01 Apr 08
...and bankrupt America's cities.
Many California cities have a 3 percent rule which allows a state, county or city worker to accrue a pension benefit of 3 percent of his final salary for each year worked. So an employee who started on the job at age 22 can retire at age 52 with a lifetime pension benefit of 90 percent of the final salary. Clearly these contracts are exorbitant and unfair to state and local taxpayers who get stuck with the bill. How did public employees get such sweet deals? Three words: Public employee unions.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/014/886hxint.asp
01 Apr 08
Originally posted by der schwarze RitterThey're put in place (or were put in place) to secure that if you worked your whole life, you got something back for what you paid into.
...and bankrupt America's cities.
Many California cities have a 3 percent rule which allows a state, county or city worker to accrue a pension benefit of 3 percent of his final salary for each year worked. So an employee who started on the job at age 22 can retire at age 52 with a lifetime pension benefit of 90 percent of the final salary. Cle ...[text shortened]... oyee unions.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/014/886hxint.asp
An investment, if you like.
What's your beef with that then?
01 Apr 08
Originally posted by shavixmirAmen Shavix. Only young people who don't know or remember how thing USED to be before unions make those kinds of comments. A person who works 30 years for the same company, government or not, deserves a secure retirement. And people who work for the city/state/federal government work just as hard as anybody else--I should know.
They're put in place (or were put in place) to secure that if you worked your whole life, you got something back for what you paid into.
An investment, if you like.
What's your beef with that then?
01 Apr 08
Originally posted by der schwarze RitterYes, blame the worker who put 30 years of his life into public service for the problems of the cities.
...and bankrupt America's cities.
Many California cities have a 3 percent rule which allows a state, county or city worker to accrue a pension benefit of 3 percent of his final salary for each year worked. So an employee who started on the job at age 22 can retire at age 52 with a lifetime pension benefit of 90 percent of the final salary. Cle ...[text shortened]... oyee unions.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/014/886hxint.asp
It has nothing to do with the loss of jobs in those cities due to multi-national companies outsourcing jobs to 3rd world countries for cheaper labour costs so that a few super rich stockholders can make even more money.
Way to put the blame on the average guy dsr. Bravo. You and Ross Perot should get gravesites next to each other.
01 Apr 08
Originally posted by der schwarze RitterGood to see that you agree that unionised workplaces are better paid workplaces.
...and bankrupt America's cities.
Many California cities have a 3 percent rule which allows a state, county or city worker to accrue a pension benefit of 3 percent of his final salary for each year worked. So an employee who started on the job at age 22 can retire at age 52 with a lifetime pension benefit of 90 percent of the final salary. Cle ...[text shortened]... oyee unions.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/014/886hxint.asp
02 Apr 08
Thank you, thank you, thank you. I can see I've attracted the wrong types of people to this thread, but what would a picnic be without ants? You should read the article, or better yet, pay the taxes for these overly-generous benefits and I guarantee that you'd then know what was wrong with this picture.
02 Apr 08
Originally posted by der schwarze Rittermost public employees don't pay social security, so those numbers seem appropriate to me. If employers did right by their employees, there would be little need for the SSA.
...and bankrupt America's cities.
Many California cities have a 3 percent rule which allows a state, county or city worker to accrue a pension benefit of 3 percent of his final salary for each year worked. So an employee who started on the job at age 22 can retire at age 52 with a lifetime pension benefit of 90 percent of the final salary. Cle ...[text shortened]... oyee unions.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/014/886hxint.asp
02 Apr 08
Originally posted by der schwarze RitterIn Australia any employer you work for is legally obliged to pay 11 percent on top of your earnings into a pension fund, so working anywhere at any job provides a person with a good pension. Means the government pays out less for care of the retired. It works well.
...and bankrupt America's cities.
Many California cities have a 3 percent rule which allows a state, county or city worker to accrue a pension benefit of 3 percent of his final salary for each year worked. So an employee who started on the job at age 22 can retire at age 52 with a lifetime pension benefit of 90 percent of the final salary. Cle ...[text shortened]... oyee unions.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/014/886hxint.asp
On your point public employees generally get terrible wages next to their private counterparts thus providing a pension seems like a good Idea to me.
What's your complaint
02 Apr 08
Originally posted by der schwarze Ritternice try, but it's obvious most people are smart enough to see that the benefits of unions far outweigh the negatives. And I already pay those taxes you mention--and am happy to do so.
Thank you, thank you, thank you. I can see I've attracted the wrong types of people to this thread, but what would a picnic be without ants? You should read the article, or better yet, pay the taxes for these overly-generous benefits and I guarantee that you'd then know what was wrong with this picture.
02 Apr 08
Originally posted by der schwarze Ritterspeaking of tax money.....how many BILLIONS were announced by the Fed to infuse money into the credit market due to stupid lending practices by your banks?
Thank you, thank you, thank you. I can see I've attracted the wrong types of people to this thread, but what would a picnic be without ants? You should read the article, or better yet, pay the taxes for these overly-generous benefits and I guarantee that you'd then know what was wrong with this picture.
The amount of money spent on pensions for a few WORKERS is tiny compared to the money you guys happily use to bail out the super-rich. Wouldn't want that hedge fund to go bankrupt now would we? No, no, that million dollar investment you made last year might only be worth $500,00. Well, screw that, hey government, print up 300 Billion will ya? Inflationary pressure be damned!!!!
Come on dsr. Make a thread with some sense once and a while. You want to make a mountain out of a mole hill everytime someone gets a benefit that you don't. You put the "I" in American.
03 Apr 08
Originally posted by MexicoThis is patently false. Public employees get a tremendous wage premium vs. private sector employees when you factor in the amount of benefits they receive. Here is some interesting reading on the matter:
I...On your point public employees generally get terrible wages next to their private counterparts thus providing a pension seems like a good Idea to me.
What's your complaint
http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=15536
http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=15646
03 Apr 08
Originally posted by uzlessThe issue is not the benefit, but rather, the fact that their benefit is bankrupting our cities, counties and states:
speaking of tax money.....how many BILLIONS were announced by the Fed to infuse money into the credit market due to stupid lending practices by your banks?
The amount of money spent on pensions for a few WORKERS is tiny compared to the money you guys happily use to bail out the super-rich. Wouldn't want that hedge fund to go bankrupt now would we? No, no ...[text shortened]... f a mole hill everytime someone gets a benefit that you don't. You put the "I" in American.
http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=15537
http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=15509
http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=15375
http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=14732
03 Apr 08
Originally posted by der schwarze RitterRaise taxes then. Stop trying to get your public servants on the cheap.
The issue is not the benefit, but rather, the fact that their benefit is bankrupting our cities, counties and states:
The interesting thing about a lot of these pension scheme problems is that they'd have been avoided if various organisations hadn't used the massive rises in the stock market in the boom periods as an excuse to pay less money into them.
03 Apr 08
Originally posted by mtthwI should have guessed you were English. I don't know what they're teaching you over there on the other side of the pond, but it is wrong. The stock market has nothing to do with prevailing wages, nor benefits paid to public employees.
Raise taxes then. Stop trying to get your public servants on the cheap.
The interesting thing about a lot of these pension scheme problems is that they'd have been avoided if various organisations hadn't used the massive rises in the stock market in the boom periods as an excuse to pay less money into them.
03 Apr 08
Originally posted by der schwarze RitterDid you ever stop to think about the implications of using the NCPA as your ONLY source for economic 'studies'?
The issue is not the benefit, but rather, the fact that their benefit is bankrupting our cities, counties and states:
http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=15537
http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=15509
http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=15375
http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=14732