Taxpayers fund public employees - FB Conversation

S.B. posted a link to an article: http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2011/02/25/the-wisconsin-lie-exposed-taxpayers-actually-contribute-nothing-to-public-employee-pensions/

M.G.: Are we surprised?? Recall Walker -- the puppet!!

S.J.: gov. walker is such a tool

Me: ‎"The pension plan is the direct result of deferred compensation- money that employees would have been paid as cash salary but choose..." If the taxpayer isn't the source for compensation, deferred or otherwise, then who is?

S.J.: the employee earned it

Me: Begging the question. What is the source of the money?

S.J.: bit of a circle there, i'm not saying state employees should not exist because their salaries come out of the tax base--am saying walker's a tool for saying workers need to "contribute more" to their pensions when 100% = 100%. he's a dishonest tool misrepresenting the situation and a real reason why unions are still needed.

Me: We need to be clear. All compensation paid to public employees, whether in cash, deferred income, or benefits like health insurance, comes from then pockets of taxpayers. Also, deferred income is not paid by the employee because the employee never received the money. Therefore, the taxpayer is funding it 100%.

S.J.: it's not being unclear, sticking to and not being diverted from the original point of the article which is walker's toolishness

Me: Would it be fair to say that the point of the article is contained in its title? "Taxpayers Actually Contribute Nothing To Public Employee Pensions."

Taxpayers fund the entire pension. Period.

S.J.: poorly worded, many headlines are (brevity, stupidity, etc.) but doesn't mitigate walker's earlier dishonest campaigning against state workers. whether working for the state or a corporation, a living wage for contributing to service or profit is due compensation. evaluating an individual position or performance is fair; inaccurately inferring that an entire class is unfairly receiving benefit is loathsome

Me: Sigh."If the Wisconsin governor and state legislature were to be honest, they would correctly frame this issue," advice the author himself ought to follow. The whole substance of the article (actually, an opinion piece) is a false premise, one that you are promulgating, is that The governor is wrong because the employee is paying for it. The fact, is the taxpayer is. Why is this so hard to see?

The governor was guilty of nothing more than imprecision. The writer is either misinformed or misleading.