Angel!
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 11:44:08 GMT -5
Posts: 10,722
|
Post by Angel! on Mar 25, 2011 13:26:46 GMT -5
Christie said that the govt was previously paying 90+% of the premiums. I had assumed that the $600 was on top of what they already pay, but perhaps not. Still, even with a fairly expensive plan, they are looking at at least an additional $400/month getting taken out (assuming their premiums are 24K & they previously paid 10%). Which would account to almost a 9% paycut, although taxes would reduce this amount.
I am more interested in what type of plan this is & what their other options include.
|
|
gooddecisions
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 13:42:28 GMT -5
Posts: 2,418
|
Post by gooddecisions on Mar 25, 2011 13:40:07 GMT -5
Yeah, there just is not enough information in that transcript to accurately do the math.
|
|
hello fromWarsaw
Senior Member
Hiya! Wake UP!!
Joined: Feb 13, 2011 1:24:04 GMT -5
Posts: 2,044
|
Post by hello fromWarsaw on Mar 25, 2011 13:42:24 GMT -5
"Irrelevant statistic and unsupportable. Define average CEO. I wouldn't use average pay for a statistical analysis." VERY relevant. You take CEOs' pay, add it together, and divide by the number of CEOs. What would you use? Doubletalk. Ford is an exception to the rule. Edsel was a friend of mine in high school- I met Henry II and knocked his wife's purse all over the floor as a waiter :! VERY CLASSY PEOPLE. Democrats (I believe
|
|
jkapp
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 23, 2010 12:05:08 GMT -5
Posts: 5,416
|
Post by jkapp on Mar 25, 2011 13:43:37 GMT -5
>>And, I am sorry, I just cannot get all that jazzed up because my child's teacher makes $35K and gets some decent health benefits. She isn't rich. She isn't in a McMansion. She drives a used car and on and on. I have a hard time viewing her as "pure evil' and i find this kind of pandering very destestible. And, I don't get it. Don't we WANT other Americans to have good jobs? If you somehow have good benefits and make more than $7 an hour you are greedy? << And the person making $30k a year is being taxed more because the $35k/yr teacher wants a pay and benefit increase. For three years the teachers' union in our area raised taxes 8-10% on people who were struggling because their Dem political puppets didn't want to lose union campaign dollars. The teachers didn't seem to care about hitting these people with higher taxes...so f$%^ the unions - they're greedy, uncaring little shits! >>I am sorry, but i have a big problem blaming Unions for all the ills of the world. And, people think that lowering someone else's salary will somehow raise theirs, it won't.<< It won' raise their salary, but it will let them keep more take home pay...or do you honestly believe that teachers aren't paid by taking money from the taxpayers??? I can show you this year where teachers have taken another $120 of my take home pay - another $120 out of the economy to pay for these greedy bastards... >>And, Unions did not bring those contracts into existence by themselves. There were officials, administrators and legislators who SIGNED and AGREED to those things as well. So, where is their blame?<< I blame the Dem politicians as well...but of course they would agree to the contracts - these politicians were bought and paid for by the unions campaign contributions and votes!!! >>If they could not live up to the promised benefits, they shouldn't have promised them. To pull the rug out from people and not honor what you promised is wrong<< No, what is wrong is having the unions financially support a politician and then having that politician be the ones to agree to the contracts...it's been happening for decades and no one said anything. But now that some politicians aren't sitting with their nose up the unions' asses, there are cries of foul! Pure hypocritical bs...
