Originally posted by slosig:
quote:
Originally posted by CPD SIG:
When I become King, you get to PICK ONE. That's it. No double or triple dipping into pension funds.
I agree with most of what you said. However, (and this is coming from someone with _no_ pension), it would seem only fair that a person who puts in twenty in the military and earns a pension, then gets out and puts in another twenty somewhere else where that would result in pension eligibility get both pensions.
To me, there are two problems: Eligibility requirements and that public pensions even exist.
Eligibility: if pensions are going to exist, someone who serves twenty years probably ought to be eligible, but some [expletive deleted] politician who serves a few minutes should not be eligible. In fact I’d go farther and say there should be no pensions for politicians, regardless of how long they serve. Politicians should serve the public briefly, then go back to real life. Giving them pensions only encourages them to stay.
Public pensions: This is just another way to kick the can down the road, something politicians do too darned much anyway. If public pensions were outlawed and public agencies could only provide defined contribution plans (I think it is 403b, but whatever the name is, the analog of private companies 401k plans) they wouldn’t be able to make future promises, they would have to pay now, not pay some now and promise more later.
Obviously, outlawing pensions would apply to new hires. Some sort of workout would be required for retirees and existing employees who hired on with the promise of a pension. Math says employees and retirees will never get what they were promised, but just wiping out everything isn’t going to fly.
