Cops and Teachers? THEY Don't Pay Taxes!

[paft.livejournal.com]

Wisconsin State Assemblyman Robin Vos lets us all know what he thinks of those taxpaying Wisconsin citizens who work in the public sector:

The reality is they haven’t had to pay for these things, they’re upset about doing it now, and the taxpayers are the ones who definitely understand this because they get it, they’ve been doing this in the private sector for years, it’s time we had the same thing happen in the public sector…The fact that my Democratic colleagues want to go back to the taxpayer and have them pay higher taxes because someone shouldn’t pay 12% towards their healthcare….We are standing with the taxpayers all across Wisconsin. It’s amazing the outpouring of support that we’ve been getting from the people outside the Capitol Square, the people who are in the reality of the world, not the place that we’re sitting.

Howard Dean does a very good job of refuting Kudlow and Vos’ fiction that the demonstrations are all about the cuts in benefits and not about the elimination of collective bargaining. The capper to this exchange, however, comes near the end of the segment, when a sign appears just over Vos’ shoulder on the right. Not the kind of thing Kudlow could choreograph.

It beautifully highlights the idiocy of Vos' fiction that the demonstrators are, in some fundamental way, less American than other Americans. Does he really think cops and teachers don't pay taxes, or “live in the reality of the world?”

Crossposted from Thoughtcrimes
*

Comments

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

Then you didn't propose it right, because that's not what you said.

[kylinrouge.livejournal.com]

Upgrade to premium and your response times will be cut in half!

I mean really, the fact you're even for this is frightening. Cutting services in favor of tax breaks always has been and always will be a way to fuck the poor. Historically, minorities as well.

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

Paying more for extra is not the same as speed of response based on how much is paid. The way paft said it means there is a gradation of payments and they actually consciously slow down to the level of payment. The way you worded it (but apparently didn't mean) there is a base level of service everyone gets, which I would assume to be the same as right now, but if you paid for extra service, you will get a better response, most likely because there will be an extra unit assigned to pay attention to you (and some number of other premium members in your area) more closely, which is along the lines of how businesses do "premium service" now. Which doesn't fuck over anyone.

[paft.livejournal.com]

g: Paying more for extra is not the same as speed of response based on how much is paid.

Of course it is, when that "extra" is tied to the response time. If higher tier of payment results in faster time, the response time of the llower tier of payment is slower.

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

Which is why you fail to understand the concept. When you buy a product, let's say Windows 7, there are different price levels. There's a base level where you get everything you need with no frills, and then there's a couple more expensive levels where you still get everything you need with some extras that not everyone needs. Whereas you seem to think that the base level will not provide what everyone needs and that someone's getting screwed because they aren't getting the higher level for the base price.

[kylinrouge.livejournal.com]

You're under the assumption that a privatized police force would, at the very basic level, provide exactly what they do right now. No worse, no better. I mean, you have no way of proving this, but you're very belligerently arguing that this would be the case.

but if you paid for extra service, you will get a better response, most likely because there will be an extra unit assigned to pay attention to you (and some number of other premium members in your area) more closely

This is difference from premium members getting faster response times how exactly? It looks like you just described exactly that.

Anyway, the deeper problem, of course, is that poor people who can't afford this service are left to the mercy of survival of the fittest. That was the joke. Living in a 1st world country means that we live in an egalitarian society of equal rights under the law, at least on paper. No public police force = no rule of law.

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

I actually believe they'll be better, but I'm willing to grant that they'll be as bad as they are now for arguments sake.

Anyway, the deeper problem, of course, is that poor people who can't afford this service are left to the mercy of survival of the fittest.

Which is as much an unfounded assertion as you say my statement is.

Living in a 1st world country means that we live in an egalitarian society of equal rights under the law

Which wouldn't change.

No public police force = no rule of law.

I disagree.

[kylinrouge.livejournal.com]

If you think that EVERYONE is going to be on this private plan I don't know what to say to you. It's about as obtuse as claiming that everyone right now has health insurance.

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

Nope, I think that every poor person would choose to sign up, a good portion of middle class would not, and most rich would pay for premium service.

Why would someone claim that everyone has health insurance? And I've never heard anyone claim that anyways. The claim is that not everyone wants health insurance, which is accurate. And not everyone would care about having police or fire insurance either.

[paft.livejournal.com]

And if a poor person could not afford to sign up?

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

There are multiple possibilities, and I'm not a fortune-teller. Look up how anarchists claim justice and police would work to see some of the options.

[kylinrouge.livejournal.com]

Can you try again without the word salad?

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

No.

[paft.livejournal.com]

In short, you've got nothing.

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

Once again, you're acting like an idiot.

[paft.livejournal.com]

I understand "the concept" perfectly well. You want to treat police protection from crime as just another commodity, a "product" -- the result of which will inevitably be a two tiered justice system where the poor don't enjoy the "frills" of a prompt response and a thorough investigation of the crime.

Or, if police protection were privatized, any protection at all -- since many would be unable to pay for it.

That's not how our system is supposed to work.

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

the result of which will inevitably be a two tiered justice system where the poor don't enjoy the "frills" of a prompt response and a thorough investigation of the crime.

See, this shows that you don't understand the concept, you understand some other version of it.

[paft.livejournal.com]

It's not that I don't "understand the concept," gunsinger. It's that I consider denying the poor police protection because they can't afford it a BAD thing.

You obviously don't.

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

Yes, it's that you don't understand the concept, because you're not disagreeing with it and showing why it's wrong, you're showing that you don't understand it. Time after time you show that you don't get it because you never try to even claim that the other side is wrong for any reason, just that they're wrong because you're right, regardless of what the other side is saying, even when it agrees with some other position you espouse.