True. Only 12.4% is put in your account every year.
and of that, you contribute half. Your employer contributes the other half.
There is the key. The Union and the District both agreed to something they both knew there was no way they could afford. Thus, the potential state take over.
Contrary to the prevarication promoted by some groups with agendas, people in this country are dying because of lack available healthcare. I could post links to scholarly articles and reviews from prestigious universities and institutes, and you can post rebuttals from apologist sources, but this is the wrong forum for that sort of thing. We'll have to agree to disagree.
That is true, but I wasn't saying anything about who the victims were. I was talking about who was accountable for the problem being as it is.
They are core issues in the dispute.
An unfortunately reality, but that doesn't excuse any aspect of society choosing less justice over more justice.
So, in other words, "fostering fear through threatening people's ability to support their families" trumps "justice". Yeah, it's sad. And people wonder why wage growth is flat while productivity is skyrocketing, and wonder why people cannot afford to secure their own future. Given the strangleholds like what you described, which many employers regularly employ to cut costs, there's no excuse for wondering why.
Again, the point is about accountability: The district is accountable for living up to the commitments it makes to the union. Despite your claim, their obligation could have been fulfilled if priorities were different, it leadership was better, etc. The fact of the matter is that the district failed to live up to its commitments, and by extension, it is the fault of the state and its voters for making legislative, executive and election decisions that put the district in this situation.
Well those voters fired those folks and elected folks to fix the mess.
I'm not trying to solve their problem. I'm trying to make clear to you the true nature of the problem that their failure has caused. There is no excuse for society choosing less justice over more justice, even if it means society has to do things that aren't easy.
Out of California? That's a pretty big move.
Even so. Many people live in an area because their family is there, because moving somewhere else may mean giving up seniority and having to take a few steps back in their career, etc. And besides a few uber-mobile taxpayers at the very top end of the range (who likely would have sought less tax-y pastures regardless), marginal increases in taxes doesn't spawn mass migrations as some would like to think. Census and IRS data shows clearly the of the 1.5%-2% of Americans who move to a different state, the vast majority cite employment and family as reasons for their move (and larger minorities cite housing costs and weather), rather than citing taxes as a reason. The statistics also show that there are almost as many people making the move from lower tax states to higher tax states as there are people making the move from higher tax states to lower tax states. It just isn't really a factor.
