Public service, benefits, and income

[audtatious]

Ran across an article today which talked about the trend in Cali where those using Police or Fire are now being charged for their use in 50+ cities. So, have an accident which requires support and you (or your insurance company) will be billed accordingly. Where is this coming from?

In Cali and other places it is well known that those who are public servants can get some hefty benefit packages, most unfunded or under funded. There has been a constant growth of public servants over the years as well. While most townships are moving away from the golden benefit packages, there is still quite a strain. Do you think the increase in traffic enforcement (tickets) and the above billings are a result of these issues or are they simply ways to inject more into coffers to allow further growth?

I'm somewhat on the fence about billing for Police/Fire use. On one side, if you need to use them then why should you not pay for their use? On the other side, are we not paying for them already? If a township changes to a billing method, should we see a decrease in taxation? Should we see a reduction in Police speed traps and such? Doubtful.

Additionally, should insurance companies be able to increase the policy costs to the public living in those areas or simply deal with it being the "cost of doing business"?

Open discussion....

[bigbadberry3]

I think public servants are often a scape goat in regards to large income. For example, I teach high school and make a fair amount of money and have about 3 summers off. Now here is some simple math to justify my excessive salary:

28 students per class (give or take)
5 dollars an hour to babysit a student (not mentioning the teaching part)
6 classes per day (some will teach 5)
180 school days per year (average as there is no minimum set)

Multiply these together and you get just over 150k a year. At least this is my argument for teachers, teacher unions though is a different story.

In IL, we've been cutting public servants left and right and raised the retirements age from 55 to 67 for teachers and 50 to 55 for fire fighters and police. We've also installed red light cameras everywhere to generate money. The realization here is that we have no money to pay workers anymore and we're taking steps to ensure we can continue to pay people to work. I think I have insurance to help pay for things when things go wrong. If they don't help me when things go wrong, why am I giving them my money to do nothing at all to help me? If it's written in my coverage it's on them to cover it.

[audtatious]

Do you see the cutting of public servants as a reaction to having benefit packages in place for those who proceeded them?

[bigbadberry3]

No I don't think it's a retaliatory move against public servants rather an "Oh $h!t" moment that there has to be some action taken to start balancing due to dire straights now and in the immediate future.

[audtatious]

Right, thus reactionary.

Some localities are not paying benefits packages anymore because the coffers are empty, should the Feds step in? I personally think it is retarded to let someone retire at 55 with a full benefits package when that person can live another 35+ years. Seems too easy for these clowns to vote themselves these nice packages. I'd love one of those myself.

[stebo0728]

Ive often wondered, why dont we have a legal mandate on a balanced federal budget? State law in many states requires a balanced budget before year end or state congress doesnt go home, why is this such an absurd idea to impose at the federal level?

[audtatious]

or, in this case, local level

[stebo0728]

yes, just prompted a separate random thought in my mind, thus the thread jacking ...

:>End Line

[audtatious]

So, is it appropriate to lower or simply not pay benefits to these retired public servants as a means to balance the budget? or....should we add more red light cameras and increase the fines for speeding and charge "the public" additional for things like....not keeping their yard clean or their house tidy or whatever?

At what point is the line drawn and people are simply told "tough s***, we can't afford it"?

[audtatious]

Side note:

http://blogs.ft.com/beyond-brics/2010/1 ... -facebook/

I believe Argentina did this in 2008. Other nations across Europe are looking at similar (Poland, Ireland, etc.) and it will spread further. What about here? Is this a valid option?

Maybe....Over the last "x" years there have been a few proposals from Democrats that the US Gov should take over people's 401k's.

http://money.usnews.com/money/blogs/cap ... plans.html
http://www.carolinajournal.com/exclusiv ... ounts.html

Is this an appropriate means to solve these issues from a Federal perspective? Mandate all retirement accounts to be grouped into a pool and managed via the Gov?

[IBCoupe]

I wasn't aware that there were areas where you didn't get a bill. An ambulance ride is like a $500 bill. More if they have to travel to a hospital not of their choosing.