From: J056600@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Re: Ignorance - Was Re: VOTE, BABY, VOTE!
Date: 13 Nov 92 23:15:56 GMT
Organization: Lockheed Missiles & Space Company, Inc.

In <Bxo9z3.Kzx@world.std.com>, Larry M Headlund writes:

>In article <1992Nov12.184033.5936@spectrum.xerox.com> rgoers@iset.scan.mc.xerox
>(deleted)
>>
>>I consider taxing me and spending the money on something that I don't approve
>>of is in itself a criminal invasion of my rights.  If EVERYTHING that the
>>Gov't spent money on was put to a vote first (not very realistic) how much
>>tax money do you think we would be paying in?  I would certainly vote down
>>any and all pay raises over 3%.  That's about all the average working person
>>gets, moreover, a public servant should be willing to accept less ...

>(deleted)

>I don't know about your state but for the last six years the state
>employee's of Massachusetts have had no pay raises.  That's no cost of living,
>nothing.  In effect with the current mild inflation rate about a third cut
>in pay.

*NO* COLA?  *No* bonuses in lieu of a salary increase?  Ooof.
Hmmm...at even a 3.5% inflation rate compounded for 6 years, that amounts
to a pay cut of 23%.  Add higher taxes to that, and your estimate of a 1/3 cut
may be close.  Have your benefits been cut much as most people in the private
sector, though?  That's the other part of the equation.  Many (if not most)
private sector employees have had their benefits hacked up considerably in the
last three years.  Collective bargaining sessions today often center around
benefits more than around pay.  It's easier for an employer to cut benefits
than it is for them to give you a 10% pay cut--even if the net effect to the
employee is the same.

>Also,  I notice you state that a public servant,  for which I read
>public employee,  should be willing to accept less of a pay increase than
>the norm.  Why?

They shouldn't have to.  I have no problem with government jobs paying as much
as their counterparts in the private sector; I just wish that there were fewer
of them (reduced through attrition and not lay-offs).  And when I say that
they should be paid *as much*, I include the value of benefits.  That means
that most public employees should be paid *a bit* less than private sector
employees, but just how much I don't know.

Government employees tend to have the best benefits anywhere.  They will have
better medical insurance (usually), better pension plans, and generous 401(k)
plans for starters.  They also (usually) have strong unions.  I also believe
that some government employees are exempt from Social Security, which is a
*huge* perk if you ask me--I see SS as a 7.65% tax, since I pay it and at my
age (27) I don't expect to see any benefit from it.  Actually, I'd gladly
forfeit *every penny* I've ever paid into Social Security if I could stop
paying into it--but that's another issue for another time :-) .

If the average government employee has benefits that are worth $X more per
year than their private sector counterparts, then their pay should be lower by
around $X (and for pension plans, the difference should be actuarially
calculated over the length of the career).  I don't know if that means you are
better or worse off than most private sector employees; I'm just trying to
ensure an apples-to-apples comparison.


Tim Irvin
*****************************************************************************
There was no Libertarian running against Congressman Don Edwards.  I think I
may do it in '94.