My Wife's Idea of a 5% solution - everyone takes a pay cut.

[MyUncle]

I work in the private sector. There have been documented cases that companies instead of having layoffs have instead taken pay cuts so people's jobs could be saved.

My wife said "Why can't everyone in the Government take a 5% pay cut? No exceptions what so ever. Everyone from the President, soldier, Congress on down."

I said why not 5% for up to $80K, 7.5% $80K-$120K 10% for over $120. She says, 5% could be managed by anyone and everyone. Then we might be able to avoid layoffs and program closures.

I personally think this is brilliant. It might be able to work for every government entity from the USA to local towns.

I'm sure Obama and my Gov. Brown read this board so gentlemen, please give this a shot.

These are tough times and this solution seems to me to be easy, fair and doable.

Thoughts.

[msongs]

1. everyone in the military, 5% cut in every contract cost, or just working people? nt

[MyUncle]

2. EVERYONE who gets a paycheck from Uncle Sam

no exceptions - makes it simple.

[mzteris]

7. how about a low cap on that?

If you make less than X amount, then you're exempt from the pay cut.

Low ranking enlisted personnel don't make that much.

[MyUncle]

12. No exceptions, eveyone takes a cut in wife's plan.

Mine is more complicated and I agree with the low pay scale option, but keeping it simple makes it more likely.

[rurallib]

24. or maybe a percentage change as your pay diverges from the mean

if average is $50,000 and you make $200,000 you get cut 10%
if you make 100,000 you lose 5%.
If you are below $50,000 you get a raise.

[hollowdweller]

48. The average state employee around here makes around 25,000

A single person with an apt could probably deal with 5% but a couple with kids I'm thinking 5% would be tough.

Oh and this to me is more of a republican topic. If you are a democrat you should be against any cut for public employees. If we dont' hang together we hang separately.

[mzteris]

50. i thought they were just talking

federal employees &/or military.

[bergie321]

39. You can't renegotiate contracts...

...Unless they are union contracts...

:sarcasm:

[denem]

3. What percentage for Corporations?

[MyUncle]

4. Don't know, don't care, this is just about the Federal Government.

[denem]

9. Corporations that supply the Federal Government

(edited for clarity) The Government pays them too.

[MyUncle]

11. The bidding process makes implementing that much more difficult.

[fittosurvive]

54. People who work in the private sector have taken cuts.

[Carolina]

73. because they have to

because private always means someone at the top rules and gets paid... big time regardless of what happens to a company and its workers!

Problem is republicans want to undermine any and everything public through privatization. They want to destroy peoples' public rights and jobs and benefits and make everything subject to the private, the privately owned and managed with no oversight. They sanctify business and think a nation should be run like one. But business, the private sector, is concerned with one thing: PROFIT! This idea of doing things like they're done in the private sector is a way to erode the checks and balances of private and public. Private greed versus public welfare (as intended and written in the preamble to the Constitution). It's a bad idea pushed by repukes since Ronald Reagan and look where we are today!

[bbinacan]

5. I like it

A 5% across the board cut on EVERY US expenditure. Foreign aid, Defense, and yes Entitlement programs. We're going broke folks. Time to stem the tide.

[MyUncle]

6. I think it might be "easy" just to do salaries.

Ideally, everything would be great, but I think that would be much more difficult to do anything that is not directly controlled in one place.

[bbinacan]

8. It's going to take a lot more than salaries

I'm talking about across the board budget cuts to EVERY gov't program.

[MyUncle]

10. I agree. We have to start somewhere.

I might be naive, but can't the President if Congress can approve it say "I am taking a 5% pay cut, Congress is taking a 5% pay cut and anyone who gets a paycheck from the Federal Government is taking a 5% pay cut. There are no exceptions". That would be step one.

[bbinacan]

14. Good start,

but we need more. And my God, if I here another speech where I hear "investment" as a euphemism for spending, I'll scream.

[CTyankee]

38. doesn't it depend on what the spending/investment is for?

The Germans have done this and things are going well for them...

[a la izquierda]

30. The president of my university...

David Boren, did precisely this. His thoughts were if all departments across the university are having to cut 5%, he'd do more: he cut 10% of his salary (I think that's right), and asked all Vice Presidents to take a 5% cut.

Made people pretty content (well, except most students whose fees were raised, but there's not anything he can do about that. The state is screwing the universities).

[yesphan]

34. Does this mean

Our precious Sooner FB program is taking a cut ? OH NO !

