Weak straws, and a weak point, huh?
Explain to me how my analogy is any different that what goes on in the private sector.
No one cares if you might not have a job in another state. It's not part of the argument. Eventually, customers will run out of companies to choose from, too. And, once again, you don't have any rights as a taxpayer to protect. Google "taxpayer standing."
Can a taxpayer decide to move from California to Florida if taxes get to be too high? Yes. On the opposite end of the spectrum, can a taxpayer decide to move from Illinois to Massachusetts because of the free health care there, or Arkansas to Virginia because of the great public schools? Yes.
The (very strong) point remains. Taxpayers, like customers, have a choice as to where they pay their taxes, or buy their products. Taxpayers can change their domicile. Customers can change vendors. Therefore, your point that the (public sector) states are
different than (private sector) corporations because taxpayers HAVE to pay taxes as opposed to customers who don't have to buy a product, is invalid. You, like a customer,
can move.
The difficulty of the move for you is immaterial to the argument. Just as it would be if I were to make a point that a passenger would have a difficult time driving from Atlanta to Birmingham to take advantage of cheaper fares and therefore they HAVE to continue to pay Delta. They
can drive.
So, how about a different argument from you as to why public sector employees should be treated differently than private sector employees? (Without the adjective filled, one sentence, without any backup, critique of my argument, this time. Thanks.)
