80 cents of each dollar in cali goes to pay and benefits

[Trader666]

No, you'll have to do better.

Quote from bigdavediode:

Sorry, if that's the best you can do you'll have to do better.

Are you really that stupid? If 100% of the budget goes to payroll and retirement, the government wouldn't be able to perform its existential functions.

Quote from bigdavediode:

Even 100% of a budget going to payroll and retirement doesn't mean anything whatsoever regarding the benefits received.

 

[Lucrum]

Quote from bigdavediode:

So you see 80% of a budget going for payroll and retirement as evidence that the employees have their jobs created for no reason and that have cadillac benefits.

I see 80% of a STATE budget going for payroll and benefits. Which presumably leaves a mere 20% for whatever services the state might be providing it taxpayers. It seems like the epitome of anti-efficiency to me.

Comparing this to a restaurant doesn't make much sense IMO.

 

[bigdavediode]

Quote from Trader666:

No, you'll have to do better.

Are you really that stupid? If 100% of the budget goes to payroll and retirement, the government wouldn't be able to perform its existential functions.

Fair enough. How about if 80% of the budget goes to payroll and retirement?

 

[bigdavediode]

How about if 67% of a state budget was paid out in payroll, and about 13% was paid for retirement? What does that tell you about benefits? Too high? Too low? Is it unsustainable?

 

[Trader666]

Seems to me they'd be economically unstable, which is precisely the case:

"It [California] bears the unique honor of being the only state considered economically unstable enough to have its debts, at a record $341 billion, rated at an A- by S&P"
http://247wallst.com/2010/10/04/the-best-and-worst-run-states-in-america-a-survey-of-all-fifty/5/

Quote from bigdavediode:

Fair enough. How about if 80% of the budget goes to payroll and retirement?

 

[bigdavediode]

Quote from Trader666:

Seems to me they'd be economically unstable, which is precisely the case:

"It [California] bears the unique honor of being the only state considered economically unstable enough to have its debts, at a record $341 billion, rated at an A- by S&P"
http://247wallst.com/2010/10/04/the-best-and-worst-run-states-in-america-a-survey-of-all-fifty/5/

Whoa, you're going to bring actual facts into this thread, rather than just the other cliches and emotionalisms based on nothing?

I'm sorry, but you might be banned for life for that.

 

[Mercor]

Quote from bigdavediode:

Fair enough. How about if 80% of the budget goes to payroll and retirement?

The question you raise is "what is fair"

On taxes, the top 20% of earners pay 80% of all federal taxes.
Yet, we hear screams about the wealthy need to pay more.

What percent of taxes should the top 20% pay, to be fair?

 

[bigdavediode]

Quote from Mercor:

The question you raise is "what is fair"

On taxes, the top 20% of earners pay 80% of all federal taxes.
Yet, we hear screams about the wealthy need to pay more.

What percent of taxes should the top 20% pay, to be fair?

What percent of the country do they use?

I'm a big fan of the idea that taxes should be proportioned to what may be annually spared by
the individual.

 

[Lucrum]

Quote from bigdavediode:

What percent of the country do they use?

You're suggesting the top 20% of tax payers use 80% of the country?
(whatever that means)

 

[bigdavediode]

Quote from Lucrum:

You're suggesting the top 20% of tax payers use 80% of the country?
(whatever that means)

Exactly. There is no right answer, and there's nothing wrong with the top 20% paying 80% if there's a great wealth disparity. 20% paying 80% has no meaning on its own and is a perfect example of abuse of statistics.