[a la izquierda]

45. I doubt it, but they generate their own revenue...

as I'm sure you know. How you liking the weather today??

[yesphan]

53. Good day

for a bike ride.

[a la izquierda]

55. One down already...

heading out for another with my husband in a little bit.

[yesphan]

57. I used to be a member

of BLN. After two years and no one new who I was or would talk to me, I decided to move on.
It's a beautiful day. Have fun and be careful!

[a la izquierda]

64. you should come back...

i can always pm you if my husband and i are going.

[Brickbat]

13. Congratulations! You've saved about $775 million, or enough to pay for one day of the Iraq War.

[bbinacan]

15. It's a start.

On edit. That's a stupid comment. I don't think you read the whole thread. We could be gone in Iraq. Obama just needs to give the word. End of spending.

[Brickbat]

19. Wait. Which is the stupid comment, mine or yours?

[MyUncle]

16. Is that the annual savings from a 5% reduction in all combined Federal salaries?

Not arguing, just curious about how you got the number and if that combines all branches of the Federal Government.

Thanks

[Brickbat]

17. Yes.

[Kaleva]

62. It might be just under 13 billion for civilian employess only.

"The Annual Cost of US Federal Government Civilian Employees

My conclusion:

There is an estimated annual cost of $259.3 billion, in current March 2010 dollars, to the federal government from civilian employee total compensation projected for the year 2010."

http://universityandstate.wordpress.com/2010/03/05/the-annual-cost-of-us-federal-government-civilian-employees/

With a projected deficit of about 1.4 trillion, reducing federal employee total compensation by 5% wouldn't do much.

"The 9th Quadrennial Review of Military Compensation
estimated total military compensation in fiscal
year 2000 at $109.5 billion—or an average of about
$90,200 per active-duty member (enlisted or officer)
in 2005 dollars."

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/82xx/doc8271/06-29-Compensation.pdf

A 5% reduction in military compensation would save something over 5 billion a year.Combined with a 5% reduction in Federal civilian for a total of possibly 18 billion per year.

[quaker bill]

18. The premise is false

We aren't "going broke". We simply aren't collecting taxes from those people who have the money. 23 percent of all the income in this country is earned by the top 1 percent of earners. They actually pay a lower rate than you or I do (assuming you aren't one of them).

We simply need to collect the funds from the people who have all the cash.

All this notion about needing to allow the rich to get richer so they will make us more jobs is utter hogwash. They have been getting dramatically richer for 30 years now. If this plan had any merit, we would be at full employment already and the US manufacturing sector would be hunting for employees.

There is is difference between going broke and just flushing most of the money down the toilet. Tax cuts for the wealthy have been a complete waste of resources, to the tune of uncounted trillions of dollars

Businesses do not innovate when they are making a billion+ dollars a quarter, because when it ain't broke you don't fix it. Businesses innovate when competition is nipping at their heels and profits are falling. Necessity is the mother of invention, the comfort of fat profits is childless. Somebody somewhere needs to get a clue.

[MyUncle]

22. I am not agreeing or disagreeing with you Quaker Bill

I am on a different track.

I am only suggesting that under the current system and current budgets, there will be job losses, there will be program cuts. My wife came up with an idea that everyone might be able to handle that, quite frankly, we had no idea how much money it would save.

Perhaps the number is 10%?

I for one am disturbed that a "solution" to the budget deficits is job losses in the Federal Government and loss of programs. (Same in state and local governments as well).

I do not want to see a government at any level that lays people off, lowers quality, endangers our communities or loses programs. Perhaps an across the board pay cut for EVERYONE could do that - management, staff, tinker, tailor, soldier & spy.

[quaker bill]

29. They are proposing that here

except it is a 5% paycut and layoffs. This of course is coupled with the abolition of taxes on corporations.

The psychology is wrong and the business model is in error. We are "going broke" because the vast sea of humanity from whom we actually do collect taxes in quantity, the middle and working classes, haven't seen a real increase in wages in 20 years. Paycuts do not address this problem, they exacerbate it.

While I do not want to see a government layoff, government layoffs are the reason that unemployment remains high when the private sector added more than a million jobs last year. For most of the last year, each month, government layoffs have all but completely offset private sector gains.

The answer is collecting taxes to fund the programs people need and want. Of course, the republican house will never approve this.

[Sherman A1]

32. Agreed & Well Said

"How about everyone takes a 5% pay cut".

It's one of those cutesy 10 word (or 8 in this case) answers of which Republicans are so proud.

However our problems are complex and require more than just a few words to solve them.

