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

[del]

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

speaking of the failures of education...

 

[rightwinger]

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.

I admire your liberal stance on this issue that rich people are better capable of taking less pay than poor people are. There is hope for you yet

Cutting salary or raising taxes has the same result when you look at how much money is left in your pocket

 

[RDD_1210]

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

fail

What assertion do you mean?

assertions. plural. see bolded text.

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?

Oh, so just because someone is rich doesn't automatically mean they work harder then everyone else? Richer doesn't = contributes more?

 

[bucs90]

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

Nope. I'm saying that having to cut payroll is often a necessity. And if the business or gov't thinks cutting some of their richest employees salaries is the best route, so be it.

Thats a massive difference from a gov't deciding to TAKE, by threat of violence, more money out of a rich persons pocket.

You must understand that fundamental difference.

"We're gonna have to GIVE you a bit less" vs "We're gonna be TAKING a bit more from you".

If you can't see the difference, then you are hopeless.

 

[del]

What assertion do you mean?

assertions. plural. see bolded text.

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?

Oh, so just because someone is rich doesn't automatically mean they work harder then everyone else? Richer doesn't = contributes more?

of course not. what an ignorant thing to believe.

you should get out more, maybe read a book.

 

[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.

I admire your liberal stance on this issue that rich people are better capable of taking less pay than poor people are. There is hope for you yet

Cutting salary or raising taxes has the same result when you look at how much money is left in your pocket

WRONG.

Cutting salary is a voluntary act. You keep showing up for that job, so you voluntarily accepted it.

Being taxed is not voluntary. It is done by threat of violence against those who do not comply.

I am, however, ok with freedom of choices. And if the business or gov't take that route of cutting those salaries a bit, then so be it. A world of difference from deciding to use their monopoly on force to make people forfeit more of their money.

Oh, and btw, you're wrong on the money = better education idea: Does Spending More on Education Improve Academic Achievement? | The Heritage Foundation

 

[RDD_1210]

assertions. plural. see bolded text.

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?

Oh, so just because someone is rich doesn't automatically mean they work harder then everyone else? Richer doesn't = contributes more?

of course not. what an ignorant thing to believe.

you should get out more, maybe read a book.

Well I actually completely agree with you. Just making a point that just because you are rich doesn't mean you work harder then those who are poor. It's a ridiculous statement I commonly hear on this site.

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

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

Not really.
Spending is way up, scores flat.

 

[RDD_1210]

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.

Actually, no there isn't. But thanks for making the case for why the rich should be contributing more to society then the poor. Well done.

 

[bucs90]

Oh, so just because someone is rich doesn't automatically mean they work harder then everyone else? Richer doesn't = contributes more?

of course not. what an ignorant thing to believe.

you should get out more, maybe read a book.

Well I actually completely agree with you. Just making a point that just because you are rich doesn't mean you work harder then those who are poor. It's a ridiculous statement I commonly hear on this site.

It's all relative. Bill Gates works harder than a welfare queen.

A ditch digger works harder than Paris Hilton.

It all comes down to how valuable is the service/product each individual has decided to offer in life.

If your speciality is being a socialist revolutionary noodle cook, well, you ain't gonna live in a mansion anytime soon.

 

[del]

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.

Actually, no there isn't. But thanks for making the case for why the rich should be contributing more to society then the poor. Well done.

actually, yes there is; your inability to see it notwithstanding.

i can't explain it any better than above, so i guess you just don't get it.

*shrug*

 

[bucs90]

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.

Actually, no there isn't. But thanks for making the case for why the rich should be contributing more to society then the poor. Well done.

Yes. There is. Here is how.....

A man walks into a charity food bank, and the bank tells him "Sorry, we dont' have much, we are gonna have to give you a bit less this time."

That man then comes back with a gun, and says "Sorry, I'm gonna be taking more than what you were giving before."

See the difference? If not, you have issues.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Maybe this will help explain things

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

What does it explain?

 

[RDD_1210]

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.

Actually, no there isn't. But thanks for making the case for why the rich should be contributing more to society then the poor. Well done.

Yes. There is. Here is how.....

A man walks into a charity food bank, and the bank tells him "Sorry, we dont' have much, we are gonna have to give you a bit less this time."

That man then comes back with a gun, and says "Sorry, I'm gonna be taking more than what you were giving before."

See the difference? If not, you have issues.

LOL, thanks for the analogy. I love how you equate charity to a salary and the use of a gun to taxes. A bit over the top perhaps?

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

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

There is no correlation whatsoever between the amount of money spent on public education and the quality of the education delivered to the children. If there were we would have the best public school system in the world because we spend more on public education by leaps and bounds than any other nation.

 

[Mr Natural]

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

Seems like the last thing South Carolina should be cutting is education.

Unless of course they're looking to remain ignorant.

 

[del]

Actually, no there isn't. But thanks for making the case for why the rich should be contributing more to society then the poor. Well done.

Yes. There is. Here is how.....

A man walks into a charity food bank, and the bank tells him "Sorry, we dont' have much, we are gonna have to give you a bit less this time."

That man then comes back with a gun, and says "Sorry, I'm gonna be taking more than what you were giving before."

See the difference? If not, you have issues.

LOL, thanks for the analogy. I love how you equate charity to a salary and the use of a gun to taxes. A bit over the top perhaps?

perhaps it's because you're having trouble grasping the concept?

it's tough on the left side of the bell curve, i'd bet.

 

[Ravi]

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.

I admire your liberal stance on this issue that rich people are better capable of taking less pay than poor people are. There is hope for you yet

Cutting salary or raising taxes has the same result when you look at how much money is left in your pocket

WRONG.

Cutting salary is a voluntary act. You keep showing up for that job, so you voluntarily accepted it.

Being taxed is not voluntary. It is done by threat of violence against those who do not comply.

I am, however, ok with freedom of choices. And if the business or gov't take that route of cutting those salaries a bit, then so be it. A world of difference from deciding to use their monopoly on force to make people forfeit more of their money.

Oh, and btw, you're wrong on the money = better education idea: Does Spending More on Education Improve Academic Achievement? | The Heritage Foundation

They didn't volunteer to have their salaries cut, the school board decreed it...and none of those top 41 jobs would be members of a union.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Seems like the last thing South Carolina should be cutting is education.

Unless of course they're looking to remain ignorant.

Whose education is being cut?

 

[RDD_1210]

Yes. There is. Here is how.....

A man walks into a charity food bank, and the bank tells him "Sorry, we dont' have much, we are gonna have to give you a bit less this time."

That man then comes back with a gun, and says "Sorry, I'm gonna be taking more than what you were giving before."

See the difference? If not, you have issues.

LOL, thanks for the analogy. I love how you equate charity to a salary and the use of a gun to taxes. A bit over the top perhaps?

perhaps it's because you're having trouble grasping the concept?

it's tough on the left side of the bell curve, i'd bet.

You continue to try and attack me without actually posting anything of actual value. Is this standard for you?