South Carolina: Cutting school employees pay! Starting with wealthy first!!

[bucs90]

41 officials to take pay cut: CCSD makes numerous cuts to offset $28M deficit | The Post and Courier, Charleston SC - News, Sports, Entertainment


Non-union South Carolina's largest county, Charleston, is slashing the salaries of 45 of it's highest paid employees to make the budget shortfall come closer to balance.

Rather than firing people, they are cutting pay for their highest paid and going from there.

Non-union, Republican dominated South Carolina is leading the way on this. No firings. Cut the pay of the highest paid. Makes sense. Those who can afford it most take the first cut. The folks at the bottom don't.

If only union dominated states had the freedom to make good, smart decisions like this, we'd avoid all the protests, lost work days, threats of violence, etc.

SC can just make the decision and go with it.

 

[RDD_1210]

So you're in favor of the richest people making the biggest sacrifice? Is that what you're saying?

 

[bucs90]

So you're in favor of the richest people making the biggest sacrifice? Is that what you're saying?

I'm in favor of the richest gov't employees being the first to take a pay cut, yes. Thats the highest pay, and it's MY TAX MONEY they are making, so yes.

The private sector doesn't take money from my check every week. So I don't give a crap who Target or Bed Bath and Beyond cut pay for.

And Wisconsin could make this same choice if it were non-union. They can't make any choice without a massive protest so it' makes it very difficult.

In non-union SC, this is how they decided to do it, and they just did it. Right to work state. Gotta love it.

 

[rightwinger]

In non-union SC, this is how they decided to do it, and they just did it. Right to work state. Gotta love it.

Maybe this will help explain things

State education ranking shows Vermont #1, South Carolina Last | Vermont Business Magazine

 

[RDD_1210]

So you're in favor of the richest people making the biggest sacrifice? Is that what you're saying?

I'm in favor of the richest gov't employees being the first to take a pay cut, yes. Thats the highest pay, and it's MY TAX MONEY they are making, so yes.

The private sector doesn't take money from my check every week. So I don't give a crap who Target or Bed Bath and Beyond cut pay for.

And Wisconsin could make this same choice if it were non-union. They can't make any choice without a massive protest so it' makes it very difficult.

In non-union SC, this is how they decided to do it, and they just did it. Right to work state. Gotta love it.

But presumably those people who make more money, have earned that money and put their time in to achieve the higher salary they are earning. No? Why are you ok with penalizing them for working harder then everyone else?

 

[Mini 14]

Our Governor announced 3% proration for Education just last night, as part of a 15% Statewide Budget cut.

We're right to work as well, so last-in, first-out.

 

[bucs90]

In non-union SC, this is how they decided to do it, and they just did it. Right to work state. Gotta love it.

Maybe this will help explain things

State education ranking shows Vermont #1, South Carolina Last | Vermont Business Magazine

You still wanna bring this up? If you do, fine, but I'll tell you where it's going. Race and poverty affect education rankins dramatically. You ready to dig into that issue?

 

[bucs90]

So you're in favor of the richest people making the biggest sacrifice? Is that what you're saying?

I'm in favor of the richest gov't employees being the first to take a pay cut, yes. Thats the highest pay, and it's MY TAX MONEY they are making, so yes.

The private sector doesn't take money from my check every week. So I don't give a crap who Target or Bed Bath and Beyond cut pay for.

And Wisconsin could make this same choice if it were non-union. They can't make any choice without a massive protest so it' makes it very difficult.

In non-union SC, this is how they decided to do it, and they just did it. Right to work state. Gotta love it.

But presumably those people who make more money, have earned that money and put their time in to achieve the higher salary they are earning. No? Why are you ok with penalizing them for working harder then everyone else?

I'm not. I'm in favor of that school board having the freedom to make the choice that works best for them. And without unions, they can do that.

But if someone has to take a 2% cut, it'd be easier for a $100,000 earner than a $25,000 earner.

 

[rightwinger]

In non-union SC, this is how they decided to do it, and they just did it. Right to work state. Gotta love it.

Maybe this will help explain things

State education ranking shows Vermont #1, South Carolina Last | Vermont Business Magazine

You still wanna bring this up? If you do, fine, but I'll tell you where it's going. Race and poverty affect education rankins dramatically. You ready to dig into that issue?

So does how much States want to invest in educating their children

 

[del]

In non-union SC, this is how they decided to do it, and they just did it. Right to work state. Gotta love it.

Maybe this will help explain things

State education ranking shows Vermont #1, South Carolina Last | Vermont Business Magazine

You still wanna bring this up? If you do, fine, but I'll tell you where it's going. Race and poverty affect education rankins dramatically. You ready to dig into that issue?

vermont has an extremely diverse population of ALL kinds of white people.

 

[RDD_1210]

I'm in favor of the richest gov't employees being the first to take a pay cut, yes. Thats the highest pay, and it's MY TAX MONEY they are making, so yes.

The private sector doesn't take money from my check every week. So I don't give a crap who Target or Bed Bath and Beyond cut pay for.

And Wisconsin could make this same choice if it were non-union. They can't make any choice without a massive protest so it' makes it very difficult.

In non-union SC, this is how they decided to do it, and they just did it. Right to work state. Gotta love it.

But presumably those people who make more money, have earned that money and put their time in to achieve the higher salary they are earning. No? Why are you ok with penalizing them for working harder then everyone else?

