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

[bucs90]

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?

Ok. Then how about this:

A guy shows up to work. His boss says "Hey Joe, bad news. We can only afford to pay you 85% of what you were making up to now. Times are tough, ya know? But we like you and would love you to stay."

Then Joe goes and gets a gun, comes in and says "Sorry boss, but you're gonna give me the full 100% plus 10% more, because you are rich."

That better?


And taxes are ONLY enforced by guns. If we knew we could get away with not paying taxes, or we could not be taken to jail, who would pay taxes? Few of us. But cops have guns. And cops arrest those who dodge taxes. So a tax hike is accompanied by the threat to send men with guns to arrest those who don't comply.

How is that so difficult?

 

[del]

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?

your lack of perception is not my problem.

 

[bucs90]

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.

They showed up today after the reduced salary. Hence, they voluntarily accepted the reduced salary.

Just like all those pissed off WI teachers are still gonna show up to work after this bill passes.

 

[Ravi]

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.

They showed up today after the reduced salary. Hence, they voluntarily accepted the reduced salary.

Just like all those pissed off WI teachers are still gonna show up to work after this bill passes.

They've already showed up after agreeing to reduce their salaries and benefits.

Another analogy fail on your part...why don't you get back to posting threads about how horrible black people are?

 

[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?

Ok. Then how about this:

A guy shows up to work. His boss says "Hey Joe, bad news. We can only afford to pay you 85% of what you were making up to now. Times are tough, ya know? But we like you and would love you to stay."

Then Joe goes and gets a gun, comes in and says "Sorry boss, but you're gonna give me the full 100% plus 10% more, because you are rich."

That better?


And taxes are ONLY enforced by guns. If we knew we could get away with not paying taxes, or we could not be taken to jail, who would pay taxes? Few of us. But cops have guns. And cops arrest those who dodge taxes. So a tax hike is accompanied by the threat to send men with guns to arrest those who don't comply.

How is that so difficult?

You analogy continues to be terrible. If Joe gets his salary cut at his job, you say that's ok, because it helps the company and his salary reduction is for the common good. Fine.

Then, you use Joe again as your example for taxes and him holding his boss at gunpoint for a raise. This is where the analogy fails. Joe is still just an individual and that money will benefit him and no one else. Federal income tax is used for the common good and it's not stealing to line the pockets of any one person.

So you already provided your reasoning that the rich should pay more to help promote the common good of their organization. In your OP that organization was the SC school district. In the bigger picture, the organization is the country.

 

[dilloduck]

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.

I've never heard it said on this site that rich people work harder than poor people. All I hear is that people who make more money should be taxed more but I appreciate the example of someone arguing against something that they actually agree with just to try to prove some strawman point that isn't even being asserted.

 

[RDD_1210]

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.

I've never heard it said on this site that rich people work harder than poor people. All I hear is that people who make more money should be taxed more but I appreciate the example of someone arguing against something that they actually agree with just to try to prove some strawman point that isn't even being asserted.

It's about highlighting hypocrisy. Which is all over this site. Haven't seen that either I'm guessing?

 

[editec]

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.

I love that argument.

Yet we seldom see any wealthy people willing to put their own children in school systems where there isn't plenty of money spent on each child, do we?

Gee, it sort of makes me wonder why, if your assertion is so clearly evident, that wealthy communities still spend so much on educating their children?

Seems a complete waste to send them to Choate or Andover if, as you assert, they're wasting their money.

 

[Bill O'Olberman]

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?

I will agree that poverty affects education rankings dramatically. I disagree with race. West Virginia, the state with the highest percent of white people, falls just below South Carolina.

 

[bodecea]

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

That's what he is saying....and what he seems to not be aware of is that the highest paid members of school districts are the Administration and they are NOT union members...they are management....so, why aren't we seeing this in union states? Good question, cuz they aren't part of the union.

 

[bodecea]

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

Threat of Violence?

 

[RDD_1210]

Just the fact that buc90 hasn't bothered to come back in here to defend his ridiculous analogy and hypocritical viewpoint is proof enough for me. Well done sir! You just made the case for being a liberal. Welcome to the side of sane and rational thought.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

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.

I love that argument.

I would hope so. It's factual.

Yet we seldom see any wealthy people willing to put their own children in school systems where there isn't plenty of money spent on each child, do we?

Gee, it sort of makes me wonder why, if your assertion is so clearly evident, that wealthy communities still spend so much on educating their children?

Your argument assumes that people know about what I pointed out and that's your flaw. How many people do you think know what their school district's annual budget is? How many people know what they are spending the money on? Most people haven't got the slightest clue. They assume that if we're spending more money it must improve the quality. That's patently false and the numbers show it.

Wealthier people put their kids in wealthier school districts because it feels good to do that. If there is more wealth in the district then they figure the schools must be better. Well, that is true to a point, but not because more money is spent, but rather it's a reflection of the parents themselves. Successful parents generally breed successful children because they instill those lessons in their kids and place value in their education so the kids are actually learning something. Compare that to inner city schools which by and large get more funding than those wealthy school districts do and the kids are dumber than a box of rocks. For example, Washington D.C. spends almost $25,000 per student and they have one of the worst school districts in the country.

Seems a complete waste to send them to Choate or Andover if, as you assert, they're wasting their money.

We're talking about public schools, not private. That's a whole different animal with different factors involved.

 

[grunt11b]

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.

This can't be true, the Republicans are all about the Wealthy!!!! I heard it on these boards that the GOP only looks out for the wealthy people!!! You LIAR!!!!!

Is it me, or is anyone else noticing the cracks in the liberal arguments? I love it.

 

[rightwinger]

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.

This can't be true, the Republicans are all about the Wealthy!!!! I heard it on these boards that the GOP only looks out for the wealthy people!!! You LIAR!!!!!

Is it me, or is anyone else noticing the cracks in the liberal arguments? I love it.

I, for one...welcome the new republican mindset

 

[uscitizen]

Thsi is the same state that the governor gave her cabinet members big raises?

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Thsi is the same state that the governor gave her cabinet members big raises?

Yes, but she also has a smaller staff (which equates to each of them doing more work) and her budget is still lower than the previous governor's.