patrick.net
An Antidote to Corporate Media
1,189,723 comments by 13,848 users - ForcedTQ, intrepidsoldier, richwicks, The_Deplorable online now
invite responseComments 1 - 18 of 18 Search these comments
1
HeadSet
2018 Apr 18, 5:22pm
HeadSet
2018 Apr 18, 5:22pm
One fix that may be employed is to tax the pensions. For example, Illinois may decide that $50k per year pension is all they can afford to pay out, so the cap it by taxing at 100% all payments above $50k. By claiming the ability to tax the pension as Illinois income would nab all those who moved out of state after retiring. Those state employees that managed to "spike" or a otherwise pull a $100k pension will bear the brunt of that tax pensions policy, while all the lower level folks with modest pensions will be fine.
3
FortWayne
2018 Apr 18, 5:35pm
FortWayne
2018 Apr 18, 5:35pm
It’s government, they’ll tax everything under the sun to get that money.
They have in CA increased taxes, added fees, reduced services. All to protect the pension system.
They have in CA increased taxes, added fees, reduced services. All to protect the pension system.
5
marcus
2018 Apr 18, 8:18pm
marcus
2018 Apr 18, 8:18pm
Yeah. They took pensions from the private sector. When are we going to get back to where public employees are worse off than everyone in the private sector as it should be again?
IT's a race to the bottom folks. If we're all going to become the pissant peasants and slaves that we should be, the next step is definitely fucking over public workers as much as we possibly can.
How are corporations supposed to hire you for slave wages if there are other options ??!!!!!!!!!
So yes indeed. Definitely. Compensating public employees well is bad for us all.
IT's a race to the bottom folks. If we're all going to become the pissant peasants and slaves that we should be, the next step is definitely fucking over public workers as much as we possibly can.
How are corporations supposed to hire you for slave wages if there are other options ??!!!!!!!!!
So yes indeed. Definitely. Compensating public employees well is bad for us all.
6
Shaman
2018 Apr 18, 8:20pm
Shaman
2018 Apr 18, 8:20pm
“I’m hungry”
Then work, bitch!
We don’t care if you fucking die if you’re not helpful!
Then work, bitch!
We don’t care if you fucking die if you’re not helpful!
7
Strategist
2018 Apr 18, 9:55pm
Strategist
2018 Apr 18, 9:55pm
FortWayne says
Protecting their unearned and undeserving pensions is their only goal.
It’s government, they’ll tax everything under the sun to get that money.
They have in CA increased taxes, added fees, reduced services. All to protect the pension system.
Protecting their unearned and undeserving pensions is their only goal.
8
Strategist
2018 Apr 18, 9:57pm
Strategist
2018 Apr 18, 9:57pm
Booger says
Ha ha ha. There is no one to tax but themselves. I wish them the best.
Did Detroit and Puerto Rico cut their pension benefits?
Ha ha ha. There is no one to tax but themselves. I wish them the best.
9
Strategist
2018 Apr 18, 10:01pm
Strategist
2018 Apr 18, 10:01pm
marcus says
Why do public workers deserve more than others? Sounds like extortion to me.
IT's a race to the bottom folks. If we're all going to become the pissant peasants and slaves that we should be, the next step is definitely fucking over public workers as much as we possibly can.
Why do public workers deserve more than others? Sounds like extortion to me.
10
WookieMan
2018 Apr 19, 5:19am
WookieMan
2018 Apr 19, 5:19am
marcus says
I don't think anyone believes they shouldn't be compensated well during their working careers. I think most would agree, pay them what they're worth and I think for the most part they are. There of course are examples of exorbitant salaries for government workers, but generally that's not the norm. BUT, and it's a big but, why are the retirement benefits not in line with anything even remotely realistic?
In IL at least, a private sector employee has to pay roughly 12% into SS. I know the employer pays half of it, but that's factored into a salary. Plus a lot of public sector workers have the government pay portions of their retirement contributions, so same thing essentially. So why is it fair for the private sector worker to put in more in most cases (at least IL) and have roughly half the benefits? And likely have to wait another 5-10 years additional to retire?
For the private sector employee to want to even "try" to retire by say 55-60, they'd have to throw in another 10% to a 401K to come out close to the public sector worker in many cases (and they still wouldn't even be able to touch their SS benefits until their 60's). I haven't researched most states, but I don't think there's a situation where public sector employees have to pay in 22% of income to retire (through their own or employer contributions combined). Chicago Public Schools near me is only 9% and the city picks up most of the 9%. These workers will burn through their initial investment and gains usually in something like 5-7 years after retirement. How is that sustainable?