|
|
gooddecisions
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 13:42:28 GMT -5
Posts: 2,418
|
Post by gooddecisions on Mar 25, 2011 13:45:36 GMT -5
Well, maybe the were having to pay next to nothing before. I could see being angry about it if that's the case. But welcome to the real world. "That would amount to a significant increase from the 1.5 percent of salary employees now pay. A teacher earning $60,000 now pays $900 a year toward a plan that costs $22,000, Christie said. Under his proposal, that teacher would contribute $7,333 a year for an identical plan." Source: www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2011/01/gov_christie_proposes_increase.html
|
|
jkapp
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 23, 2010 12:05:08 GMT -5
Posts: 5,416
|
Post by jkapp on Mar 25, 2011 13:48:09 GMT -5
Remember only the govt workers have kept pace with inflation. The rest of the great unwashed workers have not, and they are starting to realize it! Yes, its amazing what you can get paid when all you have to do is just forcibly take more money from the people...if government had to actually collect money for goods/services and remain competitive then we would see how overpaid they actually are!
|
|
safeharbor37
Well-Known Member
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 23:18:19 GMT -5
Posts: 1,290
|
Post by safeharbor37 on Mar 25, 2011 13:52:45 GMT -5
Some employers [one I had which self-insured] simply budgeted a certain amount for health care for each employee and employees chose how much additional they wanted to pay for whatever level of coverage they wanted. I chose the HMO option which was the cheapest and, since I rarely used the coverage anyway, I was happy with that ~ the only problem was finding a "primary" doctor who participated in the plan. I did that until I retired [at 64] so the COBRA I used until I qualified for Medicare was also quite reasonable I have also had coverage as a teacher and those are, believe me, gold plated plans for next to nothing. Sure, I'd rather have gotten it free, but I'm a glass is half full type.
|
|
hello fromWarsaw
Senior Member
Hiya! Wake UP!!
Joined: Feb 13, 2011 1:24:04 GMT -5
Posts: 2,044
|
Post by hello fromWarsaw on Mar 25, 2011 13:53:10 GMT -5
Thank god Dems are finally doing something about ridiculous health costs, is all I can say. It's ridiculous that Pubs are fighting it- it's their kind of mainly private plan. And it's just a first step. All pub complaints could be added, and hopefully will be. It's the elephant in the room.
|
|
Angel!
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 11:44:08 GMT -5
Posts: 10,722
|
Post by Angel! on Mar 25, 2011 13:56:52 GMT -5
That is where I am having a hard time determining who to side with. It kind of sounds like they previously paid pratically nothing & had awesome plans. Paying a fixed amount for their health insurance & then allowing them to pick which plan they want & paying the difference is not a bad deal.
I understand the pain of suddenly having $350/month less take home. If this is what is needed to balance the budget, then fine, assuming you are spreading the pain around equally. For example, it isn't very fair to cut taxes on one group while at the same time reducing benefits on another group because "you can't afford it".
|
|
floridayankee
Junior Associate
If You Don't Stand Behind Our Troops, Feel Free to Stand in Front of Them.
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 14:56:05 GMT -5
Posts: 7,461
|
Post by floridayankee on Mar 25, 2011 14:00:07 GMT -5
You guys aren't reading it right. 13% of workers pay will be taken out to pay for premiums. She said that equals $600/month for her family, which means they currently make around $55K. lmao $600/month...poor thing. Welcome to my life Penny!!
|
|
jkapp
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 23, 2010 12:05:08 GMT -5
Posts: 5,416
|
Post by jkapp on Mar 25, 2011 14:01:09 GMT -5
Expat, they are benefiting unjustly and disproportionately and many are under performing. You have my total agreement...those unions are pitiful aren't they???
