Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
one...two...tree

Wisconsin Public Workers Pay for 100% of Their Pensions and Health-Care

31 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Filed: Country: Philippines
Timeline

Out of every dollar that funds Wisconsin' s pension and health insurance plans for state workers, 100 cents comes from the state workers.

How can that be? Because the "contributions" consist of money that employees chose to take as deferred wages – as pensions when they retire – rather than take immediately in cash. The same is true with the health care plan. If this were not so a serious crime would be taking place, the gift of public funds rather than payment for services.

Thus, state workers are not being asked to simply "contribute more" to Wisconsin' s retirement system (or as the argument goes, "pay their fair share" of retirement costs as do employees in Wisconsin' s private sector who still have pensions and health insurance). They are being asked to accept a cut in their salaries so that the state of Wisconsin can use the money to fill the hole left by tax cuts and reduced audits of corporations in Wisconsin.

The labor agreements show that the pension plan money is part of the total negotiated compensation. The key phrase, in those agreements I read (emphasis added), is: "The Employer shall contribute on behalf of the employee." This shows that this is just divvying up the total compensation package, so much for cash wages, so much for paid vacations, so much for retirement, etc.

http://www.alternet....nd_health-care/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Filed: Timeline

Is there a point to the article's convoluted logic?

Out of every dollar that funds Wisconsin' s pension and health insurance plans for state workers, 100 cents comes from the state workers.

No. Every cent a public employee receives, in benefits, in salary, in pensions, in any form of compensation, comes from the taxpayers.

Edited by Some Old Guy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Filed: Country: Philippines
Timeline

Is there a point to the article's convoluted logic?

No. Every cent a public employee receives, in benefits, in salary, in pensions, in any form of compensation, comes from the taxpayers.

Wages and benefits are compensation for providing labor. Using your logic, it's your customers who make your house payment, not you rightfully possessing the money you receive in exchange for your service.

Edited by 8TBVBN

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Filed: AOS (pnd) Country: Canada
Timeline

Wages and benefits are compensation for providing labor. Using your logic, it's your customers who make your house payment, not you actually rightfully possessing the money you receive in exchange for your service.

Steven, watch your argument. Your argument is the EXACT reason why a lot of people argue income taxes cannot be placed upon 'labor.'

Is there a point to the article's convoluted logic?

No. Every cent a public employee receives, in benefits, in salary, in pensions, in any form of compensation, comes from the taxpayers.

You'll have to excuse the fact that he forgets little details.


nfrsig.jpg

The Great Canadian to Texas Transfer Timeline:

2/22/2010 - I-129F Packet Mailed

2/24/2010 - Packet Delivered to VSC

2/26/2010 - VSC Cashed Filing Fee

3/04/2010 - NOA1 Received!

8/14/2010 - Touched!

10/04/2010 - NOA2 Received!

10/25/2010 - Packet 3 Received!

02/07/2011 - Medical!

03/15/2011 - Interview in Montreal! - Approved!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Filed: Timeline

Wages and benefits are compensation for providing labor. Using your logic, it's your customers who make your house payment, not you rightfully possessing the money you receive in exchange for your service.

Key word is compensation, and the customer, i.e. taxpayer, gets to decide whether or not that compensation is justified, not me, or the public servant.

20110224_fdr.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Filed: Country: Philippines
Timeline

Key word is compensation, and the customer, i.e. taxpayer, gets to decide whether or not that compensation is justified, not me, or the public servant.

The taxpayer does get to decide by proxy. It's no different from the shareholders don't directly decide how much publicly traded company employees make, but they do by proxy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Filed: Timeline

The taxpayer does get to decide by proxy. It's no different from the shareholders don't directly decide how much publicly traded company employees make, but they do by proxy.

So, we should trust the GOP Governor and the GOP Legislators to make that decision for the taxpayers of Wisconsin? I agree.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Filed: Country: Philippines
Timeline

So, we should trust the GOP Governor and the GOP Legislators to make that decision for the taxpayers of Wisconsin? I agree.

The collective bargaining process is no different between public employees and private. The teachers in Wisconsin did agree to concessions (collective bargaining), but Gov. Walker wants to eliminate them from even being part of that decision making process.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Filed: Timeline

The collective bargaining process is no different between public employees and private. The teachers in Wisconsin did agree to concessions (collective bargaining), but Gov. Walker wants to eliminate them from even being part of that decision making process.

They can join the rest of the electorate as part of the decision making process.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Filed: Country: Philippines
Timeline

They can join the rest of the electorate as part of the decision making process.

