• 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

radcen

Phonetic Mnemonic ©
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 3, 2011
Messages
34,817
Reaction score
18,576
Location
Look to your right... I'm that guy.
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
Really? A friend of mine posted this article on Facebook...

To me, they are over-complicating things. They are arguing that because the employee chooses to send a portion of their salary to a pension plan (as part of a negotiated agreement, in this case), that the employee has thus made the entire contribution. Similar to what an employee might choose for a 401k, I'm sure.

Where I think they are over-complicating the issue is where even they agree that it is part of the "total compensation package". IOW, regardless how it was chosen to be distributed, it still ALL originates from the employer as part of the employee's compensation. Every... single... penny. I see the claim by the writers of this article and blog as being so over-complicated and disingenuous as to be lies in their own right. Regardless of the manner in which an individual employee or group of employees chooses to have their compensation directed, it is still compensation from the employer, and part of the overall cost of employing said person.

ETA: Last word got cut off in the title. Sorry about that.
 
Last edited:
Re: The Wisconsin Lie Exposed - Taxpayers Actually Contribute Nothing To Public Emplo

Really? A friend of mine posted this article on Facebook...


To me, they are over-complicating things. They are arguing that because the employee chooses to send a portion of their salary to a pension plan (as part of a negotiated agreement, in this case), that the employee has thus made the entire contribution. Similar to what an employee might choose for a 401k, I'm sure.


Where I think they are over-complicating the issue is where even they agree that it is part of the "total compensation package". IOW, regardless how it was chosen to be distributed, it still ALL originates from the employer as part of the employee's compensation. Every... single... penny. I see the claim by the writers of this article and blog as being so over-complicated and disingenuous as to be lies in their own right. Regardless of the manner in which an individual employee or group of employees chooses to have their compensation directed, it is still compensation from the employer, and part of the overall cost of employing said person.

ETA: Last word got cut off in the title. Sorry about that.


It doesnt matter...Scott Walker intention wasnt trying to reduce the debt, scott walkers goal wasnt to reduce public workers pay...he sole intention was to union bust at the behest of the koch brothers...for political reasons....
 
Re: The Wisconsin Lie Exposed - Taxpayers Actually Contribute Nothing To Public Emplo

why would Walker want to reduce public worker pay if not to reduce the debt?

if he wanted to just bust the union at the behest of the Koch brothers (conspiracy theory?), reducing wages/benefits wasn't necessary.

your argument doesn't make much sense.
 
Re: The Wisconsin Lie Exposed - Taxpayers Actually Contribute Nothing To Public Emplo

why would Walker want to reduce public worker pay if not to reduce the debt?

if he wanted to just bust the union at the behest of the Koch brothers (conspiracy theory?), reducing wages/benefits wasn't necessary.

your argument doesn't make much sense.

Well said. You'll find, though, that no amount of common sense or evidence will ever change the mind of a CT'er.
 
Re: The Wisconsin Lie Exposed - Taxpayers Actually Contribute Nothing To Public Emplo

why would Walker want to reduce public worker pay if not to reduce the debt?

if he wanted to just bust the union at the behest of the Koch brothers (conspiracy theory?), reducing wages/benefits wasn't necessary.

your argument doesn't make much sense.

He didnt reduce the debt he gave tax cuts....his goal was union busting and thats it...
 
Re: The Wisconsin Lie Exposed - Taxpayers Actually Contribute Nothing To Public Emplo

I don't disagree with the statements regarding Walker's motives. My annoyance is at the notion that the employer, in this case the state, pays nothing toward pensions. The implication, if not outright statement, being that pensions cost the taxpayer zero. That's simply untrue.
 
Re: The Wisconsin Lie Exposed - Taxpayers Actually Contribute Nothing To Public Emplo

He didnt reduce the debt he gave tax cuts....his goal was union busting and thats it...

The bill was estimated to save the $30 million that year and $300 million over the next ten years. He's the first governor to seriously address the inevitable bankruptcy states face at the expense of public worker compensation and pension. He knew that in order to have any chance at getting this done he would have to limit unions' vice grip on the state's finances. God bless him. Of course, people like you try to crucify him for being able to do simple math while dreaming up all sorts of conspiracy theories to further your class warfare rhetoric.
 
Last edited:
Re: The Wisconsin Lie Exposed - Taxpayers Actually Contribute Nothing To Public Emplo

He didnt reduce the debt he gave tax cuts....his goal was union busting and thats it...
he didn't reduce the debt?... you sure about that?.... from everything i've read, you are wrong.

again, if his goal was to bust unions, benefits reduction weren't necessary..

your conspiracy theory isn't holding water.
 
Re: The Wisconsin Lie Exposed - Taxpayers Actually Contribute Nothing To Public Emplo

He didnt reduce the debt he gave tax cuts....his goal was union busting and thats it...

1: No union busting happened. No laws againsts having/forming unions were made.

2: Giving tax cuts to buisnesses has been happening for decades. It is a way to bring in more buisnesses (more buisnesses = more state income) and obviously works since the practice has been going on for a long time.
 
Back
Top Bottom