|
|
gooddecisions
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 13:42:28 GMT -5
Posts: 2,418
|
Post by gooddecisions on Mar 25, 2011 14:02:09 GMT -5
........."And, I am sorry, I just cannot get all that jazzed up because my child's teacher makes $35K and gets some decent health benefits. She isn't rich. She isn't in a McMansion. She drives a used car and on and on. I have a hard time viewing her as "pure evil' and i find this kind of pandering very destestible. And, I don't get it. Don't we WANT other Americans to have good jobs? If you somehow have good benefits and make more than $7 an hour you are greedy? ANd, the last time i checked, govt workers and teachers and police and sanitation workers, etc all have families, homes, children and would like to make a decent living and help their kids in college, etc."............. That's just it, they do have good jobs. Below is the link where you can look up all teachers' salaries in NJ. Nobody is making $35K/year. I challenge you to find anybody who is making less than $45k/year. And the 45K salaries are exclusively 0-2 years experience in a lower cost county. Most are making significantly higher than that for their 180 contracted days- so you can gross up whatever they are making by 125% if you want a fair comparison with a year round job. It doesn't even include total compensation package, stipends for sports or clubs, summer school, etc. So, I wouldn't worry too much about NJ teachers making a "decent living". php.app.com/edstaff/search.php
|
|
jkapp
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 23, 2010 12:05:08 GMT -5
Posts: 5,416
|
Post by jkapp on Mar 25, 2011 14:06:04 GMT -5
Thank god Dems are finally doing something about ridiculous health costs, is all I can say. It's ridiculous that Pubs are fighting it- it's their kind of mainly private plan. And it's just a first step. All pub complaints could be added, and hopefully will be. It's the elephant in the room. They aren't doing ANYTHING about health costs...what in that bill targeted costs? All they did was screw around with insurance, which does nothing for costs. Costs drive insurance, not the other way around...Jesus
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Mar 25, 2011 14:10:29 GMT -5
"Something I let slide from the OP is Penny's story. As someone that pays for my own healthcare, I'm interested to know what plan she's got where 13% of the premium is $600 each month. That means that her health plan's total premium is $4,615 each month, or $55,380 a year." This was my first reaction when I read the scenario. No way in h--- her premiums increased that much. Just another idiot calling in who doesn't understand her own finances much less know anything about economics. You guys aren't reading it right. 13% of workers pay will be taken out to pay for premiums. She said that equals $600/month for her family, which means they currently make around $55K. She is essentially being given a 13% paycut. Christie says she can move to a cheaper plan, but I don't know the details of what insurance options they have. If there are reasonable, cheaper plans that wouldn't cut her pay nearly so much, then this seems ok. But, why doesn't the state just take away the top tier plan completely then? Still not bad considering what the private sector is dealing with right now. Perhaps Penny would like to try her hand applying for a job outside of public service right now-- like her private sector counterparts that she expects to pick up the tab for her health care?
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Mar 25, 2011 14:14:46 GMT -5
........."And, I am sorry, I just cannot get all that jazzed up because my child's teacher makes $35K and gets some decent health benefits. She isn't rich. She isn't in a McMansion. She drives a used car and on and on. I have a hard time viewing her as "pure evil' and i find this kind of pandering very destestible. And, I don't get it. Don't we WANT other Americans to have good jobs? If you somehow have good benefits and make more than $7 an hour you are greedy? ANd, the last time i checked, govt workers and teachers and police and sanitation workers, etc all have families, homes, children and would like to make a decent living and help their kids in college, etc."............. That's just it, they do have good jobs. Below is the link where you can look up all teachers' salaries in NJ. Nobody is making $35K/year. I challenge you to find anybody who is making less than $45k/year. And the 45K salaries are exclusively 0-2 years experience in a lower cost county. Most are making significantly higher than that for their 180 contracted days- so you can gross up whatever they are making by 125% if you want a fair comparison with a year round job. It doesn't even include total compensation package, stipends for sports or clubs, summer school, etc. So, I wouldn't worry too much about NJ teachers making a "decent living". php.app.com/edstaff/search.php Correct, but more to the point, we are not liberals. Envy doesn't enter into it. Nobody is calling anybody names, nobody is calling anyone "evil". We are simply trying to make the point to a protected, priviledged, government class that has for too long been insulated from market competition in both the service they provide, and the salaries and benefits they are given by the taxpayers that WE CANNOT AFFORD IT ANYMORE. It's not politics, it's not envy, it's not name calling- it's just math.
|
|
Angel!
