[quote=harvey]Let’s take a quick look at these “facts:”
#5 : Firefighter retirement benefits are not paid by the “taxpayers,” cities, counties or state. Benefits are deferred compensation, and are paid by the employee funded retirement systems […]
Absolutely false.
Not even open for interpretation, this one is an an outright lie.
And it is the only “fact” that matters.
ALL of their compensation comes from taxpayers. Where else would it come from?
And the issue is not compensation per se, the issue is the pension SHORTFALLS.
The tab for the shortfalls come directly from the taxpayers. The Unions and CalPERS have aggressively fought for this and in court and have won.
They were already paid once with taxpayer money. Their salary, benefits, and retirement contributions were paid YEARS AGO. And now they are demanding to be paid AGAIN, even though they aren’t even working any more.
Why are they claiming that they should get MORE taxpayer money, years after the fact? Because the stock market did not meet their unrealistic expectations.
And they try to blame “Wall Street” for the whole mess. Wouldn’t it be nice to have a 401K with guaranteed unrealistic performance, backed by the government? Choose a stock, any stock – the taxpayers will cover the loss if you pick a loser!
Read it this way: The unions and CalPERS have aggressively fought to take MORE money from schools, from the poor, and from existing public safety budgets. All across California, cites are laying off teachers and public safety workers in order to pay for retirees.
We are laying off firefighters that are on duty today so that we can give the money to retired firefighters who are on a cruise ship.
We are laying off teachers that are in the classroom today so that we can give the money to retired teachers who are on the golf course.
How could anyone claim that these are ethically sound policies? It is simply staggering.
And even if we choose to abandon ethics – as apparently some folks have – there is no escaping the reality that it is completely unsustainable.
As for the comparison to Social Security – the only fact you need to know is this: Social Security retirement age has gone UP over the years (and will continue to go up), public-sector retirement age has gone DOWN.[/quote]
Pri,
Once again, you didn’t comprehend what was written. Pension benefits ARE NOT paid by taxpayers. That is a fact. How many times do I have to explain it to you before you “get it”?
The **contributions** to the pension funds are paid by employers when the employees are working. Once they are retired, 100% of a retiree’s benefits are paid out by their pension funds — in the case of CalPERS (and many other funds), it is not even a government entity, they are contractors. The vast majority of the benefits (usually around 75%) come from the funds’ investment returns…not from employer/employee contributions. Public employers (or “taxpayers” in your words) do not make any further contributions to the employee’s pension once the employee is retired.
The public employees receive their compensation from their employers, not taxpayers. Their employers’ revenues come from various taxes, fees, and even investment income. Your argument is like saying that I, as a Microsoft consumer, am the direct employer of MS employees. I am Microsoft’s customer, not the employer of MS’s employees (and executives) — there is a distinction.
Nonetheless, the pension shortfalls are primarily a result of market losses, not “greedy union thugs.” Couple that with revenue declines –especially in property tax revenues, which is usually the largest revenue source for most municipalities — and you get problems. Boots-on-the-ground” workers had nothing to do with it, yet the financial sector parasites are scapegoating them for all the damage inflicted by the financial industry (both booms and busts).
Again, many municipalities are already negotiating for increased employee pension contributions, pay and benefit cuts, etc. from unions…and most unions are being very conciliatory during these negotiations because they DO understand what’s going on with their employers’ finances (they understand much more than you do, as a matter of fact). Unfortunately, the MSM isn’t reporting this because it’s not nearly as dramatic as reporting on outliers in the public sector. For every one employee who is reported by the MSM because of their incredibly high pay/benefits, there are tens of thousands who are taking cuts…but that’s not the stuff that sells papers or gets idiots riled up against public sector workers…so we make grand pronouncements based upon a handful of public employees who have managed to scam the system (and many are being reviewed for this, but that’s not reported, either), and we ignore the very real concessions that union members have been making over the past few years.
