Originally posted by PalynkaSometimes they are encouraged to retire early, maybe to cut down on the number of them to save money. I have no objection to anyone retiring at 55 as long as someone who retires later and has paid more into a pension gets a bigger one.
He also has the right to express his political opinion.
I also don't see why public servants should retire earlier (although I don't think this is true for the UK).
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=127907362
When It Comes To Retirement, 67 Is The New 55
by Alan Greenblatt
June 18, 2010
Looking forward to retirement? You may have to wait a bit longer. Financial pressures are pushing up retirement ages all over.
William Reichenstein, who teaches finance at Baylor University, tells his students that they will have to save a lot more of their working income if they hope to retire as comfortably as their parents and grandparents, simply because they're going to live longer.
On Wednesday, France, which was the last holdout in Western Europe maintaining an official retirement age of 60, proposed increasing it to 62 by 2018. On the same day, California's Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger announced a deal with four state public employee unions to raise the retirement age by five years for newly hired workers.
...
Originally posted by zeeblebotWell this article reads as follows:
cost per household.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/pensions/7827945/Public-pensions-to-cost-you-4000-a-year.html
Public pensions to cost you £4,000 a year
The annual cost to the taxpayer of funding public sector pensions will more than double in the next five years to £400 per household, the Office for Budget Responsibility has disclosed.
So your figure of £4,000 a year is just a straight lie. Indeed, the figure of £400 a year is a projection to the future - according to this quote, the current cost is half that - at £200 a year.
Every employer has been faced with immense pension liabilities because of demographic change and startling reductions in interest rates and return on investments (hence reducing pension fund income while outgoings increase). Yes it is a problem and has to be dealt with.
Quite why public sector workers are expected to live with the level of lies, insult and abuse they do, however, escapes me.
Originally posted by finneganMaybe zeeblebot is basing his estimate on an assumed 20 people in one household. Regardless, the twisting of the data is an indication of zeeblebot's political sincerity. By saying "Public pensions cost you £200 a year" zeeblebot would not have been able to make a suffieciently strong anti-public pension point.
So your figure of £4,000 a year is just a straight lie. Indeed, the figure of £400 a year is a projection to the future - according to this quote, the current cost is half that - at £200 a year.
Originally posted by FMFFascinates me how the American Right induce ordinary people to endorse right wing bigotry with such ease. When they attack taxes and public services they save the wealthy and their corporations millions. Sure, a worker with McDonalds hamburgers will probably get lousy pay and zero pension but they will not get better pay or pensions by attacking the pay of nurses, teachers or care workers.
Maybe zeeblebot is basing his estimate on an assumed 20 people in one household. Regardless, the twisting of the data is an indication of zeeblebot's political sincerity. By saying "Public pensions cost you £200 a year" zeeblebot would not have been able to make a suffieciently strong anti-public pension point.
Originally posted by finneganwell, do you know the difference between a lie and a mistake?
Well this article reads as follows:
The annual cost to the taxpayer of funding public sector pensions will more than double in the next five years to £400 per household, the Office for Budget Responsibility has disclosed.
So your figure of £4,000 a year is just a straight lie. Indeed, the figure of £400 a year is a projection to the future - accordi ...[text shortened]... kers are expected to live with the level of lies, insult and abuse they do, however, escapes me.
the first post in Comments for the article is shown below.
Edit: and the Telegraph has updated its headline to show 400.
----
alecd
Yesterday 02:03 PM
Recommended by
2 people
Hilarious. The headline was £4000? And the correct figure is 400? Now changed here on the website?
What incredibly sensational irresponsible and sloppy journalism. I wonder what other facts are wrong in this article?
The post that was quoted here has been removedit's disingenuous to extrapolate the special situations of the police, firemen, and military to public servants as a whole.
even so, around here at least one city (or the Editors of a newspaper in one city, Palo Alto, CA) are questioning whether the police and firemen really need so many personnel, and so much overtime.
http://www.google.com/cse?cx=002683415331144861350%3Atsq8didf9x0&q=top-paid+city+of+san+jose&ie=utf-8&sa=Search
http://articles.sfgate.com/2008-03-30/news/17169154_1_department-heads-city-s-highest-paid-employee-midsize-city
Cities pay huge salaries despite fiscal crises
Vallejo isn't the only city with a bloated public payroll - salaries could stir up a fiscal storm in Oakland, San Jose, San Francisco
March 30, 2008|By Erin McCormick, Christopher Heredia and Carolyn Jones, Chronicle Staff Writers
A city nurse earned $350,000. A fire department battalion chief pulled in more than twice as much as the mayor. And a municipal park ranger took home $188,000 in overtime on top of his $71,000 salary.
Such generous payouts were criticized for hastening the fiscal downfall of the city of Vallejo, which narrowly averted bankruptcy this month. But the nurse, firefighter and ranger aren't from Vallejo - they're among hundreds of top earners working for the cities of San Francisco, San Jose and Oakland.
A Chronicle examination of top salaries in the Bay Area's three biggest cities last year indicates that employee compensation and perks in those cities are similar to - and in some cases more lucrative than - those blamed for pushing Vallejo to the edge of financial doom.
In Vallejo, a midsize city of 121,000, there were 292 municipal employees who earned more than $100,000 last year. But in Oakland, with roughly three times more residents, 1,333 city workers were paid six figures in the same period. San Jose, a city of almost a million people, had 2,312. And San Francisco, which serves as a city and county government for its 809,000 residents, had more than 8,000.
...
Originally posted by zeeblebotSo we have to read the comments section to an article that you have linked to in order to find out that you were trying to mislead everyone one rather than find out from an apology and correction from you, posted here, on the the thread you started? You got chutzpah. I'll grant you that.
well, do you know the difference between a lie and a mistake?
the first post in Comments for the article is shown below.
Edit: and the Telegraph has updated its headline to show 400.
----
alecd
Yesterday 02:03 PM
Recommended by
2 people
Hilarious. The headline was £4000? And the correct figure is 400? Now changed here on the website?
What ...[text shortened]... tional irresponsible and sloppy journalism. I wonder what other facts are wrong in this article?
Originally posted by FMFyou are lying when you say i was "trying to mislead".
So we have to read the comments section to an article that you have linked to in order to find out that you were trying to mislead everyone one rather than find out from an apology and correction from you, posted here, on the the thread you started? You got chutzpah. I'll grant you that.
Originally posted by mtthw1. In the past, public sector workers were paid less to reflect the higher value of their other perks, particularly pensions.
No.
They also earn less than people in the private sector doing a comparable job.
In recent years, however, the average public sector salary has overtaken its private sector equivalent.
2. people in public service may or may not work harder, depending on the particular department and position. my observance is their efficiency rate is much lower, even for contractors working in public service (as opposed to workers in the commercial world in the same field).
Originally posted by zeeblebotWhat else are we to assume? The 4,000 pound figure is preposterous. Clearly. And even when goodlifer pointed out that it was in fact 400 there was no apology, retraction or correction forthcoming from you. Just a furtive silence about your OP and posts about other mostly tangential things like you votng and retirement ages. This could hardly be a more obvious a case of 'trying to mislead, having posted something false'. Finally you were called on it for a second time by finnegan and for a third time by me. And then? Of course you pretended not to have known. You take the biscuit. As ever.
you are lying when you say i was "trying to mislead".