I get your race to the bottom comment, as that's truly what it is. My only question, at least when it comes to retirement, why is everyone else on the bottom and government workers still at the top? While the bottom is paying for the benefits at the top? There's a reason that most states in our country have pension deficits. They were promises that couldn't be paid, plain and simple. Everyone knows it, but no one is doing anything to fix it. Government, at least at a local or even state level HAS to get out of the predicting the future business. They suck at it.
So yes indeed. Definitely. Compensating public employees well is bad for us all.
I don't think anyone believes they shouldn't be compensated well during their working careers. I think most would agree, pay them what they're worth and I think for the most part they are. There of course are examples of exorbitant salaries for government workers, but generally that's not the norm. BUT, and it's a big but, why are the retirement benefits not in line with anything even remotely realistic?
In IL at least, a private sector employee has to pay roughly 12% into SS. I know the employer pays half of it, but that's factored into a salary. Plus a lot of public sector workers have the government pay portions of their retirement contributions, so same thing essentially. So why is it fair for the private sector worker to put in more in most cases (at least IL) and have roughly half the benefits? And likely have to wait another 5-10 years additional to retire?
For the private sector employee to want to even "try" to retire by say 55-60, they'd have to throw in another 10% to a 401K to come out close to the public sector worker in many cases (and they still wouldn't even be able to touch their SS benefits until their 60's). I haven't researched most states, but I don't think there's a situation where public sector employees have to pay in 22% of income to retire (through their own or employer contributions combined). Chicago Public Schools near me is only 9% and the city picks up most of the 9%. These workers will burn through their initial investment and gains usually in something like 5-7 years after retirement. How is that sustainable?
I get your race to the bottom comment, as that's truly what it is. My only question, at least when it comes to retirement, why is everyone else on the bottom and government workers still at the top? While the bottom is paying for the benefits at the top? There's a reason that most states in our country have pension deficits. They were promises that couldn't be paid, plain and simple. Everyone knows it, but no one is doing anything to fix it. Government, at least at a local or even state level HAS to get out of the predicting the future business. They suck at it.
11
MisdemeanorRebel
2018 Apr 19, 5:43am
MisdemeanorRebel
2018 Apr 19, 5:43am
marcus says
You know what doesn't help? "Free Trade" with a country with 19th Century Labor Laws and Environmental Laws that are only enforced if a powerful clique wants to punish somebody.
IT's a race to the bottom folks. If we're all going to become the pissant peasants and slaves that we should be, the next step is definitely fucking over public workers as much as we possibly can.
You know what doesn't help? "Free Trade" with a country with 19th Century Labor Laws and Environmental Laws that are only enforced if a powerful clique wants to punish somebody.
12
zzyzzx
2018 Apr 19, 7:45am
zzyzzx
2018 Apr 19, 7:45am
marcus says
Why should the taxpayers, whom don't have any benefit pension plan continue to take tax hikes so that overpaid (by today's market standards) public employees can receive a lavish defined benefit pension? Public employees should have 401K's, just like everyone else. it's only fair.
IT's a race to the bottom folks. If we're all going to become the pissant peasants and slaves that we should be, the next step is definitely fucking over public workers as much as we possibly can.
Why should the taxpayers, whom don't have any benefit pension plan continue to take tax hikes so that overpaid (by today's market standards) public employees can receive a lavish defined benefit pension? Public employees should have 401K's, just like everyone else. it's only fair.
13
Bd6r
2018 Apr 19, 8:09am
Bd6r
2018 Apr 19, 8:09am
marcus says
Police in city where I live was able to get pension of 80% of salary after 20 years of service (they changed it now, but the ones who got this deal are grandfathered in). They pay in 6% of their salary into their pension. Now lets do some math. A 25-yr old person comes into police force, beats minorities and eats donuts for 20 yrs, and pays in ca. 1.2 yrs worth of salary into pension fund. He retires at 45 and will live another 30-40 years. His pension is calculated from highest (latest) salary, so 1.2 yrs is probably an overestimate, but given fantastic stock market, lets say it is true.
Is this a reasonable deal for citizens of our town, and do any private company employees get this kind of deal?
I agree with the sentiment that people should be compensated well, but then lets just pay them a good salary and have them save for pensions.
Definitely. Compensating public employees well is bad for us all.
Police in city where I live was able to get pension of 80% of salary after 20 years of service (they changed it now, but the ones who got this deal are grandfathered in). They pay in 6% of their salary into their pension. Now lets do some math. A 25-yr old person comes into police force, beats minorities and eats donuts for 20 yrs, and pays in ca. 1.2 yrs worth of salary into pension fund. He retires at 45 and will live another 30-40 years. His pension is calculated from highest (latest) salary, so 1.2 yrs is probably an overestimate, but given fantastic stock market, lets say it is true.
Is this a reasonable deal for citizens of our town, and do any private company employees get this kind of deal?
