No, you'll have to do better. Are you really that stupid? If 100% of the budget goes to payroll and retirement, the government wouldn't be able to perform its existential functions.
I see 80% of a STATE budget going for payroll and benefits. Which presumably leaves a mere 20% for whatever services the state might be providing it taxpayers. It seems like the epitome of anti-efficiency to me. Comparing this to a restaurant doesn't make much sense IMO.
How about if 67% of a state budget was paid out in payroll, and about 13% was paid for retirement? What does that tell you about benefits? Too high? Too low? Is it unsustainable?
Seems to me they'd be economically unstable, which is precisely the case: "It [California] bears the unique honor of being the only state considered economically unstable enough to have its debts, at a record $341 billion, rated at an A- by S&P" http://247wallst.com/2010/10/04/the-best-and-worst-run-states-in-america-a-survey-of-all-fifty/5/
Whoa, you're going to bring actual facts into this thread, rather than just the other cliches and emotionalisms based on nothing? I'm sorry, but you might be banned for life for that.
The question you raise is "what is fair" On taxes, the top 20% of earners pay 80% of all federal taxes. Yet, we hear screams about the wealthy need to pay more. What percent of taxes should the top 20% pay, to be fair?
What percent of the country do they use? I'm a big fan of the idea that taxes should be proportioned to what may be annually spared by the individual.
Exactly. There is no right answer, and there's nothing wrong with the top 20% paying 80% if there's a great wealth disparity. 20% paying 80% has no meaning on its own and is a perfect example of abuse of statistics.