Posted on 06/27/2010 9:08:06 AM PDT by GVnana
Yes, indeed!
The work of DMV employees does not create new services or goods in a market and thus is non productive in the economy. While it could be argued that DMV employees are consumers with jobs that add consumption in the GDP, the source of their wages is taken from the economy in the form of taxes which means less disposable income thus less savings and consumption by everyone else. Again no economic growth can result from adding DMV or any other government employees.
I was pleased that at one of my students e-mailed me and said how his eyes had been opened.
Congratulations and keep up the good work!
Adults can kill a child’s aspirations so easily...
There are certain things which a society generally agrees that it needs that a government is best suited to do, and these activities are legitimately paid for out of taxes, but it is folly to grow the scope of government thinking that this is going to grow the size of the economic pie. The number of police, firemen, etc. that most people want quickly comes to a plateau.
It is still BS.
When I was active duty military, I was sent a "Salary + Benefits" number from the Dept of Defense Finance Agency every year.
As a 2nd Lt, I earned almost nothing. My first assignment was in a high cost area, and the Variable Housing Allowance rate for a 2nd Lt was almost nil, so I lived had to live on base, in a dorm single room, with water stained smelly carpeting, two burners to cook on, and a "bathroom" that had a sink and nonworking toilet. I used a shower down the hall, and a hall toilet in the adjacent building. For that privilege, the government took my pitiful housing allowance away, that was calculated as part of my salary. I had to purchase new uniforms (including a mess dress that cost hundreds), and they deducted that directly from my paycheck. Every two weeks, I got a pay stub (after taxes) for about $200.
At the end of each tax year, the government sent me some bogus dollar figure of what I was "really" earning - which was something like twice was my paper salary was. I actually called them up about it, and waited on hold for an hour to get the answer. That number included all my "benefits" (being able to shop in the commissary saved me on toilet paper dontchaknow), and my medical benefit was included. So was everything else they could think of.
What is included in this calculation of "Salary + Benefits?"
Who knows?
Do they break it down and explain it?
Hell no.
It is just a bunch of crap, published to get press and media attention.
I could take your salary, and dress it up whatever way I wanted - and tell you the difference was "benefits."
If the group that keeps putting this $120K a year average about fed employees just argued facts, instead of garbage rhetoric and made up statistics, their argument would be much more persuasive.
But that wasnt a paid gig ;-)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.