I agree with the sentiment that people should be compensated well, but then lets just pay them a good salary and have them save for pensions.
14
FortWayne
2018 Apr 19, 8:13am
FortWayne
2018 Apr 19, 8:13am
It’s unsustainable that’s why it’s gone in private sector
And same in government, which is not accountable to the people anymore. Government acts like they own us all.
Government is squeezing me, destroying my humble retirement savings, so bureaucrats can live in extravagance...how is that right? A lot of entitlement there in government.
marcus says
And same in government, which is not accountable to the people anymore. Government acts like they own us all.
Government is squeezing me, destroying my humble retirement savings, so bureaucrats can live in extravagance...how is that right? A lot of entitlement there in government.
marcus says
Yeah. They took pensions from the private sector. When are we going to get back to where public employees are worse off than everyone in the private sector as it should be again?
IT's a race to the bottom folks. If we're all going to become the pissant peasants and slaves that we should be, the next step is definitely fucking over public workers as much as we possibly can.
How are corporations supposed to hire you for slave wages if there are other options ??!!!!!!!!!
So yes indeed. Definitely. Compensating public employees well is bad for us all.
15
WookieMan
2018 Apr 19, 8:16am
WookieMan
2018 Apr 19, 8:16am
drB6 says
It's amazing that anyone could argue this point. Yet it happens all the time. Hell give them all a 20% raise today, BUT stop with the bull shit pensions that are most certainly not sustainable. Governments are AWFUL at predicting future expenses. It's like saying water is wet. They will promise you everything in the future and have no idea or care in the world what happens when it comes time to deliver on that promise.
I agree with the sentiment that people should be compensated well, but then lets just pay them a good salary and have them save for pensions.
It's amazing that anyone could argue this point. Yet it happens all the time. Hell give them all a 20% raise today, BUT stop with the bull shit pensions that are most certainly not sustainable. Governments are AWFUL at predicting future expenses. It's like saying water is wet. They will promise you everything in the future and have no idea or care in the world what happens when it comes time to deliver on that promise.
16
FortWayne
2018 Apr 19, 8:30am
FortWayne
2018 Apr 19, 8:30am
HEYYOU says
You know they'll just find a way to tax the working America, eliminating middle class completely in order to support their own government entitlements.
Can't wait until Republican & Democrat govt. employees start to see big changes in their monthly pension.
They should have created a privately owned international business & sold it after becoming billionaires.
Losers love socialism.
You know they'll just find a way to tax the working America, eliminating middle class completely in order to support their own government entitlements.
17
Strategist
2018 Apr 19, 8:51am
Strategist
2018 Apr 19, 8:51am
drB6 says
As per Marcus, public employees are special. Therefore they should get more than the average person who is not special.
Is this a reasonable deal for citizens of our town, and do any private company employees get this kind of deal?
As per Marcus, public employees are special. Therefore they should get more than the average person who is not special.
18
lostand confused
2018 Apr 19, 8:55am
lostand confused
2018 Apr 19, 8:55am
CA has the proposition system-why don't people just vote on limiting pensions. I know some people get 600k or even 900k a year-why not limit it to sya 45k.
In IL, they put it in constitution that nothing can be changed on pensions and dems will never vote to amend the constitutiion.
In IL, they put it in constitution that nothing can be changed on pensions and dems will never vote to amend the constitutiion.
Kicking the can down the road won't work for much longer.
Warnings about looming public pension disasters have regularly cropped up since the 1950s, pointing to problems 25 years or more down the line. To politicians and union leaders, the troubles were someone else's predicament. Then crisis fatigue set in as the big problem remained down the road.
Today, the hard stop is five to 10 years away, within the career plans of current officials. In the next decade, and probably within five years, some large states are going to face insolvency due to pensions, absent major changes.
New Jersey has $78 billion in its state pension fund, which is supposed to cover future payments with a present value of $280 billion. But that latter number is a projection. You can ignore it if you wish, or hope that soaring investment returns or a pandemic among retired workers will fix it. A more certain figure is that the $78 billion represents less than seven years of required cash payments.
If we extrapolate from the past, rather than use promises in the state budget, current employees plus the state will contribute about $25 billion over those seven years, which could provide another few years before the till is empty. But it will also add around $60 billion of future liabilities to current employees. The system probably breaks down before the pension fund gets to zero, for example if assets were to fall below $30 billion while projected future liabilities exceeded $300 billion. Even the most optimistic people would have to admit the situation is unsustainable. This could happen in three years in a bad stock market, or perhaps 10 with good stock returns. But fund assets are so low relative to payouts that good returns aren't that helpful.
https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2018-04-18/collapse-of-public-pension-funds-is-no-longer-a-distant-prospect