[RocketTuna]

44. +1000

*Thank you*

The idea that this is a spending problem is a nonsense corporatist lie.

We have a revenue problem. Period. It's not about cutting 5% or 10% from here, there or where-ever. It's about demanding what is due to society for providing infrastructure, stability, workforce (and more) from those who benefit the most from it.

[quaker bill]

52. +1000

in return

[RoccoR5955]

20. Not enough. Both in people, and money. AND STOP ATTACKING CIVIL SERVANTS!!!!!

You need some people who earn a whole lot of money to give some up, and NONE work in government.
People working for the government often times make 10-20% less than those in the private sector.
Why this attack on civil servants?
Why not a 10% tax on anyone who works in the financial sector? Why not a $.05 charge on each and every stock transaction?
I think that my alternative would work a lot better than your wife's attack on civil servants.

This is too simplistic, and cannot work. 5% reduction in all government programs would only reduce the deficit little less than that 5%, minus the interest on debt. Sorry to tell you, but it just cannot work. It's just too unrealistic. You have to get some heavy earners to start forking over the Benjamins, and then some. You have to cut the military by at least 50%. Then you might have me believing you, but this proposal will not work, because it simply is not enough to cut the deficit, and pay off interest on current debt.

[Brickbat]

21. +

[hollowdweller]

49. Amen

[MyUncle]

23. Rocco, sorry I am not attacking Civil Servants.

But, it is the Civil Servant sector that is experiencing an under funding of revenue. You can raise revenue for the government (your solution by raising taxes) and/or lower expenses.

The increase in Civil Servant income has grown much faster in the past 10 years or so than the private sector. Civil Servants right now are doing better than they ever have. I for one am hurting right now. I think that asking those who get their paycheck from the government can handle a 5% reduction in income.

I'm willing to say let's raise taxes on the rich and cut spending.

We are in a crisis.

[RoccoR5955]

31. It doesn't matter to you that the rich are making out like bandits...

LITERALLY. Why attack civil servants, when the real people who deserve the attacks are the ultra rich?
Do you know that civil servants make less than they would in the private market? Both in benefits and pay, civil servants make somewhere between 5 and 10 percent than those in equal positions in the private sector.
I think it's time you reconsidered, and started attacking the real enemy of WE THE PEOPLE... The ultra-rich!

[Drahthaardogs]

59. Thank YOU!

I wish they would lay the hell off of us. I am not rich, I make less than my private counterparts. I have a pension and job security. I CHOSE to take less pay in exchange for security while my colleageus went to Monsato and Bayer and got big paychecks. I am sorry that G.W. screwed this economy and those who chose to chase the dragon got burned, while those of us who played it safe reaped the rewards the last four years. Tuff! No one was crying for me to get a raise above my standard 2.1% twelve years ago when my colleagues were demanding 10% right off the top every year. I made my choice, others made theirs. They should accept the consquences and quit trying to pound the feds.

[Carolina]

74. Exactly! K&R

[MadHound]

25. Better solution, cut five percent from the military budget,

Then the people, whose wages have been flat for thirty years won't have to take a hit, social welfare programs won't have to take hit.

We could close a couple of bases in Europe that we don't need anymore.

[maxsolomon]

41. better solution yet: cut 25% from the military budget

then we'd only spend 7x more the nearest competitor, not 10.

and get out of europe, japan, and iraq.

[petronius]

26. That's what was done here in CA with furloughs last year, and it was not a long-term

solution. My union had to vote to accept the furloughs, and many of us did it for the exact reason you describe - to save jobs for our colleagues and continue providing services at an acceptable level. However, I'm not sure we saw any necessary change at a systemic level, so I doubt if furloughs would be approved if we were asked again...

[MyUncle]

27. I live in California, perhaps it would have worked better if

everyone was made to take a paycut, not just certain sectors/unions. EVERYONE gets a cut that would not go to deep on an individual basis but collectively help save our state.

PS, thanks for helping make this the place I wish to call home.

[CreekDog]

28. how much would that save?

total.

what's the deficit? total.

[harun]

33. Government wage is not the cost that is hurting us. The cost of occupying two

very large countries is. So is our defense R&D.

Wage cost in government is barely a blip against the cost of those two.

[Yavin4]

35. Why Not Halt The Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan

That would more than make up for the 5% cut.

[Blue_Tires]

36. The problem with that is I think most people would rather keep 100 percent

of their salary and instead chop off 5 percent of their workforce...I think if you polled an office and gave employees the choice of a 5 percent pay cut OR 5 percent of the office gets fired at random, then they will usually opt for the latter...

