|
Post by m52nickerson on Apr 22, 2010 19:26:51 GMT -5
No, not at all. I would not suggest such a thing. In fact, teachers in Illinois get quite a comparatively decent salary right now: www.employmentspot.com/employment-articles/teacher-salaries-by-state/The fact is that most of them are making more money than a typical person in other jobs, for only 10 months of work. That in effect, raises their average hourly rate. A typical teacher may not make quite as much as a typical teacher in California or New York, but it seems as though at least half are well above 45k/year. Which in that article it states that there is quite a bit of variation in pay. That and the average includes specialty teachers and private school teachers. Most places teachers must have a masters degree. Some places also requires them to gain continued education credits. Not to mention they work in a high stress environment and most of the time have to take work home with them. Go advertise all that for 45K a year and watch most people laugh at you.
|
|
|
Post by canadian mojo on Apr 22, 2010 19:47:22 GMT -5
No, not at all. I would not suggest such a thing. In fact, teachers in Illinois get quite a comparatively decent salary right now: www.employmentspot.com/employment-articles/teacher-salaries-by-state/The fact is that most of them are making more money than a typical person in other jobs, for only 10 months of work. That in effect, raises their average hourly rate. A typical teacher may not make quite as much as a typical teacher in California or New York, but it seems as though at least half are well above 45k/year. Which in that article it states that there is quite a bit of variation in pay. That and the average includes specialty teachers and private school teachers. Most places teachers must have a masters degree. Some places also requires them to gain continued education credits. Not to mention they work in a high stress environment and most of the time have to take work home with them. Go advertise all that for 45K a year and watch most people laugh at you. I'm not sure it's worth the bother arguing, after all apparently there is nothing in the infrastructure or social services that Neutral Guy wants or needs.
|
|
|
Post by Madame Scarlet on Apr 23, 2010 9:26:53 GMT -5
I'm not sure it's worth the bother arguing, after all apparently there is nothing in the infrastructure or social services that Neutral Guy wants or needs. Yeah, fuck safe drinking water and roads!
|
|
|
Post by kristine on Apr 23, 2010 12:02:12 GMT -5
I'm not sure it's worth the bother arguing, after all apparently there is nothing in the infrastructure or social services that Neutral Guy wants or needs. Yeah, fuck safe drinking water and roads! the US military - the US post office, National parks, public schools - who needs all of that stuff after all.
|
|
|
Post by Neutral Guy on Apr 23, 2010 12:12:03 GMT -5
No, not at all. I would not suggest such a thing. In fact, teachers in Illinois get quite a comparatively decent salary right now: www.employmentspot.com/employment-articles/teacher-salaries-by-state/The fact is that most of them are making more money than a typical person in other jobs, for only 10 months of work. That in effect, raises their average hourly rate. A typical teacher may not make quite as much as a typical teacher in California or New York, but it seems as though at least half are well above 45k/year. Which in that article it states that there is quite a bit of variation in pay. That and the average includes specialty teachers and private school teachers. Most places teachers must have a masters degree. Some places also requires them to gain continued education credits. Not to mention they work in a high stress environment and most of the time have to take work home with them. Go advertise all that for 45K a year and watch most people laugh at you. I didn't say they got 45k. I said they got well over 45k. Big difference. In Illinois, the median is around 53k. They also get plenty of benefits, pensions, as well as vast amounts of protection from their unions. Firing a public school teacher is extremely hard.
|
|
|
Post by Neutral Guy on Apr 23, 2010 12:14:26 GMT -5
Which in that article it states that there is quite a bit of variation in pay. That and the average includes specialty teachers and private school teachers. Most places teachers must have a masters degree. Some places also requires them to gain continued education credits. Not to mention they work in a high stress environment and most of the time have to take work home with them. Go advertise all that for 45K a year and watch most people laugh at you. I'm not sure it's worth the bother arguing, after all Especially not when some people greatly distort or just plain incorrectly state what others say. apparently there is nothing in the infrastructure or social services that Neutral Guy wants or needs. apparently, you like to put words in other peoples mouths.
|
|
|
Post by Neutral Guy on Apr 23, 2010 12:22:40 GMT -5
Well, the word 'voluntary' can actually have multiple connotations. Yes, there is the typical kind where you volunteer to make brownies for your school fair for free, but I have actually heard the word 'voluntary' to describe a mutually agreed upon exchange. If you look at the dictionary definition of the word, mutual exchange/bartership can be voluntary: This use of voluntary to include mutual exchange can fit under directly #1, 2 and 5. Giving away something for nothing CAN be voluntary, but that is not the only form of what voluntary can potentially be. If I still have not convinced you, take into consideration that all US soldiers who currently serve as classified as voluntary. That is because there is currently no draft. The US Military, however, still pays these soldiers, even though it still calls them voluntary. Back when there was a draft, those who joined the military because of a draft notice were not thought of as voluntary. Those who did enlist without being drafted were considered voluntary. The distinction between voluntary and non-voluntary should correctly be understood as the difference between not being forced to do something and being forced to do something. Paying for goods and services is forced, otherwise not paying for them wouldn't be classified as stealing. But the initial agreement is not forced. Both parties have agreed to the terms of the sale. Taxes, by contrast, are imposed on you by the state, whether you or not you like it, have asked for it, or demanded for it. Do you understand the difference now?
|
|
|
Post by Distind on Apr 23, 2010 12:46:24 GMT -5
apparently there is nothing in the infrastructure or social services that Neutral Guy wants or needs. apparently, you like to put words in other peoples mouths. Then what exactly are you saying? Are those services not needed? Do you not gain anything from your taxes?