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 11:44:08 GMT -5
Posts: 10,722
|
Post by Angel! on Mar 25, 2011 14:17:56 GMT -5
You make it so their job's pay/benefit/satisfaction is less than what they can get elsewhere & they will leave. It is pretty much the same argument as you used on the first page : "You can't raise taxes on those best positioned to re-locate.", but just change it to "You can't cut pay/benefits on those best positioned to change jobs"
Now, if their current salaries & benefits line up with what they might find in other jobs, then you are fine. But, if they find that they can start doing much better in other employment situations & you are going to start losing your best teachers. So the question really is - what is their value & are they underpaid/overpaid/or paid correctly.
|
|
gooddecisions
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 13:42:28 GMT -5
Posts: 2,418
|
Post by gooddecisions on Mar 25, 2011 14:21:10 GMT -5
I posted this on another board, but my exact equivalent job makes $130K/year for the federal government (which I know we're not talking about here on the state job discussion) versus my $80K/year job in the private sector. There is no such thing as a state equivalent for what I do for comparison. But, my point is, public salaries are outpacing private sector salaries even for the equivalent job, yet they still feel they deserve extra paid bennies because "they don't make as much as the private sector". I'm just not buying it anymore.
|
|
gooddecisions
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 13:42:28 GMT -5
Posts: 2,418
|
Post by gooddecisions on Mar 25, 2011 14:23:30 GMT -5
"But, if they find that they can start doing much better in other employment situations & you are going to start losing your best teachers."
Last I checked there are still 100s of qualified applicants for every teacher opening. There is no shortage there, but unfortunately there is tenure- so you can't toss out the bad apples and hire new ones. Instead they just keep paying even the bad teachers more based on additional certification and years of service even with poor performance.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Mar 25, 2011 14:27:14 GMT -5
PBP, you go back to Chrysler of the 1980 era. Lee Iococca got $1 a year. The rest was all performance based. These multi million dollar salaries are BS, and unwarrented. Pay the the $1 and base bonus on a percentage of the increase over last year. No increase, give them a marginal salary. Do put a limit on the compensation, because no one other than an owner is worth what their egos demand. Chrysler got a big a** government loan, too. They rebuilt the company selling a POS car ripping off the public with the K-Car, and then they sold it to the Germans. And you don't think Mr. Iococca left with a couple bucks for his time at Chrysler, do you? Gimme a break. If you want to pay a CEO a dollar- start your own $3 billion a year company and pay yourself the way you propose. The market will decide. Not the government, not the peanut gallery, not the CEO's ego. CEO pay is one of the most democratic decisions on earth. Stakeholders have a say proportionate to their stake. Wish it was the same with the political vote-- no stake, no skin in the game, no vote.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Mar 25, 2011 14:31:31 GMT -5
Teachers, OTOH, are overpaid relative to the market. Their salaries are the result of union contracts put into place by politicians the unions support with dues collected from the taxpayers according to union contracts put into place by politicians the unions support with dues collected from the taxpayers according to union contracts put into place by politicians the unions support with dues col...you get the idea. It's a big scam to launder taxpayer money through the bureaucracy in the name of OUR children and into the pockets of union bosses and politicians.
They don't earn it. They don't produce anything. They don't even have to compete-- the government just takes the money and forces everyone into the government run school unless taxpayers choose to take ADDITIONAL dollars and purchase private education-- but there's no choice to take their business (their dollars) eslewhere. Schools get those dollars no matter what.
Teachers jobs aren't open to competition in the marketplace, either.
|
|
Angel!
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 11:44:08 GMT -5
Posts: 10,722
|
Post by Angel! on Mar 25, 2011 14:32:47 GMT -5
Who has no skin in the game? Who is not affected by the outcome of elections?
|
|
brdsl
Familiar Member
Joined: Dec 28, 2010 11:56:10 GMT -5
Posts: 863
|
Post by brdsl on Mar 25, 2011 14:34:59 GMT -5
"The market will decide."
