- Joined
- Mar 11, 2006
- Messages
- 96,051
- Reaction score
- 33,368
- Location
- SE Virginia
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
bravo indiana democrats!!!
So you condone irresponsible behavior. Gotcha.
bravo indiana democrats!!!
Hmm. I have a question here. If someone works all his life, he doesn't deserve a pension, if the pension comes from the public sector? The way I see it, he deserves a pension if he has worked in either the public or private sector.
Continuing to sound the alarm on local pension funds, Chicago's Civic Federation will release a report Thursday that shows the unfunded liabilities for 10 city and county pension funds grew sixfold from 2000 to 2009, with shortfalls now totaling nearly $23 billion.
Coupled with Chicago residents' share of state pension debt, covering the unfunded liabilities of public pensions would now cost every man, woman and child in Chicago more than $11,934, up from $2,442 just a decade ago, the report found.
I've forgotten in what context I made that comment, Dan. (And too lazy to go back and check.)
Public sector pensions are Rolls Royces. While the private sector has almost exclusively embraced 401K's or other Defined Contribution Plans, public sector pensions are Defined Benefit Plans.
Simply explained, that means that the private sector is promised, as an example, "we'll match any money you put into your 401K up to 15% of your income." That money is then left in a family of funds or other investment options -- to grow and become available to the account holder when he retires.
In the public sector, these Rolls Royce Plans promise a % of one's salary depending on age at retirement and length of service. These plans are structured actuarily with imputed growth rates and, whether those growth rates are met or not, the benefit doesn't change. These plans are under water big time. And taxpayers are paying the price. Example:
Everybody should have a pension. Everybody should contribute to their pension. The right of a public employee to have a Rolls Royce Plan can no longer be carried on the backs of those taxpayers in the private sector. We can't afford it anymore....thanks to politicians who gave away the store at the bargaining table and public sector employees who have no idea how exceptional their pensions are in the real world and, frankly, don't give a damn. They just want 'em.
The FERS uses a 401K plan as the primary source of retirement along with social security.
AEI - The Market Value of Public-Sector Pension Deficits•State pension funds are underfunded by over $3 trillion; this is more than six times the $438 billion in underfunding the plans themselves report. Pension shortfalls far exceed explicit state debts.
•Current state pension accounting practices are inaccurate and outmoded. Private pension plans would not be allowed to use such methods.
•Market valuation of pension shortfalls more accurately shows the risk to state budgets and taxpayers.
•Pension contributions, benefits, and retirement ages must be reformed, but this will be difficult until states adopt accurate accounting methods.
Standing up for the rights of working people is HEROIC.
Standing up for the rights of working people is HEROIC.
I've forgotten in what context I made that comment, Dan. (And too lazy to go back and check.)
Public sector pensions are Rolls Royces. While the private sector has almost exclusively embraced 401K's or other Defined Contribution Plans, public sector pensions are Defined Benefit Plans.
Simply explained, that means that the private sector is promised, as an example, "we'll match any money you put into your 401K up to 15% of your income." That money is then left in a family of funds or other investment options -- to grow and become available to the account holder when he retires.
In the public sector, these Rolls Royce Plans promise a % of one's salary depending on age at retirement and length of service. These plans are structured actuarily with imputed growth rates and, whether those growth rates are met or not, the benefit doesn't change. These plans are under water big time. And taxpayers are paying the price. Example:
Everybody should have a pension. Everybody should contribute to their pension. The right of a public employee to have a Rolls Royce Plan can no longer be carried on the backs of those taxpayers in the private sector. We can't afford it anymore....thanks to politicians who gave away the store at the bargaining table and public sector employees who have no idea how exceptional their pensions are in the real world and, frankly, don't give a damn. They just want 'em.
Standing up for the rights of working people is HEROIC.
Well, here is the problem I have with changing public pensions, and making them retroactive to employees who were hired with a condition being the public pension that they were offered. It is breaking the hiring agreement, which under the law is a tort. The government can actually be sued for breaking an existing hiring agreement although, for new employees, it would be considered fair, since it would be part of a new hiring agreement. I have no problem with changes in the way public pensions are administered, but it cannot apply to those already hired under the old pension plan who, under the law, accepted their positions with the assumption what was offered when they were hired. Had they been offered the new pension plan when they were being offered a job, then would they have turned down the job offer, and taken a position in the private sector instead? And that, in a nutshell, is a major problem, both legally and ethically.
I look at it like this. When you start a business, the idea isn't to go bankrupt. The millions you intended to make are not guaranteed to you.
If your state is broke, and it's LARGELY because of these pension programs and compensation scales, then you've got to shift gears. Everyone benefitting has skin in the game, and employees aren't exempt from that.
They are if they were hired under a hiring agreement that includes the pension that was part of their hiring agreement. A hiring agreement is essentially a contract, and if a government breaks a hiring agreement, it can be sued just like any other entity can be sued for doing the same. If the pensions are changed, there is no problem as long as it applies ONLY to new hires. Otherwise, the government will lose big in court.
Contracts are worthless if the money's gone.
Besides, Walker isn't going to take away anyone's pension here. He's just saying that if they want it, they'll have to contribute more in the future. And, he wants to convert Wisconsin into a right-to-work state, hoping they'll be able to duplicate the success of so many of the nation's other right-to-work states.
Hmm. I have a question here. If someone works all his life, he doesn't deserve a pension, if the pension comes from the public sector? The way I see it, he deserves a pension if he has worked in either the public or private sector.
Whatever he does, he must do it legally. If he changes the hiring agreement for existing employees, he will be sued in court, and he will lose. Again, whatever difficulty Wisconsin is in does not supersede a valid and legal contract.
Whatever he does, he must do it legally. If he changes the hiring agreement for existing employees, he will be sued in court, and he will lose. Again, whatever difficulty Wisconsin is in does not supersede a valid and legal contract.
They are if they were hired under a hiring agreement that includes the pension that was part of their hiring agreement. A hiring agreement is essentially a contract, and if a government breaks a hiring agreement, it can be sued just like any other entity can be sued for doing the same. If the pensions are changed, there is no problem as long as it applies ONLY to new hires. Otherwise, the government will lose big in court.
I wonder if we are going to see more of this with redistricting later this year in Republican-controlled states?
Hmm. I have a question here. If someone works all his life, he doesn't deserve a pension, if the pension comes from the public sector? The way I see it, he deserves a pension if he has worked in either the public or private sector.
Lots and lots and lots of working people don't belong to a union, and don't want to belong to a union.
A lot of us have done very well, in fact, without a union to hold our hand.
To me its a bit different. We get our senators from every state of the nation. WI gets their reps from...WI. I dont believe I have the words to express what I mean tonight, so I believe I am finished with at least this post for the night
I don't think anyone is saying otherwise. However, when it's Public service workers, tax payers have to pay those and it's hurting the states. They need to pay more into them themselves instead of getting such sweet heart deals. These governors are just trying to fix something that's been a problem for a long time and only getting worse.
Well, here is the problem I have with changing public pensions, and making them retroactive to employees who were hired with a condition being the public pension that they were offered. It is breaking the hiring agreement, which under the law is a tort. The government can actually be sued for breaking an existing hiring agreement although, for new employees, it would be considered fair, since it would be part of a new hiring agreement. I have no problem with changes in the way public pensions are administered, but it cannot apply to those already hired under the old pension plan who, under the law, accepted their positions with the assumption that they would be receiving what was offered as a part of their benefits, when they were offered their position. Had they been offered the new pension plan when they were being offered a job, then would they have turned down the job offer, and taken a position in the private sector instead? And that, in a nutshell, is a major problem, both legally and ethically.