over the three-year period, the average effective rate for all 275 companies dropped by a fifth, from 21.4 percent in 2001 to 17.2 percent in 2002-2003.

The statistics are startling:

•Eighty-two of the 275 companies, almost a third of the total, paid zero or less in federal income taxes in at least one year from 2001 to 2003. In the years they paid no income tax, these companies earned $102 billion in pretax U.S. profits. But instead of paying $35.6 billion in income taxes as the statutory 35 percent corporate tax rate seems to require, these companies generated so many excess tax breaks that they received outright tax rebate checks from the U.S. Treasury, totaling $12.6 billion. These companies' "negative tax rates" meant that they made more after taxes than before taxes in those no-tax years.
•Twenty-eight corporations enjoyed negative federal income tax rates over the entire 2001-2003 period. These companies, whose pretax U.S. profits totaled $44.9 billion over the three years, included, among others: Pepco Holdings (-59.6 percent tax rate), Prudential Financial (-46.2 percent), ITT Industries (-22.3 percent), Boeing (-18.8 percent), Unisys (-16.0 percent), Fluor (-9.2 percent) and CSX (-7.5 percent), the company previously headed by current Secretary of the Treasury John Snow.
•In 2003 alone, 46 companies paid zero or less in federal income taxes. These 46 companies told their shareholders they earned U.S. pretax profits in 2003 of $42.6 billion, yet they received tax rebates totaling $5.4 billion. Almost as many companies, 42, paid no tax in 2002, reporting $43.5 billion in pretax profits, yet receiving $4.9 billion in tax rebates. From 2001 to 2003, the number of no-tax companies jumped from 33 to 46, an increase of 40 percent.
•In 2001, the Treasury paid corporations $40 billion in tax refunds, a third more than the 1998-2000 average.
•Then in 2002 and 2003, after the law was changed to expand tax subsidies and make it easier for corporations to carry back excess tax breaks to earlier years, corporate tax refunds skyrocketed to an average of $63 billion a year - more than double the 1998-2000 average.
Corporations are now paying the lowest levels of taxes in the post-World War II era. In fiscal 2002 and 2003, federal corporate incomes taxes dropped to their lowest sustained level as a share of the economy since World War II. Only a single year during the early Reagan administration was lower.
In 1986, President Ronald Reagan fully abandoned his earlier policy of showering tax breaks on corporations. The Tax Reform Act of 1986 closed tens of billions of dollars in corporate loopholes, so that by 1988, the overall effective corporate tax rate for large corporations was up to 26.5 percent. That improvement occurred even though the statutory corporate tax rate was cut from 46 percent to 34 percent as part of the 1986 reforms.

In the 1990s, however, many corporations began to find ways around the 1986 reforms, abetted by tax-shelter schemes devised by major accounting firms.

Effective corporate tax rates then plummeted, thanks to Bush administration-backed tax breaks passed in 2002 and 2003, continued corporate offshore tax-sheltering, and the refusal of the Congress and White House to crack down on even the most abusive inherited corporate tax-sheltering activities.

Corporate taxes paid for more than a quarter of federal outlays in the 1950s and a fifth in the 1960s. They began to decline during the Nixon administration, yet even by the second half of the 1990s, corporate taxes still covered 11 percent of the cost of federal programs. But in fiscal years 2002 and 2003, corporate taxes paid for a mere 6 percent of federal expenses.

Billions and billions
Over the 2001-2003 period, the 275 Fortune 500 companies that were profitable each year and for which adequate information is publicly available earned almost $1.1 trillion in pretax profits in the United States. Had all of those profits been reported to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and taxed at the statutory 35 percent corporate tax rate, then the 275 companies would have paid $370 billion in income taxes over the three years. But instead, the companies reported only about half of their profits - $557 billion - to the IRS. Instead of a 35 percent tax rate, the companies as a group paid a three-year effective tax rate of only 18.4 percent.

In 2002 and 2003, the 275 companies sheltered more than half of their profits from tax. They told their shareholders they earned $739 billion in those two years, but they paid taxes on less than half of that, only $363 billion.

Loopholes and other tax subsidies cut taxes for the 275 companies by $43.4 billion in 2001, $60.8 billion in 2002 and $71.0 billion in 2003, for a total of $175.2 billion in tax breaks over the three years.

Half of the total tax-break dollars over the three years - $87.1 billion - went to just 25 companies, each with more than a billion-and-a-half dollars in tax breaks.

General Electric topped the list of corporate tax break recipients, with $9.5 billion in tax breaks over the three years.

Industrial divide
Effective tax rates varied widely by industry. Over the 2001-2003 period, industry effective tax rates for the 275 corporations ranged from a low of 1.6 percent to a high of 27.7 percent.

