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

[whoasksfinds.livejournal.com]

paid well compared to whom?

compared to the communities they serve in.

Who do you want to attract into the teaching profession?

people who are passionate about the profession.

there is no point in paying top-dollar for highly qualified people.

no, teachers should not be paid six figures.

Being promised a pension that is then not delivered on is being held hostage.

thats quite a liberal definition of being held hostage, and only serves to dramatize the issue. but you know whose really at fault? the politicians and union leaders who negotiated pensions for state workers that were totally out of line with most taxpayers. they should have seen this day coming.


You are just saying "they feel that way because they feel that way," which is the definition of a tautology.

im saying that market rate of teachers is higher than 20K. its not a touch concept.

[http://users.livejournal.com/-wanderer-/]

im saying that market rate of teachers is higher than 20K. its not a touch concept.

That is just another way of saying what you've already said, i.e., the same tautology. Saying "people are willing to pay X amount of money," or "the market rate is X" doesn't address the issue of why they think that product is worth X amount of money. If I am willing to pay $500 for a new PC but $1000 for a new Mac, it isn't enough to say "just because I think Macs are worth more," because the premise and conclusion of that argument are the same. You would have to describe why you think Macs are better computers than PCs for the argument to be meaningful.

Likewise, in the case of teachers, one would have to describe why they think teachers are worth X amount of money compared to a host of other things (whether they are funded by taxes or not, because presumably people might just prefer to not pay anything and use that money on something else in the private sector). I'm arguing that (some) people think that teachers should receive less compensation than, say, a newly graduated MBA because people don't value or understand education, or both. Why do you think it is the case that people don't have a problem with paying MBAs more than teachers? Remember that ultimately you pay for the salary of an MBA as well as a teachers'.

people who are passionate about the profession.

OK. Let's stop wasting so much money on paying doctors and nurses. We could halve their salaries. After all, they should be in it for the passion of helping others, and cutting their benefits couldn't possibly negatively affect the caliber of people that choose those careers. Do you see how that applies to this situation as well?

compared to the communities they serve in.

That isn't a meaningful comparison. Again, to use a physician analogy, if a doctor worked in a community where the median income is $20,000 but he earned $40,000, he would be "paid well" by your standard, but I don't think we would consider that to be a good salary for a doctor. Indeed, it would be difficult to convince anyone but the lowest-quality doctors to work in those areas (this is on average; of course there are exceptions and money is not the only motivating factor in human decision-making. I am focusing on it because the debate really is about money). In reality, that is precisely what happens. The logic extends to any skilled profession, especially those with special responsibilities.

[whoasksfinds.livejournal.com]

Saying "people are willing to pay X amount of money," or "the market rate is X" doesn't address the issue of why they think that product is worth X amount of money.

that is just the relative value that people place on the product. everyone has their own reasons. some probably place greater value, other less. you just don't like the answer.

You would have to describe why you think Macs are better computers than PCs for the argument to be meaningful.

what are we comparing teachers to? firefighters? policemen? because our tax dollars don't pay the salaries of MBA's.

Let's stop wasting so much money on paying doctors and nurses

feel free to lobby your congressperson on the matter.

Do you see how that applies to this situation as well?

sure, but the people of Wisconsin obviously don't see the benefits reductions being asked for as significant enough to materially effect the teaching profession.

Why do you think it is the case that people don't have a problem with paying MBAs more than teachers?

because private companies values an MBA more than taxpayers value a teacher certificate.

Remember that ultimately you pay for the salary of an MBA as well as a teachers'.

not necessarily. if i don't see value in a product, or a company, i don't do business with them. with taxes, you have no choice.

but I don't think we would consider that to be a good salary for a doctor.

teachers and doctors are not comparable professions. what is the cost of becoming a doctor compared to that of becoming a teacher? how much greater skill and intelligence is required in becoming a doctor? doctors make significantly more money than average because it requires significantly more intelligence, time, and money to become a doctor. and they provide a service which is significantly more difficult to do.

[http://users.livejournal.com/-wanderer-/]

because our tax dollars don't pay the salaries of MBA's.

No, but we pay their salaries nonetheless. Just as we have the choice to not buy particular products, we have the choice to vote in lawmakers that would cut compensation to teachers.

you just don't like the answer.

I think you are not interested in asking the question.

that is just the relative value that people place on the product.

sure, but the people of Wisconsin obviously don't see the benefits reductions being asked for as significant enough to materially effect the teaching profession.

Again, those are descriptive statements, not normative ones. Nobody disputes the basic facts of the situation, or at least I don't.

teachers and doctors are not comparable professions. what is the cost of becoming a doctor compared to that of becoming a teacher? how much greater skill and intelligence is required in becoming a doctor? doctors make significantly more money than average because it requires significantly more intelligence, time, and money to become a doctor. and they provide a service which is significantly more difficult to do.

You're arguing against a claim that I didn't make. All I'm saying is that the economic logic is exactly the same. As an aside, a lot of doctors don't make enough money either, and that causes the same kind of problems (i.e., a shortage of primary care physicians).

[whoasksfinds.livejournal.com]

No, but we pay their salaries nonetheless.

as i said. we have a choice in which companies we want to do business with.

we have the choice to vote in lawmakers that would cut compensation to teachers.

we certainly do.

I think you are not interested in asking the question

i can't speak for the market.

Nobody disputes the basic facts of the situation

you seem to think whats happening in Wisconsin will lead to a material decline in the quality of teachers in the state. the voters of the state don't believe so. it appears to be a difference of opinion.

All I'm saying is that the economic logic is exactly the same.

sure, but its a matter of opinion. at what rate of pay and benefits will the quality of teachers be materially effected? there is no definitive answer. it is a question that voters have to ask themselves when they decide on salaries for public employees. and those kinds of decisions are made through the ballot box.