I'm not even going to get into your wife's fallacy of assuming government salaries are one of the 'big' expenditures...

[Avant Guardian]

37. Make everybody take a month long paid vacation

For every 12 workers, another worker will have to be hired to make up for the lost work year. They did it in Europe and everyone gets time off to enjoy life.

[bergie321]

40. Or...

We could raise taxes on the rich and allow them to share the pain.

[brooklynite]

42. How about the past two years when I didn't get a COLA?

Does that get factored in to the salary cut?

[sad sally]

51. Did somebody forget to tell you (like they did me) that there's no stinking inflation?

[yurbud]

43. if it includes an equal or greater ''pay cut'' in the form of taxes on the wealthy

especially investment income, yes.

[handmade34]

46. I would gladly take a 5-10% tax cut if...

we were functioning in an equitable system. as late as a couple of years ago I would have simply said yes, we should all take that 5% cut.... no more because I have learned too much about how we function (dysfunction) as a society. My income supports innumerable local people and I pay taxes. I consider myself a one-woman stimulas package :rofl:

We need to solve our problems by other means other than wage cuts... unless that person is making over $200,000.

Excess money is generated by exploiting labor and natural resources. The general populace is paying all the external costs for large corporations... that needs to end. There is much we can do before we cut the wages of regular people!

[ShadowLiberal]

47. I can't see politicians voting to do that to the military

With the attitude that too many politicians have that even one cent being cut from the military is a danger to our national security I can't see enough politicians voting for this.

[Phx_Dem]

56. No thanks. I don't trust most companies to do the right thing.

They'd probably cut our pay and then lay people off anyway, or use the extra money for executives bonuses.

[Honeycombe8]

63. The OP is talking about government jobs. nt

[Drahthaardogs]

58. As a whtie collar federal employee

I say sure, if and ONLY if

Every fucking Contractor who does busines with the government agrees to take a 5% pay cut, and NO ESCALATION on the multi year contracts I manage, if I have to take a pay cut and have frozen wages, so does every business person that has a contract with the government.

That being said, I also expect the following:

I get to negotaite my pay raises from now on, if I am a whale, I can stick to the government if they want to keep me

I get to hold stock options with whatever company I choose

The Hatch Act no longer applies to me, I can hold any office I so choose

I can get promoted to any position out there if I can pull it off. No limits to one grade above me

I no longer have to file a financial disclosure form with the government, stay the fuck out of my finances

I can have drinks at lunch if I so choose

[midnight armadillo]

60. Stupid idea.

Go after the $100 billion in annual tax evasion by corporations using overseas tax havens instead of fucking over civil servants.

[Carolina]

75. Exactly! K&R

[golfguru]

61. Very fair method...else massive layoffs are coming n/t

[Codeine]

65. That's like saying a Bandaid is the solution to an amputation.

Not enough, not even close.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

66. Then putting the Bandaid on the wrong limb.

See #18.

[JCMach1]

67. Only if taxes are raised on the wealthy by 10%...

[fittosurvive]

69. That is what they did in Minnesota...

The problem is that they defined rich as $75K.

[rocktivity]

68. No -- it doesn't solve the problem.

The problem was created by the government making it legal for the richest to stop paying their fair share of taxes. Re-adjusting the tax rates to their proper levels is the only viable solution.

:headbang:
rocktivity

[Wait Wut]

70. My son, a Marine, received a cut in benefits.

He doesn't make much. I'm grateful that my daughter-in-law keeps them on a tight budget so they can come visit once in awhile.

Punishing all public sector and government employees because of the actions of government is not a solution. Someone up above mentioned a "cap". That would be more realistic. As far as I know, my idiot Governor and Senators in Arizona haven't had their benefits cut. They make a whole helluva lot more than my son.

[emsimon33]

71. 5% is regressive

Those whose paychecks are at the lower and lowest end sometimes live paycheck to paycheck...barely. There was a 10% cut at the CSU university level as a furlough last year and some people lost their homes.

[Carolina]

72. totally unfair to those at the low end of the totem

pole, like a flat tax.

It should be progressive cuts and taxation with those who benefit (i.e. make) the most, paying the most. 5% hurts the private sector employee making 25K much more than the one making 100K!

Plus the federal and state budgets would not be crunched if we CUT the real budget busters: senseless, futile, ongoing wars and imperialism, the killer of all previous great powers! No one in power wants to address that.