In 2003, the range of industry tax rates was even greater, ranging from a low of -30.0 percent (a negative rate) up to a high of 27.9 percent.

•Aerospace and defense companies enjoyed the lowest effective tax rate over the three years, paying only 1.6 percent of their profits in federal income taxes. This industry's taxes declined sharply over the three years, falling to -30.0 percent of profits in 2003.
•Other very low-tax industries, paying less than half the statutory 35 percent tax rate over the entire 2001-2003 period, included: transportation (4.3 percent), industrial and farm equipment (6.2 percent), telecommunications (7.5 percent), electronics and electrical equipment (10.8 percent), petroleum and pipelines (13.3 percent), miscellaneous services (14.4 percent), gas and electric utilities (14.4 percent), computers, office equipment, software and data (16.0 percent), and metals & metal products (17.4 percent).
•Not a single industry paid an effective tax rate of more than 29 percent, either for the entire three-year period or in any given year.
Within industries, effective tax rates also varied widely. For example, over the three-year period, average tax rates on oil companies ranged from 3.0 percent for Devon Energy up to 31.4 percent on Marathon Oil. Among aerospace and defense companies, three-year effective tax rates ranged from a low of -18.8 percent for Boeing up to a high of 25.0 percent for General Dynamics.
 
Re: The Wisconsin Lie Exposed – Taxpayers Actually Contribute Nothing To Public Emplo

and that tax revenue is then used to pay the state's obligations
when i pay my bills with my income i do not insist that i am paying with my employer's resources
and it is disingenuous to then pretend that taxes paid are being mis-allocated because they pay contracted obligations to the state employees


not saying that is not the case but neither do i see anything which shows this to be a factual argument. how about ponying up a cite to establish the basis for your presentation


and this is where the union needs to get real. if the underlying assumptions are now found to be invalid then the projected outcomes - the benefits due and expected by the state employees - cannot be realized. a fiscal shortfall is sure to result. but this is why the state and the union need to negotiate a solution. and whichever one is found more compelling and credible is the one the impasse panel would certify should the parties not be able to reach agreement at the negotiation table

Forcing public employees to join a union, then using those unions dues, which are automatically deducted from the employees's paychecks, to fund political campaigns is a misallocation of funds. It's nothing less than money laundering.
 
Re: The Wisconsin Lie Exposed – Taxpayers Actually Contribute Nothing To Public Emplo

Forcing public employees to join a union, then using those unions dues, which are automatically deducted from the employees's paychecks, to fund political campaigns is a misallocation of funds. It's nothing less than money laundering.

under federal law a union CANNOT use union dues to make political contributions

the union can establish a pac for the union members to voluntarily contribute for the benefit of political funding in the union's interests

so, it is again very evident that you don't know what you are posting about

personally, i believe that there should be no political contributions allowed other than from registered voters - subject to individual caps - and then they can only contribute to political candidates who - if they prevail in primaries - could have their names placed on the ballot the registered voter would have before them
all political contributions should be required to be posted to an established publicly accessible website and any contributions not listed would be found to be illegal bribes, for which the giver and the receiver would both be subject to judicial punishment

this would exclude any union contributions, any corporate contributions, any foreign interest contributions, any lobbyist contributions. additionally, those of means would be unable to fund candidates in districts other than those in which they are registered to vote

no longer would we have the best government money can buy

government would again be truly representative of the people
 
Re: The Wisconsin Lie Exposed – Taxpayers Actually Contribute Nothing To Public Emplo

and that tax revenue is then used to pay the state's obligations
when i pay my bills with my income i do not insist that i am paying with my employer's resources
and it is disingenuous to then pretend that taxes paid are being mis-allocated because they pay contracted obligations to the state employees

I made no argument about "misallocation." My point is that taxpayers finance the salaries and benefits of state employees. Nothing more. Furthermore, a level of government is necessary, so I have no objections to such financing in general.

not saying that is not the case but neither do i see anything which shows this to be a factual argument. how about ponying up a cite to establish the basis for your presentation...

The pension plan promised an 8.5% annual return (widely reported) to meet its promised payments. That is a promise that is not sustainable given the nation's and state's long-term economic growth. Hence, in actuarial terms, the pension plan is grossly underfunded (returns have been much less than the rosy 8.5% figure). That means plan assets are insufficient to meet the plan obligations. Either the benefits are reduced, the plan receives additional sustained funding to compensate for the difference between the required 8.5% return (to meet pension obligations) and actual market returns, or some combination. Almost certainly, given the magnitude of the long-term gap, benefit changes and some additional taxpayer financing would be required. So, Mr. Johnston's assertion is not accurate.

and this is where the union needs to get real. if the underlying assumptions are now found to be invalid then the projected outcomes - the benefits due and expected by the state employees - cannot be realized. a fiscal shortfall is sure to result. but this is why the state and the union need to negotiate a solution. and whichever one is found more compelling and credible is the one the impasse panel would certify should the parties not be able to reach agreement at the negotiation table

A new approach is required. I favor a negotiated solution.

