Cops and Teachers? THEY Don't Pay Taxes!

[paft]

Click to view

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

Comments

[_wanderer_]

Somewhat off-topic, but tangential to what's been going on:

What people fail to discuss when they claim that public sector employees get more benefits than private sector ones is that maybe these people do a job that is more important and thus deserve more benefits. Maybe this is not widely believed in our profit-obsessed culture, but each individual teacher and policeman has more responsibility than the average person in the private sector and should therefore receive more compensation, assuming equal levels of training and experience.

The common reply is that no job "deserves" any more or less than any other; the economy bestows the relative merits (and compensation) of each job in a natural way. What this neglects to mention is that the way the economy functions is itself made up of value judgements. The car industry is larger than the bicycle industry because we value cars more than bicycles. Ultimately, we choose how valuable these things are to us by how we spend our money, and that goes for policemen and teachers as well. This fact is impossible to avoid whether you think public sector employees get too much, not enough or just the right amount: all of these opinions rely on value judgements.

[anfalicious]

They've also spent decades trading wages for benefits so that governments of the day could have now, pay later. Now it's later...

Let this be a lesson to workers, take the wages today, even if it bankrupts the company, there will be no tomorrow when it comes to benefits.

[_wanderer_]

Now it's later...

An Enron analogy is in here somewhere.

[anfalicious]

Yep, it seems that these pensions and health benefits that people are saying the ebil unions are destroying America with were actually just a ponzi scheme, with the workers as the suckers.

[nevermind6794]

That is precisely it.

[gunslnger]

Which is why there should be as small a public sector as possible, and vital jobs should not be in it.

[_wanderer_]

If you can think of some way to guarantee universal education while still making education private sector, I would love to hear it.

[gunslnger]

Why would I want to guarantee anything?

[_wanderer_]

So that everyone has access to education.

[gunslnger]

As long as people aren't prevented from it, then everyone has access. Being able to afford it is different. And that doesn't even get into the issue of what level of education do you want to provide to everyone.

But again, why would I want to guarantee anything, not just education? It would be nice if the world was magic like that though, sure.

[_wanderer_]

No, not being able to afford it is the same thing as not having access. If I say you have access to a new car, but you don't have enough money to buy one, you really don't have access to it. Honestly I don't see how you can support a libertarian boot-straps worldview without also advocating that everyone has basic access to education; seems more like a recipe for some kind of hereditary oligarchy.

[gunslnger]

Because as long as people aren't prevented from it, someone will provide it. Mandating someone to provide it is contrary to freedom for all. It doesn't matter if "it" is education, health care, or tvs.

[_wanderer_]

1) I see no reason to assume that all needs will be magically met if people aren't prevented from pursuing those needs.

2) I can see why in some way mandating anything is indeed infringing on freedom. That's only a problem if you think that freedom is the only important thing though, as anyone who enjoys having courts and national defense either explicitly or implicitly believes.

[gunslnger]

1. Of course not. So what?
2. I don't see the connection you're trying to make here. And for reference, I didn't say freedom was the only important thing, just the most important.

[_wanderer_]

Re 2: Alright, but let's not split hairs. I'm saying that if you believe that both freedom and education are important, then you might be willing to sacrifice a limited amount of freedom for a lot of education, even if ultimately you believe that freedom is more important. Doesn't that make sense?

[gunslnger]

I don't consider gov't mandated education to be important.