5 ms·
Isn't that the dream though? To be overpaid and not have to work hard?
by candiddevmike 3y ago
Isn't that the dream though? To be overpaid and not have to work hard?
- doctor_eval 3y agoYes, but that’s for us tech workers, not the common prole. /s
- stavros 3y agoNot if you're the employer, which, if you're the taxpayer, you are.
- throwanem 3y agoI think you meant 'employer'.
- stavros 3y agoI did, thank you!
- throwanem 3y agoSure thing. You're still wrong on the merits, though. To pick one example, the folks who work at my local MVA ("DMV" in most states) office do not work for me, though they're paid out of my taxes and those of everyone else who earns in Maryland. They don't report to me. Nor should they, because if they did, they would also report to that freak who drives a car plastered with QAnon garbage around Perry Hall. My city councilman and my General Assembly representatives work for me, but the people employed to deliver services managed by the state and city government do not.
- otterley 3y agoThe point is that we as collective taxpayers don't want to overpay for government services. And that point is a good one.
- hgomersall 3y agoNo you're not. They're employed by the state which is managed by the politicians you elect. I presume you mean to imply that civil servants are paid by your taxes, but that's not true either if we're talking about a sovereign state - a moments consideration would show that spending must preceed taxation, which is true as a matter of accounting. Really you'd do better to note that state employees allow you to get money enabling you to pay your taxes (but that's also not a very helpful way to look at it).
- bombcar 3y agoIf you're trying to apply modern money theory, it only works at the federal level (in the USA), state and local governments are directly affected by taxation which must precede spending (or they have to issue warrants or bonds). This comes back to bite California every time there is a major tax revenue crunch for whatever reason.
- candiddevmike 3y agoHow does that work with states like IL being massively in debt due to overspending and pensions?
- bombcar 3y agoIf "in debt" means "they can keep issuing bonds and people are buying them" then they're fine. If it means "they cannot make payments on bonds and cannot issue new ones because nobody wants them" then the Feds will have to step in, or they'll have to liquidate state assets (including privatizing various governmental functions, selling land and leasing it back, etc), or raise taxes to balance the budget. They literally cannot print money. This cycle has already destroyed a few cities (usually the city gets swallowed by the county). There's a step where they issue "warrants" like CA did a few times: https://taxfoundation.org/blog/california-issuing-state-warrants-pay-bills/ https://taxfoundation.org/blog/california-issuing-state-warr...
- lotsofpulp 3y agoIt means people pay sky high tax rates, and deal with lower quality government services, and the government sells of infrastructure like their parking meters. Also, land does not appreciate and the state is handicapped in attracting new highly profitable businesses. https://reason.com/2019/03/01/companies-should-avoid-states-with-huge/ https://reason.com/2019/03/01/companies-should-avoid-states-...
- kapp_in_life 3y agoFor who? Certainly not for the person paying.