That doesn't answer the question as to why you think public service employees shouldn't be allowed the right to collective bargaining.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Country: Vietnam
Timeline

They can be given the right to bargain any way they want but also how about anyone not being a part of that union if they don't want and not pay dues. Also if they want to be a collective then they can be fired as a collective and replaced. No what the public employees want is to be able to wield a work stoppage when they think will do them best and get the upper hand. Just make it fair and say this is what we pay and this is the extras. Want it take it if not then too bad. After they accept the offer then if they want to hand over part of their pay in dues then fine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Filed: Timeline

That doesn't answer the question as to why you think public service employees shouldn't be allowed the right to collective bargaining.

The issue is not collective bargaining. The question is whether the unions should have an exclusive franchise at taxpayer expense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Filed: AOS (pnd) Country: Canada
Timeline

That doesn't answer the question as to why you think public service employees shouldn't be allowed the right to collective bargaining.

They do. It's called election day in November.


nfrsig.jpg

The Great Canadian to Texas Transfer Timeline:

2/22/2010 - I-129F Packet Mailed

2/24/2010 - Packet Delivered to VSC

2/26/2010 - VSC Cashed Filing Fee

3/04/2010 - NOA1 Received!

8/14/2010 - Touched!

10/04/2010 - NOA2 Received!

10/25/2010 - Packet 3 Received!

02/07/2011 - Medical!

03/15/2011 - Interview in Montreal! - Approved!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Filed: Country: United Kingdom
Timeline

Is there a point to the article's convoluted logic?

Yes, to confuse people. I re-read it several times and even I was confused.

It's the same convoluted logic that was used to make the case for

"investing" the Social Security trust fund surplus in US government

bonds and spending the proceeds of the sale.

Next time you decide to spend your savings, think of it as "investing

in yourself" - just put an IOU in its place and promise to pay it

back with interest.


biden_pinhead.jpgspace.gifrolling-stones-american-flag-tongue.jpgspace.gifinside-geico.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Filed: K-1 Visa Country: Russia
Timeline

Out of every dollar that funds Wisconsin' s pension and health insurance plans for state workers, 100 cents comes from the state workers.

How can that be? Because the "contributions" consist of money that employees chose to take as deferred wages – as pensions when they retire – rather than take immediately in cash. The same is true with the health care plan. If this were not so a serious crime would be taking place, the gift of public funds rather than payment for services.

Thus, state workers are not being asked to simply "contribute more" to Wisconsin' s retirement system (or as the argument goes, "pay their fair share" of retirement costs as do employees in Wisconsin' s private sector who still have pensions and health insurance). They are being asked to accept a cut in their salaries so that the state of Wisconsin can use the money to fill the hole left by tax cuts and reduced audits of corporations in Wisconsin.

The labor agreements show that the pension plan money is part of the total negotiated compensation. The key phrase, in those agreements I read (emphasis added), is: "The Employer shall contribute on behalf of the employee." This shows that this is just divvying up the total compensation package, so much for cash wages, so much for paid vacations, so much for retirement, etc.

http://www.alternet....nd_health-care/

This is fine logic and all. Pension plans are part of the compensation plan and thus can be considered as pay without stretching your imagination. But what's the point of the argument? Does a pay cut sound so much worse than a pension cut to most people? I would have thought that the author's point is kind of obvious and altogether not worthy of merit due to the fact that it proves nothing and doesn't change anything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
- Back to Top -


Important Disclaimer: Please read carefully the Visajourney.com Terms of Service. If you do not agree to the Terms of Service you should not access or view any page (including this page) on VisaJourney.com. Answers and comments provided on Visajourney.com Forums are general information, and are not intended to substitute for informed professional medical, psychiatric, psychological, tax, legal, investment, accounting, or other professional advice. Visajourney.com does not endorse, and expressly disclaims liability for any product, manufacturer, distributor, service or service provider mentioned or any opinion expressed in answers or comments. VisaJourney.com does not condone immigration fraud in any way, shape or manner. VisaJourney.com recommends that if any member or user knows directly of someone involved in fraudulent or illegal activity, that they report such activity directly to the Department of Homeland Security, Immigration and Customs Enforcement. You can contact ICE via email at Immigration.Reply@dhs.gov or you can telephone ICE at 1-866-347-2423. All reported threads/posts containing reference to immigration fraud or illegal activities will be removed from this board. If you feel that you have found inappropriate content, please let us know by contacting us here with a url link to that content. Thank you.
×
×
  • Create New...