Search this Topic:
Jan 2 17 1:30 AM
Jan 18 17 4:32 AM
Mar 11 17 3:01 PM
Apr 11 17 1:29 PM
Apr 15 17 7:17 AM
May 7 17 9:17 AM
May 7 17 2:30 PM
May 8 17 5:58 PM
paul253 wrote:"http://www.jsonline.com/story/news/politics/2017/05/05/gov-scott-walker-pans-increase-gas-taxes-wisconsin/101332490/" Rep Kooyenga came up, what I thought, was a very creative plan to help solve the transportation funding problem. I forget all the specifics but highlights include: applying the state sales tax to gasoline.....lowering the gas tax itself by over 4 cents a gallon.....lowering the minimum markup from something like 9% to 3%......either lowering or eliminating the prevailing wage for highway projects, which should lower their costs (i forget the specifics of that)......lowering the income tax.....asking the Feds for permission to add tolls.......and preventing future wheel taxes, among other things. This plan got a lot of GOP support and support from groups like MMAC and Americans for prosperity. But Walker is rejecting it because he thinks it's an overall tax increase. He obviously disagrees with the supporters who say it'll both raise revenue and lower gas costs due mainly to eliminating the minimum markup on top of then 4.8 cent tax decrease. I understand Walker's no tax increase pledge
May 9 17 7:16 AM
May 9 17 10:09 AM
May 9 17 10:37 AM
May 9 17 6:21 PM
paul253 wrote:I wasn't looking at tax rates. Pretty much every list I've seen lists Wisconsin near the bottom in terms of overall tax burden. For example: https://www.google.com/amp/amp.usatoday.com/story/100064034/ That doesn't include fees either. And also keep in mind this after 6 years of Walker and Republicans being in charge whose goal was to lower taxes. But even if you don't accept that my argument remains. There needs to be alternative solutions to raising taxes and fees every time we need more money for something. While in the case of the transportation funding our hole is so big there may be no choice, there are things that can be done to minimize the hit. I think Rep Kooyenga's plan did a good job of finding some of those solutions.
May 9 17 7:05 PM
May 11 17 11:37 AM
paul253 wrote:"Any savings by cheap labor is lost in loss of buying power" That's not necessarily true. If, for instance, this leads to a 5% pay cut for some people who work on these projects you can't automatically assume they'll cut their spending by 5% too. They may just save less. Or invest less. Or buy cheaper versions of the same product. But either way in my opinion it is the government's responsibility to provide services for the best deal possible. If they can get a job done for $800,000 they should pay a company $1,000,000 just to assrenthe company is paying their employees a certain amount per hour. It could also open up these contracts to other, smaller companies who can't afford to pay their employees as much.
Stats show middle and working class people spend what they make for more than save so it seems fair to assume much of their wages would be spent. As far as opening up the contracts to smaller companies who can't afford those wages since everyone has to pay those wages I don't see how size matters.
"We can't just decide since it's government money being spent that people should be forced to work for less than prevailing wages" Absolutely we can. Why should the government decide what "fair" wage is for any job? They should be given out to whoever does it the cheapest, assuming it's still quality work. I can understand if they want to put certain conditions on it, such as local or minority owned businesses but the government's first responsibility it to the taxpayers who are footing the bill.
If you are asking why the government should determine a fair wage then you must have forgotten that is exactly what ACT 10 does. As for the prevailing wage provision it isn't the government making that determination. It's the industry itself. All the provision does is not allow one company to undercut the other bids by hiring unusually low wage workers for the industry's standards.
"Honestly as a public employee I think that sort of thinking should worry you. Your union and your job may have survived act 10 but it is a public sector job and that sort of thinking leads to your paycheck getting reduced sooner or later. If they are willing to cut the wages of private sector construction workers police as public sector employees are in line somewhere for "cost savings." Not sure what one has to do with the other. The city is not forced by law to pay us a certain wage. They are constantly trying to negotiate as low a wage as they can, thus saving money for taxpayers.
My point is the state can do to you exactly what it did to other public sector employees. They simply mandate what you wage are and you have no choice in the matter. Pretty much exactly what you said above they shouldn't do. You really shouldn't be so confident police are going to always be exempt from drastic cuts if the people in power never allow a single tax to raise. At some point it has to come from somewhere because we simply are not taking in enough.
"When That time comes I will stand with you to fight for your benefits and wages. I just wish you would do the same for others who get paid through the government" While I appreciate that I think it's an apples to oranges comparison. Our pay is set (or negotiated if you will) as a way to attract quality employees to the job. Obviously with all the shit that's been going on lately you can see the need for quality employees. You'll never be able to convince quality employees to patrol the worst parts of the city on third shift on weekends and holidays for $10 hour. But if companies are willing to accept a contract from the government and do the work for a certain amount who are we to say "no you can't do that you have to demand more money so you can pay your employees more"? In my case the city, if they could, would set wages as low as the could while still attracting quality employees. And while it would suck for me personally if my pay was cut in half I can at least understand why the city would want to do that. Their responsibility is to the taxpayer, not to me.
You do realize that is the exact same argument teachers made right? But it also illustrates why getting rid of the prevailing wage provision is not such a great idea. Cheaper labor does not produce the same results. Something I am glad you acknowledge at leas in your profession. But I wonder, if you think that is the case in your profession why wouldn't it apply to every profession? Finally government's responsibility is to more than just the tax payer. It is to the welfare of the entire state, city or county whether they pay taxes or not. Nor is their responsibility to tax payers solely to keep taxes as low as possible. It is to provide the best services for the taxes paid. That is not always done by paying the least.
May 11 17 5:53 PM
Jun 1 17 6:08 AM
Jun 2 17 3:13 PM
Jun 4 17 9:21 AM
Jun 4 17 7:25 PM
Invader3K wrote:My wife used to be a high school counselor. A common problem she found was that many kids had unrealistic expectations. One example would be a kid in their last semester of high school, carrying a C average, and thinking they would easily get into UW-Madison (and they hadn't even applied yet). Another would be the kids who think they're going to be professional athletes or musicians, without any sort of plan on how to get there. A lot of these kids came from single parent homes, and maybe they didn't have parents around to guide them into a realistic career path.Of course, why would kids want to go into skilled trades, when many high schools are unable to provide shop classes anymore?
Not all kids need to go onto college. Unfortunately, I think the ease of obtaining federally guaranteed student loans has made colleges greedy, and willing to take anyone. It's basically free money for them. Then these kids get there, and either never graduate, or end up with a unmarketable "softball" degree.
Jun 5 17 3:50 PM
© 2017 Yuku. All rights reserved.