Originally posted by zeeblebotJust apologize and stop pretending you handled your error with any integrity.
when you say i haven't corrected-and-clarified, did you just skip over the following post (my first post made after noticing someone on this thread caught the error), or are you lying or confused?
Originally posted by zeeblebot
[b]well, do you know the difference between a lie and a mistake?
the first post in Comments for the article is shown ...[text shortened]... l irresponsible and sloppy journalism. I wonder what other facts are wrong in this article?[/b]
i can also tell you that finnegan's post accusing me of lying and your post accusing me of misleading, both based on the £4,000 figure, were made FIVE DAYS after the original post, and my reply was made FIVE DAYS after the original post, and that my posts EVEN FROM YESTERDAY no longer provide me an Edit link. how do you expect me to edit a FIVE DAY OLD post?
Originally posted by zeeblebotI just expect you to aplogize. That's all. But don't if you can't. It's ok. Your cards are on the table. We've seen your hand.
i can also tell you that finnegan's post accusing me of lying and your post accusing me of misleading, both based on the £4,000 figure, were made FIVE DAYS after the original post, and my reply was made FIVE DAYS after the original post, and that my posts EVEN FROM YESTERDAY no longer provide me an Edit link. how do you expect me to edit a FIVE DAY OLD post?
what a load of crap in this thread. If you belong to a union (as in the public service) you are FORCED to contribute to the pension fund. Money is automatically deducted from your salary and put into a pension fund. That money then becomes your pension.
Pension money is NOT extra money. It's money ALREADY there!
Jebus folks, learns how pensions are funded before you yamble on like bleeting goats
Originally posted by uzlessSpot on. As I said earlier, there are problems for every pension fund in meeting potential liabilities for reasons of demographic change and declining returns on investments in a low interest rate / low inflation world. This is not different for private or public sector pensions. Of course, many private sector employers have raided their employees' pension funds, greatly increasing their problems. But so too have many public sector employers - always seeking to draw out extra cash to avoid short term inconvenience.
what a load of crap in this thread. If you belong to a union (as in the public service) you are FORCED to contribute to the pension fund. Money is automatically deducted from your salary and put into a pension fund. That money then becomes your pension.
Pension money is NOT extra money. It's money ALREADY there!
Jebus folks, learns how pensions are funded before you yamble on like bleeting goats
This is not actually about public / private sectors. Its about protecting the hard earned (and hard paid for) rights of employees against their misleading thieving employers. A classic divide and rule ploy is at work - using pseudo moral arguments to confuse issues. When the New Right attack the public sector and taxes, it is the wealthy who stand to benefit. There may indeed be a need to negotiate changes - on the lines of Germany's increased age of retirement for example - but why negotiate when employers can divide, rule, lie and mislead.
1 edit
Originally posted by zeeblebotSure, oil companies pay taxes - to a degree. And their dividends support countless pensions. BP is very important economically. Even so, the environmental and social costs of oil extraction are externalized and not least because stupid Americans refuse to pay a true economic cost price for their oil.
the latest issue of Newsweek has an entire COLUMN on the nonfunded costs of gasoline production that manages not to include a single word on federal and state per-gallon taxes that apply only to gasoline and diesel.
in 2004 (last year shown in the study linked below), oil industry profits were $42.6B and $58.4B.
private sector spending is voluntarily tcy.
ref for oil industry profits: http://www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/1139.html
California is going bankrupt because its citizens will not pay the taxes required for a modern state. I notice the problems they have buying books for school kids.
The American New Right anti public sector rhetoric seems locked in the Eighteenth Century argument with George 111 who was sick of subsidising that increasingly wealthy colony. Of course, no Irishman will argue with the case for independence from that Empire but that is another debate.
The modern state, not least in America, is the one you choose, you vote for, you sustain and it provides the services you need. It is a job for democracy to ensure it is done well and economically but it is not the work of the devil. The fact that you Americans persist in supporting politicians who are funded by vested interests is something to ask yourselves about. If you had a politician with integrity you would crucify him or her. But hey, that's your choice.
Originally posted by uzlesshttp://articles.latimes.com/2010/jun/17/business/la-fi-calpers-20100617
what a load of crap in this thread. If you belong to a union (as in the public service) you are FORCED to contribute to the pension fund. Money is automatically deducted from your salary and put into a pension fund. That money then becomes your pension.
Pension money is NOT extra money. It's money ALREADY there!
Jebus folks, learns how pensions are funded before you yamble on like bleeting goats
CalPERS orders California, schools to boost contributions
The increase, to help cover investment losses at the giant public pension fund, would begin in July. Separately, the governor and four unions announce a deal to reduce future benefits.
June 17, 2010|By Marc Lifsher, Los Angeles Times
Reporting from Sacramento — California's biggest public pension fund, which has suffered tens of billions of dollars in investment losses, is ordering the state government and a thousand school districts to boost their contributions to employee retirement funds by $709 million a year, beginning next month.
On Wednesday, the board of the California Public Employees' Retirement System voted unanimously for the increase, about $601 million of which would come out of state coffers. Schools would pay the remaining $108 million to cover retirements of non-teaching personnel.
...
The new hikes would boost the state's share of retirement costs to $3.9 billion a year and the schools' share to $1.2 billion.
...
2 edits
Originally posted by zeeblebotok, this line:
the latest issue of Newsweek has an entire COLUMN on the nonfunded costs of gasoline production that manages not to include a single word on federal and state per-gallon taxes that apply only to gasoline and diesel.
in 2004 (last year shown in the study linked below), oil industry profits were $42.6B and $58.4B.
private sector spending is voluntarily tcy.
ref for oil industry profits: http://www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/1139.html
in 2004 (last year shown in the study linked below), oil industry profits were $42.6B and $58.4B.
should have stated this:
in 2004 (last year shown in the study linked below), oil industry profits were $42.6B and government taxes on gasoline were $58.4B.
Originally posted by zeeblebot[/b]So what's your point? Taxation is legitimate and the notion that it harms the poor old oil industry is just laughable. The oil companies manage to make their profit, albeit varying from year to year, by extracting natural resources without replacement and with consequent environmental impacts as the oil is extracted, transported, processed and then burned.
ok, this line:in 2004 (last year shown in the study linked below), oil industry profits were $42.6B and $58.4B.
should have stated this:in 2004 (last year shown in the study linked below), oil industry profits were $42.6B [b]and government taxes on gasoline were$58.4B.
Left to their own devices, the oil industry would just suck it up, pocket their profits and leave the rest of us to stew. Look at the way in the Middle East oil wealth has fallen to an unelected oligarchy, one that was put in place in 1918 through the Treaty of Versailles by America's President Wilson with his dreamy delusions about nation states, albeit alongside Britain (Lloyd George) and France (Clemenceau), but even then already knowing they would need oil from the region. That oil wealth is not properly taxed and the wealth is not redistributed in the region which remains intensely poor - is that a model you recommend for other countries?
Our dependence on oil - and especially affluent Americans' dependence on oil - is inherently destablising not only of the environment but also of World politics.