by tovarichpeter ➕follow (7) 💰tip ignore
« First « Previous Comments 45 - 84 of 110 Next » Last » Search these comments
When I add in the value of their pensions, and I do, public employees are compensated vastly greater than private company employees.
then you know that cutting public sector compensation ultimatley hurts the private sector workers
marcus saysthen you know that cutting public sector compensation ultimatley hurts the private sector workers
Only if all those LA Teachers are retiring in LA. Otherwise, they cash their checks, go to the doctor, go grocery shopping, and buy homes in... Arizona.
But LA businesses and workers, not Arizona companies and employees, pay for it.
Everyone who gets CA pension retires outside of it, pays no taxes. call it winning?
How exactly do teachers and police officers make the $500k/year which would equate to $5m nest egg?
It incentivizes people to suckle a public service job which does little benefit
$5 million annuitized at 5% is 250K a year for 30 years. How many retired teachers do you think get even a 4th of that ?
Pulled your numbers out of where ?
$5 million annuitized at 5% is 250K a year for 30 years. How many retired teachers do you think get even a 4th of that ?
One things about cops, though, I don't think I have encountered one who was not suffering from some degree of PTSD.
Is 5% the current annuity rate?
marcus saysI was middle aged when I started teaching
during the fallout from the dot.com collapse, I read an article in the SF Chronicle about teachers who started in middle age, and how their social security got messed up.
I did not know this, but California teachers are opted out of social security. It means, they don't pay into it, nor do their employers. They do the pension instead. The teachers who started late, would receive a low social security based on contributions before going into teaching. But, because they started late, nor would they accrue a large pension benefit.
How do you spell clueless ?
F_O_R_T_W_A_Y_N_E
5% is a reasonable assumption
Can you kindly refute his ideas
No reason to assume when there are online tools.
www.youtube.com/embed/NjkNNDuAb9A
Maybe you don't understand, the online tools, if decent, require an assumption. If not, an assumption is being made for you. It's basically the reverse of the tools for calulating a mortgage payment. YOu have to choose an interest rate. If the tool doesn't ask you for an interest rate, it's becasue they assume you're too uniformed to come up with your own assumption.
Wasn't trying to make you cry marcus.
I don't really think that California taxes are all that significant a part of the high cost of living
That's hilarious, Marcus
The sad thing about pensions is that more of us don't have good pensions. I don't really know. IF I had a job where my salary was 40% to 80% higher, with 401K options, and maybe even some matching on the part of my employer, would I complain about government workers pensions ? Perhaps. I think it's somewhat selfish and short short sighted.
I didn't mean to use the word as representing an annuity investment product. But when you do a financial calculation (i used a calculator function) to find out what payment you could get monthly or annually on an amount of money that starts in this case at $5 million and goes to zero over a period of time, with equal payments paid out over that time (basically an annuity) I chose 30 years for the time frame and 5% for the interest rate (or internal rate of return).
« First « Previous Comments 45 - 84 of 110 Next » Last » Search these comments
patrick.net
An Antidote to Corporate Media
1,196,440 comments by 14,073 users - gabbar, Patrick online now