quote:

Originally posted by ZSMICHAEL:

quote:

You don't live in California.

Sorry for you. You make sound very cogent remarks though for a California resident.

Sadly, our plans for escape were pushed back a few months, maybe early next year rather than this Fall.

I am no longer much surprised, but a bit saddened, when I see otherwise good people who have had too much liberal kool-aid. A number of public colleges in the Bay Area had free mental health counseling after the last election, as too many snowflakes, students and staff/faculty, couldn't deal with the trauma.

[quote]You don't live in California.

Sorry for you. You make sound very cogent remarks though for a California resident.


Sadly, our plans for escape were pushed back a few months, maybe early next year rather than this Fall.[/quote

Mississippi has a lot to offer in terms of a different attitude. Not quite as progressive, but we have the opportunity to learn from the failed liberal agenda. Gun laws are more than friendly.

Five pages in with good points from private and public sector employees.

The fact remains that pensions are underfunded. It will require radical changes to promised/fixed public sector pensions as well as dramatic increase in funding (increase taxes, shift budget from entitlement programs to pension funding).

I know the public sector employees put in their time and are counting on the governments to honor their pensions, but I don't see how that's possible. I can't imagine the tax hike necessary to fully fund pensions and make up the pension deficit.

quote:

Originally posted by Russ59:...The fact remains that pensions are underfunded. It will require radical changes to promised/fixed public sector pensions as well as dramatic increase in funding (increase taxes, shift budget from entitlement programs to pension funding).

I know the public sector employees put in their time and are counting on the governments to honor their pensions, but I don't see how that's possible. I can't imagine the tax hike necessary to fully fund pensions and make up the pension deficit.

And that is a bulls-eye. Either you tell those on defined benefit pensions they will get only half of what was promised, or you triple the income taxes on the private sector (clearly, not exact figures). But how else will CA fill the $1 Trillion hole?? I am not sure there will be a non-catastrophic solution.

sidenote. Russ, I see your Big Cottonwood marathon. I may have mentioned, I once lived about a 17 minute drive (IIRC) from the front door of Snowbird.

quote:

Originally posted by Russ59:
Five pages in with good points from private and public sector employees.

The fact remains that pensions are underfunded. It will require radical changes to promised/fixed public sector pensions as well as dramatic increase in funding (increase taxes, shift budget from entitlement programs to pension funding).

I know the public sector employees put in their time and are counting on the governments to honor their pensions, but I don't see how that's possible. I can't imagine the tax hike necessary to fully fund pensions and make up the pension deficit.

Exactly.

When those of us private sector workers have lost our pensions and see our wages getting squashed down, it is getting more and more unpleasant to watch our high school and college friends living nicely on their government pensions at age 55. I understand and philosophically agree with the idea the pension was an obligation the government employer entered into, and the employee should receive it.

But when I'm 65 yrs old, working, and living frugally while my friends have been retired for a decade already, I'm not going to be receptive to tax increases to pay their pensions!

Its getting about time those who want a government pension face reality. The pension promises made by those with little to lose by doing so just won't be honored. It ain't gonna happen. This is like a train wreck screaming to happen. More bad news is the longer its delayed, the worse it will end up being.

So maybe honesty would be a good thing for everyone to start practicing. Those of us in the private sector have known for a long time we need to provide for our own retirement. Hillary even suggested the Argentine solution of nationalizing everyone's 401k to supply funds. But that will get really ugly. The government really can't take away the minimal Social Security that poor widows rely on to pay some jerk his $50,000 a year plush retirement.

No one really doubts that the practice of boosting income in the last year amounts to fraud. If you rely on it, you're doomed.

Even the thought of taxing the workers into poverty to pay anyone a large (relatively) pension will fail. Until this upcoming crisis, some states even exclude pensions from taxes. Not only do the anointed ones get to feed at the public treasury, they want to continue getting it treated favorably by the tax man. Maybe a really good solution would be to enact a separate income tax plan aimed at pensions, and the money squeezed out of it handled to pay the pensions. Of course we know it can't be entrusted to the political types because they have a long standing reputation for stealing any money they can find. But at least that funding could go to pay some minimal portion of the totally failed funds.

Like guarantee the people who look for nothing a minimal amount (like equal to SS payouts) by taking a huge portion of those reaping $50,000 a year to pay the others $15,000 or $20,000 a year. Sure, it would cause a lot of screaming, but not as much as trying to tax the widows getting $12,000 a year to keep paying the $50,000 to the lucky few. That kind of plan just won't happen.

