Taxpayers don't actually pay union worker's pensions

[guido911]

The northwest quadrant of the city has union workers who have pensions due upon retirement. Their salaries have been paid by ratepayers, not taxpayers, and only by the collected rates of their customers. If you lived in an apartment, you paid nothing toward their salary or their retirement. If you lived in the biggest two/thirds of the city, your rates went to a private company who may have used pensioned employees or more likely temps.

So, it's the ratepayers, and not the taxpayers, who are these union workers' employers? Why is this such a big deal to you?

[RecycleMichael]

I guess I was wrong about the dense comment...

People who live in houses in one part of the city pay into a government fund. Not people who live in apartments or another part of the city nor businesses.

The money goes to a government. They hire union workers. None of this comes from taxpayers (OR YOU).

Explain what part you don't understand.

[guido911]

I guess I was wrong about the dense comment...

People who live in houses in one part of the city pay into a government fund. Not people who live in apartments or another part of the city nor businesses.

The money goes to a government. They hire union workers. None of this comes from taxpayers (OR YOU).

Explain what part you don't understand.

Who freakin cares? Someone, either a taxpayer or a ratepayer, is paying union labor to haul trash. Do you think you are scoring points for unions by suggesting that someone other than a taxpayer (who chances are are also ratepayers) pays these guys? Talk about weapons grade hairsplitting.

[RecycleMichael]

I will try to type slower for you.

If your taxes don't pay his salary or pension, are you his employer?

If your house doesn't pay a rate that goes to pay him, are you his employer?

If none of your money is directly involved, are you still his employer?

If you are not, why do you care about his pay or pension?

[Red Arrow]

If you lived in an apartment, you paid nothing toward their salary or their retirement.

Who picks up apartment trash?  A private hauler?

[RecycleMichael]

Who picks up apartment trash?  A private hauler?

Yes.

[Hoss]

Who picks up apartment trash?  A private hauler?

Did when I was living at one.  I remember WM doing our complex.  Like everything else in apartment living, it was likely built in to the monthly rent.

[Gaspar]

This is a really silly argument, and it changes nothing.

If the state has services that run billions of dollars in deficit, and has a handful of services that generate a revenue, it does not change the fact that the state runs a deficit.

If you want to individualize it on a micro level, that's fine.  The tax payer is still responsible for coughing up the money to pay for the deficit.

This is a "definition of 'is'" argument.

Back to the subject.  The tax payers pay for the salaries, benefits and union dues of the workers in question (Wisconsin Teachers).

[RecycleMichael]

What if there is no deficit?

The trash fund actually has a surplus.

The Tulsa City Council has tried to spend this money on non-trash expenses like giving the police department more money. There argument was that they should be allowed tospend it because they were the stewards of all city money.

It isn't a silly argument. You make statements that are in conflict with the facts then when others show real world examples, you just dismiss it.

Taxpayers don't completely pay for all government salaries and benefits. You were incorrect in believing so.

   

[Red Arrow]

Just to throw a third interpretation into the mix.  It sounds like I can stop being a taxpayer  by moving into an area that has city trash service operating with a budget surplus. 

[RecycleMichael]

Unfortunately, you still have to pay taxes for most government services. Services like having a fight between the Mayor and city councilors.

[Red Arrow]

Unfortunately, you still have to pay taxes for most government services. Services like having a fight between the Mayor and city councilors.

Darn!  I thought I found a loophole.

[Red Arrow]

Services like having a fight between the Mayor and city councilors.

You glory hounds are spoiling everything.  We suburbanites used to be able to make the news with our goofy governments but now the City of Tulsa is grabbing all the headlines. 

[TeeDub]

People who live in houses in one part of the city pay into a government fund. Not people who live in apartments or another part of the city nor businesses.

Just out of curiosity, if I lived in the ratepayer area you outlined earlier (North of I-244, West of Yale) would I have the option of not paying the rate and refusing to be serviced by City of Tulsa trash service?

[RecycleMichael]

No. The City ordinance requires any occupied dwelling to have trash service. If you are a singly family residence, the city provides you with service. If you are a duplex (or more), you have options.

The city requires you to have sewer service as well. I have my own septic system, if I didn't, I would use the city.