How only if it were true....
|
|
|
Post by Mkitty is pro kitty on Mar 25, 2011 14:37:19 GMT -5
So we're not broke, then? And remember: anecdotal evidence is statistics with a sampling size of one. I don't care when CEOs give themselves a 10% pay raise as long as everyone else got approximately a same percentage raise. Also, where are those silver parachutes for the other employees? So since the Predident of the United States easily handles over ten times that amount, we should be paying him $110 million a year?
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Mar 25, 2011 14:39:27 GMT -5
Who has no skin in the game? Who is not affected by the outcome of elections? Well, for starters my idiot tenants who go down and vote for property tax increases on MY property. Yes, I raise their rents- and then they move. Yes, the next tenant can afford more, and pays it. But the idiots that voted for it are long gone. It's always someone else left to clean up after the leftists- be they the politicians or their drones they have turned into idiots in the government schools and brainwashed.
|
|
brdsl
Familiar Member
Joined: Dec 28, 2010 11:56:10 GMT -5
Posts: 863
|
Post by brdsl on Mar 25, 2011 14:40:06 GMT -5
"Teachers, OTOH, are overpaid relative to the market."
Actually, from what I have experienced in my area...private schools pay more.
my 2 cents.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Mar 25, 2011 14:41:03 GMT -5
Or the 47% of households who have no federal income tax liability.
Or the 35% of wages made up of government benefits of one form or another.
Or the 80% of that 47% of households that not only doesn't pay, but actually gets money out of the system.
|
|
safeharbor37
Well-Known Member
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 23:18:19 GMT -5
Posts: 1,290
|
Post by safeharbor37 on Mar 25, 2011 14:42:44 GMT -5
I believe that what Chrysler got was a loan "guarantee" which means no actual money was spent by the government. [of course, the government would have been on the hook had Chrysler gone belly-up] The big deal in 1979-80 [7 Jan 1980] was jobs. Hundreds of thousands of jobs were at stake and Carter and Congress made the right choice in my opinion ~ Reagan of course would have been on the hook had the ploy backfired. Clinton pulled a similar bailout of Mexico over Congressional objections in 1994, "The United States arranged currency swaps and loan guarantees with a $20 billion total value." en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1994_economic_crisis_in_Mexico Such "bailouts" are fine if they don't cost any money.
|
|
hello fromWarsaw
Senior Member
Hiya! Wake UP!!
Joined: Feb 13, 2011 1:24:04 GMT -5
Posts: 2,044
|
Post by hello fromWarsaw on Mar 25, 2011 14:42:46 GMT -5
"They aren't doing ANYTHING about health costs...what in that bill targeted costs?" Only 15% of costs can be non care, as opposed tp 27% now. 10 billion dollars of low cost clinics, transparent competition between plans. Pubs had some good ideas but only to stall and destroy the plan. Where are they now? Pffft! Teachers don't produce anything? How shortsighted can you get!! In Germany, 10 year olds want to be teachers. Here they want to be hedge fund managers. TY Reagan and "Greed is Good"...
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Mar 25, 2011 14:43:02 GMT -5
"Teachers, OTOH, are overpaid relative to the market." Actually, from what I have experienced in my area...private schools pay more. my 2 cents. This is unusual, but there's really no issue with it. It's private. It's voluntary. Parents who send their kids there can make it an issue if they choose. To me, the bigger issue is the sad fact that parents of private school students have to pay the private school AND the government run school they aren't using.
|
|
Angel!
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 11:44:08 GMT -5
Posts: 10,722
|
Post by Angel! on Mar 25, 2011 14:45:26 GMT -5
Or the 47% of households who have no federal income tax liability. Or the 35% of wages made up of government benefits of one form or another. Or the 80% of that 47% of households that not only doesn't pay, but actually gets money out of the system. They are still affected by the outcome of the elections, just like everyone else. They stand to lose just like anyone else.
|
|