[quote=eyePod]I’m calling bullshit.
For me, my SS represents about 20% of my income at retirement AND I PAID IN A HELL OF A LOT MORE by any rational measure (fact). Why should a calif. employee get 50% – 80% of his income for life (fact), retiring in his 50s (fact)? That’s just a screwed up state government, not anything to be proud of, not anything I want at all in my state. I get NO pension. Why should the people I pay (with taxes) get ANY pension. They should get 401k and SS just like everybody else.[/quote]
More FACTS about how public employees are contributing more and getting less:
“The State reached agreements with some employee unions from August to
November 2010 to include lower retirement benefits for new hires and higher
member contributions for the Bargaining Units ratifying those agreements.
On December 15, 2010, the CalPERS Board of Administration approved new State
employer rates effective between January 1, 2011 and June 30, 2011. These new
rates reflect the higher member contributions agreements made between the State
and various employee unions earlier this year. The new State employer rates are as
follows and will become effective with the first payroll period that ends in January
2011:
2011:
MEMBER CATEGORY
EMPLOYER CONTRIBUTION AS A
PERCENTAGE OF COMPENSATION
State Miscellaneous Member First Tier 17.528%
State Miscellaneous Member Second Tier 16.442%
State Industrial Member 14.683%
State Safety Member 15.702%
California Highway Patrol Member 29.956%
Peace Officer/Firefighter Member 28.556%
YOU might not like the fact that some people have fought for their rights as workers, but many other people do (the majority in California, if voter history tells us anything).
I don’t like to pay high prices for goods and services where the majority of the profits goes to executive compensation and shareholder dividends. Contrary to popular myth, we do NOT usually have a choice. WE ALL pay for **everyone’s** compensation — public and private employees, and the investment income for those who “earn” their money that way.
I don’t like to pay for unethical wars that kill tens of thousands of innocent people. I don’t like to pay for environmental clean-ups when corporations flout environmental laws (those “pesky” regulations). I don’t like to pay for the “War on Drugs.” I don’t like to pay all the costs related to illegal immigration. I don’t like to pay the unemployment and/or welfare benefits for those who have been derailed by corporate greed and the off-shoring of decent manufacturing jobs or the hiring of cheap, foreign, illegal labor. I don’t like to pay for “government partnerships” with private entities that, all too often, are the result of “backroom deals” which suck taxpayer money out of the local economy and into the pockets of well-connected “businessmen.” I don’t like to pay for the bailouts (and TARP is just the tip of the iceberg) related to the financial “crisis” — which was the obvious result of all manner of bribery and corruption between Wall Street and Washington D.C. The list goes on and on…
All of the things that I don’t want to pay for are far more egregious than paying a bit toward the pension benefits for teachers, firefighters, cops, etc. (which taxpayers do NOT pay for, BTW — the VAST majority of the benefits — around 75% –comes from investment returns, and the rest is shared between employee and employer contributions).
That’s the price of democracy. We ALL have to pay for things we don’t want to pay for. Oftentimes, we are forced to pay for things that we absolutely despise. But if you can think of a better system, feel free to share your ideas.