But maybe it would be good to try because it would finally rid us of the thieves in public office.

FishOn and jljones.

Sorry I offended you.

When I talk about government employees and use the word MOST I'm not talking about LEOs and Firefighters and other first responders. I know a couple of each and I know what they face each day, they have jobs I could not do. I figure most board members already know the type of government employee ('crat) I am talking about. Next time I'll be clearer.

quote:

"Anything for the precious state workers, most of whom work for the state because they are too stupid and too lazy for the private sector."

Screw you. I am an electrician for the Cal. Dept of Trans. And I work a second job educating electricians. I am neither lazy or stupid.

quote:

Originally posted by roberth:
FishOn and jljones.

Sorry I offended you.

When I talk about government employees and use the word MOST I'm not talking about LEOs and Firefighters and other first responders. I know a couple of each and I know what they face each day, they have jobs I could not do. I figure most board members already know the type of government employee ('crat) I am talking about. Next time I'll be clearer.

So, if I understand your "clear" statement, you give a pass to LEO, firefighters and first responders but give a blanket "most" condemnation to everyone else. Wow! I wonder what your boss would say about your performance?

quote:

Originally posted by Fly-Sig:

Exactly.

When those of us private sector workers have lost our pensions and see our wages getting squashed down, it is getting more and more unpleasant to watch our high school and college friends living nicely on their government pensions at age 55. I understand and philosophically agree with the idea the pension was an obligation the government employer entered into, and the employee should receive it.

But when I'm 65 yrs old, working, and living frugally while my friends have been retired for a decade already, I'm not going to be receptive to tax increases to pay their pensions!

Nothing but sour grapes. Maybe you should've made different choices in life. My biggest regret is I didn't follow my buddies and join the National Guard right of high school. Some of them will end up with three solid pensions by the time they retire.

Of course we all know where this will lead. Congress will authorize a bailout, and the fed will generate a big bunch of money to pay for it.

I can understand a government pension for LEO's, firefighters, military, because they're dangerous jobs and you can be physically limited by age.

But for the life of me, why do other government employees get pensions. My friends mom gets a $120 a month pension for being a school crossing guard, part time, for 7 years...... why does the person that collects the water bill get a pension or any other city/state/govt employee???? Hardly any of these workers in the public sector get a pension and quite honestly, the city's pay scale is pretty darn good compared to private sector?

quote:

Originally posted by jimmy123x:and quite honestly, the city's pay scale is pretty darn good compared to private sector?

Why don't you apply?

quote:

Originally posted by Russ59:
Five pages in with good points from private and public sector employees.

The fact remains that pensions are underfunded. It will require radical changes to promised/fixed public sector pensions as well as dramatic increase in funding (increase taxes, shift budget from entitlement programs to pension funding).

I know the public sector employees put in their time and are counting on the governments to honor their pensions, but I don't see how that's possible. I can't imagine the tax hike necessary to fully fund pensions and make up the pension deficit.

Excellent way to bring the thread back on track.
You are correct, the unfunded pensions are a dangerous liability and unless action is taken the pensions will either fail or fall or the taxpayers, to include the folks getting the pensions will be hit with a big bill.

quote:

Originally posted by CD228:

quote:

Originally posted by Russ59:
Five pages in with good points from private and public sector employees.

The fact remains that pensions are underfunded. It will require radical changes to promised/fixed public sector pensions as well as dramatic increase in funding (increase taxes, shift budget from entitlement programs to pension funding).

I know the public sector employees put in their time and are counting on the governments to honor their pensions, but I don't see how that's possible. I can't imagine the tax hike necessary to fully fund pensions and make up the pension deficit.

Excellent way to bring the thread back on track.
You are correct, the unfunded pensions are a dangerous liability and unless action is taken the pensions will either fail or fall or the taxpayers, to include the folks getting the pensions will be hit with a big bill.

Yes, good way to get back on topic. If we want a discussion on who 'deserves' a pension, perhaps that's best in another thread. But as Josey Wales said "deserve's got nothin to do with it." The fact is that the vast majorities of pensions are severely underfunded and will at some point in the near future go belly up. The vast majority have been over-promised and mismanaged. It's what happens when a big chunk of money and polly-tic-ians meet. The private sector long ago learned that the actuarials for pensions just don't work long term. They may have from the start of the industrial revolution until maybe the 1950's when businesses were growing year upon year. But that model no longer works. Many in the private sector saw their pensions get rolled over to annuities and 401(k) plans. The public sector needs to do the same. It will need to either be a little pain now, or the pensions all go under and it will be a LOT of pain later.