|
|
|
Post by Neutral Guy on Apr 23, 2010 13:17:09 GMT -5
apparently, you like to put words in other peoples mouths. Then what exactly are you saying? That Illinois does not exactly have the nations smallest tax burden, to put things mildly. Also a lot of people outside Chicagoland aren't too thrilled about that either. Are those services not needed? Do you not gain anything from your taxes? Well, I guess that depends on what services and groups are actually paid for by that state as well as in what proportion. I would have to take a look at the state budget to see what it pays for in order for me to determine what needs to be cut. Outside of the really obvious waste I would probably find, I would then need some additional time to go over various items individually. I would need to figure out what kind of effects each program or group has in relation to the people of Illinois in order for me to do a cost vs benefit analysis. I would then try to look at the opinions of various economists on what they consider must be cut or not cut. I might also try to look at each of those economists to see if any of them are in the employment of any particular lobby.
|
|
|
Post by SimSim on Apr 23, 2010 15:19:31 GMT -5
Paying for goods and services is forced, otherwise not paying for them wouldn't be classified as stealing. But the initial agreement is not forced. Both parties have agreed to the terms of the sale. Taxes, by contrast, are imposed on you by the state, whether you or not you like it, have asked for it, or demanded for it. Do you understand the difference now? I wasn't talking about taxes, you weren't talking about taxes in the part of the post I quoted, you were talking about payment. Taxes are totally irrelevant to what I had an issue with, and I don't want to get in to a debate about if taxes are fair or not.
|
|
|
Post by Mira on Apr 23, 2010 16:20:53 GMT -5
That Illinois does not exactly have the nations smallest tax burden, to put things mildly. Also a lot of people outside Chicagoland aren't too thrilled about that either. Outside of Chicagoland there really aren't that many people anyhow. There's basically Springfield, Champaign-Urbana, the Quad Cities, and East St. Louis outside the metropolis. Anyways, I didn't even understand this statement in the first place.
|
|
|
Post by ltfred on Apr 23, 2010 16:25:38 GMT -5
Either a) taxation is therefore justified or b) you never breathe, use roads or have a coporeal existence. The government regulates the clean air, builds and maintains roads and protects your life. Either you don't want that, or you have to pay.
|
|
|
Post by ltfred on Apr 23, 2010 16:36:31 GMT -5
virtually everyone who wants to raise taxes think that they are somehow going to escape it (LETS TAX THE WEALTHY!), (LETS TAX CIGARETTES!) by making groups they either do not like or groups that are unpopular pay more. Most people who support increased taxation and spending are those who think they are going to pretty much get something for nothing. Blatant strawman. First of all, it's a myth that unions are, in any way, equal to corporations in influence over the government. Non-corporate lobying is a joke. Second of all, firing people in an extremely inefficient way to achieve financial security. A far better solution is a slight rise in taxation. That is why people want higher taxation. You trade a certain percentage of your income plus sales tax, stamp duty and car registration for a road network and a defence force. It's called the social contract. It's not an involuntary contract, because if you chose not to accept it, you may freely move to Somalia. Wallmart can completely not exist at all and I wouldn't know, ala Enron. At least the government pretends to have Freedom of Information Wallmart can make you work whenever it likes. Wallmart can make you work in crappy conditions. Most terrifying of all, Wallmart can decide that you don't work any more and let your life collapse around you. And if it weren't for the tender mercies of the government, they wouldn't even have to pay you.
|
|
|
Post by Neutral Guy on Apr 23, 2010 18:08:04 GMT -5
But the initial agreement is not forced. Both parties have agreed to the terms of the sale. Taxes, by contrast, are imposed on you by the state, whether you or not you like it, have asked for it, or demanded for it. Do you understand the difference now? I wasn't talking about taxes, you weren't talking about taxes in the part of the post I quoted, you were talking about payment. Taxes are totally irrelevant to what I had an issue with, and I don't want to get in to a debate about if taxes are fair or not. Not at all, because when I started talking about mutual exchange, the context was what was coercive what is not. I was spelling out reasons why one was one way, the other was the other way. Sometimes, one needs to use comparison for meaningful discussion. So sometimes, other things can/should be introduced/reintroduced in order to do so. Especially when those other things are already part of the discussion (like taxes in this one). Second, take another look at the title to this thread. But you are also not really correct about payment either. When people go to the store or some office or wherever to make a sale, buy something, offer service, etc., the primary motivation of either party is not about coercion. The primary motivation for each party in a transaction is to get something for something else. Even one side making the decision to fulfull its end of the bargain for the most part, does not do so for coercive reasons. Often, that party (whether customer or business owner) wants repeat business. People also want good reputations. Outside of that, people tend to be concerned on the behalf of others; not wanting to hurt them or do the wrong thing. Another factor in the equation is credit history. Meaning that if ones credit history goes too far down into the toilet, that person is unable to get future credit. In many cases, this goes far enough to prevent that person from doing other things, like getting certain kinds of jobs or a house or car. Only thieves, who are thankfully not most people, have the intention of theft from the beginning. They are less likely to be concerned with the social stigma I had just mentioned before. So really, only the people who are thieves at heart, but are too afraid to carry out the theft are those who are motivated to pay for coercive reasons.
|
|
|
Post by Neutral Guy on Apr 23, 2010 18:15:12 GMT -5
That Illinois does not exactly have the nations smallest tax burden, to put things mildly. Also a lot of people outside Chicagoland aren't too thrilled about that either. Outside of Chicagoland there really aren't that many people anyhow. There's basically Springfield, Champaign-Urbana, the Quad Cities, and East St. Louis outside the metropolis. Does that make me wrong? Anyways, I didn't even understand this statement in the first place. What do you mean? What's not to understand?
|
|