As I've noted in another thread a few days ago, I believe rather than declaring that public workers cannot bargain collectively, the state should legislatively draw a line on its maximum fiscal parameters e.g., to use part of the governor's proposed terms, it would not offer compensation increases beyond the rate of inflation except if a legislative supermajority agreed (highly unlikely), etc. Then, in theory, unions could ask for more. But in practice, the state would achieve the savings required to address its long-term fiscal imbalances. Given recent statements by the public workers unions, that kind of arrangement might be feasible, as the unions would retain symbolic bargaining rights. Unfortunately, that's not the route that has been taken and whatever the outcome of the impasse, a period of healing might be required before optimal solutions can be negotiated and agreed.
 
Last edited:
Re: The Wisconsin Lie Exposed – Taxpayers Actually Contribute Nothing To Public Emplo

Characterizing the pension plan as deferred compensation is disingenuous. It is a pension plan. And whatever this Pullet Surprise writer calls it, it is still greater and sweeter than virtually any pension plan on the planet. Ridiculous.

As asked before for yourself - ANYONE for that matter - to show proof that a pension plan offerred by a private company, say GM or MicroSoft, is any different than a pension plan offerred by any state to their state employees. Better yet, provide a spreadsheet, a graph...ANYTHING to support your position on this matter and if what you say supports your claim, I'm on that bandwagon!!! But making such a claim without proving it is you just repeating talking points.

Now, to the other point - the one unspoken - public employees are employees just as anyone else. State government need people to do certain jobs, i.e., pave or repair roads, manage state facilities such as state parks or public health departments, and to patrol our highways (state police). Many are dedicated individuals some of whom I know personally who have worked 25-30+ years in public service ensuring that state residence have continued access to certain facilities and services the residences have come to expect and take for granted. One example that often gets overlooked are rest stops on interstate highways. Do you think some private company maintain such facilities? Granted, not all are kept in prestine condition, but I've travelled alot of miles by car over the years and most of these facilities are in pretty decent condition. But that's just an example of one of the many jobs public employees perform that is taken for granted by the public.

So, when I hear folk talking about state tax dollars, I have to remind folks of the kind of jobs these "tax dollars" are paying for - jobs that many of us take for granted and just assume the work will get done on its own. But it takes someone having the willingness to travel sometimes great distances to get to these far off locations just to ensure sanitation standards are maintained, or that trash is removed, roads are maintained, parks are clean and in good repair, landscapes present a good appearance, and so many other things that the public takes for granted.

Again, just one example of the kind of work state employees do....that your tax dollars help pay for. Think before you speak, people.

My suggestion to those who are complaining about their tax dollars going to waste, why don't you start a contract company to compete for the services some of these state jobs perform. Let me know if you win the low-ball bid.
 
Re: The Wisconsin Lie Exposed – Taxpayers Actually Contribute Nothing To Public Emplo

Forcing public employees to join a union, then using those unions dues, which are automatically deducted from the employees's paychecks, to fund political campaigns is a misallocation of funds. It's nothing less than money laundering.

I hope you're referring to a specific state's actions here because I've been a state employee for 8 yrs and I'm not a union member and no one is forcing me to become one.
 
Re: The Wisconsin Lie Exposed – Taxpayers Actually Contribute Nothing To Public Emplo

As asked before for yourself - ANYONE for that matter - to show proof that a pension plan offerred by a private company, say GM or MicroSoft, is any different than a pension plan offerred by any state to their state employees.

My critique does not concern whether pensions are a form of deferred compensation. It only notes that the article's claim that taxpayers do not finance pensions is not correct. With companies such as GM or Microsoft, customers provide revenue through voluntary transactions. That revenue ultimately funds compensation, among the companies' other expenses. With government, tax revenue (not voluntary) provides most of the financing of the compensation for public sector workers. Hence, taxpayers ultimately finance the salaries and benefits of state employees.

Government is necessary. Hence, unless government devised a different revenue model, taxpayers will continue to finance most of government's operations and I have no objections to such financing, including funding that is allocated to public sector compensation. Such compensation is essential if government is to carry out its programs and services. Moreover, compensation structures need to consider the government's fiscal constraints and what is required to attract and retain high-performing employees (low productivity/low efficiency would also entail costs that could well offset "savings" from undercompensation).
 
Back
Top Bottom