But a lot of pensions are either in deep red, or soon will admit they are. But again, polly-tic-ians always mismanage money and over-promise to constituents. They know they'll be long gone (living well on their pensions) when the bill comes due. Local radio talk guy here talks about it from time to time. Many pension plans base their funding on the assumption of a regular 10% annual rate of return on investments, which is well above the historical norms. But they'll look at a ROI chart and pick a favorable time period and claim it's a good number. But again, the people making the inflated promises (and voting for the deflated pension funding) know they won't be the ones paying the bills. It is high time we start looking at moving away from defined benefit plans into defined contribution plans.

quote:

Originally posted by SIG228:

quote:

Originally posted by jimmy123x:and quite honestly, the city's pay scale is pretty darn good compared to private sector?

Why don't you apply?

Because I do a hell of a lot better running my own business and enjoy it and don't need to kiss ass with city politics for a promotion. I also am 40 and can retire today WITHOUT a handout from the backs of retirees and other tax payers or a pension.

quote:

Originally posted by jimmy123x:
Hardly any of these workers in the public sector get a pension and quite honestly, the city's pay scale is pretty darn good compared to private sector?

Well from my perspective on history at 56 yrs old, it has to do with the arc of the private economy vs the arc of public sector unions and liberal politicians in power.

Back in the early 20th century there weren't many pensions. But good employers started offering them. More and more employers started offering pensions as a way to attract hard working loyal employees.

In the 1980's that was all changing. It became too expensive to keep pension plans going. Companies saw it was cheaper to ditch the pension and not worry about loyal employees. They went much more to the short term employee model which saved on payroll and benefits.

Ergo in the private sector there are very few pensions any more.

But over the same time period the public unions were powerful and negotiated sweet contracts. Politicians were happy to hand out all kinds of future unfunded benefits because it got them votes. Public sector jobs paid more and more, their benefits got better, and their pensions got even sweeter.

When I came out of engineering college in 1982 I had an excellent starting salary of $26,500 at IBM. If I'd gone into government service as an engineer I would have made about 75% of that. If I'd become a teacher I would have made even less. But, I would have had much more job security in a public sector job.

Historically then that was the tradeoff. One could go the private sector road and likely make more money but have less job security. One could choose public sector and have job security (and likely easier less competitive schedule).

Both paths, though, would likely lead to a pension of some sort.

Today it has been turned upside down, where pubic sector jobs pay better than many similar skill level private sector jobs, plus they have pensions.

Because decades ago the politicritters discovered that they could buy both labor peace and labor political support with the promise of retirement benefits instead of immediate salary increases. And unlike salary, they just had to make the promise of the retirement benefits. They didn't really have to come up with the money to fund them.

Now those politicritters are long gone (either collecting their pensions, which they properly funded, or just died off._ Now their long ago promises are coming due. And, suprise, there not enough money to pay for them. So someone IS going to get screwed. It's just a question of who.

quote:

Originally posted by jimmy123x:
I can understand a government pension for LEO's, firefighters, military, because they're dangerous jobs and you can be physically limited by age.

But for the life of me, why do other government employees get pensions. My friends mom gets a $120 a month pension for being a school crossing guard, part time, for 7 years...... why does the person that collects the water bill get a pension or any other city/state/govt employee???? Hardly any of these workers in the public sector get a pension and quite honestly, the city's pay scale is pretty darn good compared to private sector?

From my perspective it seems the people who will receive the public service pensions don't care that they are going insolvent. This issue has been brought up time and time again, and from what I can tell, the recipients don't seem to care...So why should I?

This topic is no secret. If a company I worked for was severely underfunded, and I was counting on receiving a pension in the future, you damn well better believe I would be riding their asses about addressing it. I would try to get others to listen. Perhaps organize something and hound them until they did something about it.

As someone else said, the Colorado pension system (PERA) is also underfunded, but none of the employees seem to care. they will have to accept a reduction in benefits since they are not being pro-active about it. You can bet your ass I am going to do everything in my power to make sure their pension system is not bailed out by the tax payer when that time comes.

I really don't understand why the public employees are so apathetic towards it.

quote:

Originally posted by 1967Goat:
I really don't understand why the public employees are so apathetic towards it.

A lot of folks seem less than worried about it because it's not an immediate threat to them as retirement is a way off and the expectation is that "The Government can't fail or renege on it's promise of a pension". You can bet if the GOV fails or reneges you'll see a new benefits army camped out in Washington D.C.