I'm not. I'm in favor of that school board having the freedom to make the choice that works best for them. And without unions, they can do that.

But if someone has to take a 2% cut, it'd be easier for a $100,000 earner than a $25,000 earner.

So since cutting the income for the richest in the school district will benefit the group as a whole, you are ok with that? Even if it isn't totally "fair" to those people who have to take a cut while others who aren't working as hard don't take a cut.

 

[del]

So you're in favor of the richest people making the biggest sacrifice? Is that what you're saying?

I'm in favor of the richest gov't employees being the first to take a pay cut, yes. Thats the highest pay, and it's MY TAX MONEY they are making, so yes.

The private sector doesn't take money from my check every week. So I don't give a crap who Target or Bed Bath and Beyond cut pay for.

And Wisconsin could make this same choice if it were non-union. They can't make any choice without a massive protest so it' makes it very difficult.

In non-union SC, this is how they decided to do it, and they just did it. Right to work state. Gotta love it.

But presumably those people who make more money, have earned that money and put their time in to achieve the higher salary they are earning. No? Why are you ok with penalizing them for working harder then everyone else?

there's nothing to back up any of your assertions.

fail

 

[del]

But presumably those people who make more money, have earned that money and put their time in to achieve the higher salary they are earning. No? Why are you ok with penalizing them for working harder then everyone else?

I'm not. I'm in favor of that school board having the freedom to make the choice that works best for them. And without unions, they can do that.

But if someone has to take a 2% cut, it'd be easier for a $100,000 earner than a $25,000 earner.

So since cutting the income for the richest in the school district will benefit the group as a whole, you are ok with that? Even if it isn't totally "fair" to those people who have to take a cut while others who aren't working as hard don't take a cut.

more fail

you're on a roll

 

[rightwinger]

I'm in favor of the richest gov't employees being the first to take a pay cut, yes. Thats the highest pay, and it's MY TAX MONEY they are making, so yes.

The private sector doesn't take money from my check every week. So I don't give a crap who Target or Bed Bath and Beyond cut pay for.

And Wisconsin could make this same choice if it were non-union. They can't make any choice without a massive protest so it' makes it very difficult.

In non-union SC, this is how they decided to do it, and they just did it. Right to work state. Gotta love it.

But presumably those people who make more money, have earned that money and put their time in to achieve the higher salary they are earning. No? Why are you ok with penalizing them for working harder then everyone else?

I'm not. I'm in favor of that school board having the freedom to make the choice that works best for them. And without unions, they can do that.

But if someone has to take a 2% cut, it'd be easier for a $100,000 earner than a $25,000 earner.

Spoken like a true Liberal

 

[RDD_1210]

I'm in favor of the richest gov't employees being the first to take a pay cut, yes. Thats the highest pay, and it's MY TAX MONEY they are making, so yes.

The private sector doesn't take money from my check every week. So I don't give a crap who Target or Bed Bath and Beyond cut pay for.

And Wisconsin could make this same choice if it were non-union. They can't make any choice without a massive protest so it' makes it very difficult.

In non-union SC, this is how they decided to do it, and they just did it. Right to work state. Gotta love it.

But presumably those people who make more money, have earned that money and put their time in to achieve the higher salary they are earning. No? Why are you ok with penalizing them for working harder then everyone else?

there's nothing to back up any of your assertions.

fail

What assertion do you mean?

 

[RDD_1210]

I'm not. I'm in favor of that school board having the freedom to make the choice that works best for them. And without unions, they can do that.

But if someone has to take a 2% cut, it'd be easier for a $100,000 earner than a $25,000 earner.

So since cutting the income for the richest in the school district will benefit the group as a whole, you are ok with that? Even if it isn't totally "fair" to those people who have to take a cut while others who aren't working as hard don't take a cut.

more fail

you're on a roll

What did I say that was wrong? I'm asking bucs about his thoughts.

 

[del]

But presumably those people who make more money, have earned that money and put their time in to achieve the higher salary they are earning. No? Why are you ok with penalizing them for working harder then everyone else?

there's nothing to back up any of your assertions.

fail

What assertion do you mean?

assertions. plural. see bolded text.

 

[bucs90]

2 things.

1st- stats show more spending in schools does NOT equal higher scores. That graph has already been posted on another thread. Spending per pupil does nothing for test scores. Only demographics show a correlation.

2nd- Spoken like a true liberal?

You misunderstand a core fundemental difference.

Cutting a rich person's salary by 2% means "We are gonna be able to GIVE you less.
Taxing a rich person's salary by 2% more means "We are gonna be TAKING more from you."

I'm all for a company or government that is paying rich people saying "Sorry man, we can't afford this, you're gonna have to take a small cut."

But I'm not ever for the government automatically assuming they can TAKE more from anyone simply because they overspent.

Giving less vs Taking more. Both end with less total, but are worlds apart in application.

 

[bucs90]

So since cutting the income for the richest in the school district will benefit the group as a whole, you are ok with that? Even if it isn't totally "fair" to those people who have to take a cut while others who aren't working as hard don't take a cut.

more fail

you're on a roll

What did I say that was wrong? I'm asking bucs about his thoughts.

Yeah, if a company or gov't decides it needs to pay it's wealthiest employees a bit less, I'm fine with that.

But there is a huge difference between "We're giving you a bit less" and "We're gonna be taking a bit more from you". Same end result, huge difference.

 

[Truthmatters]

He figures these employees are democrats so taxing the richest of the democratic employees is fair.