[quote=pri_dk][quote=CA renter]If there are shortfalls, public employers **and employees** will have to make larger contributions to their retirement plans.[/quote]
Who do you think “public employers” are? They are taxpayers.
Every single dime of a public employee’s compensation ultimately comes from tax revenue.
Aside from the fact that you don’t understand the most basic aspect of where this money comes from, your assertion above is completely bogus.
Why do you think San Jose and Vallejo have massively cut back services?
Why didn’t these cities just take bigger contributions from employees instead of cutting services and declaring bankruptcy?
Because the unions (and their lawyers) wouldn’t let them.[/quote]
Wrong again.
Public workers are not employed by “taxpayers.” They are employed by elected and appointed government officials. Government services are paid for by tax receipts.
Do you expect these public employees to work for free? They are public employees, not nuns.
You keep claiming that I don’t understand how the system works, but it’s very clear that I have a much better understanding of it than you do. You don’t even know how the pension system works, yet you spout off about it on a regular basis. The benefits paid to public retirees are NOT paid directly by taxpayers; the vast majority of that money comes from investment income, not tax receipts.
Yes, public employees can be required to pay more, but it is done through negotiations; it is not driven by misinformed public hysteria and propaganda. Public pay and benefits are not the only expense incurred by public employers, though it is a majority. How these public agencies tax, how they handle thier finances, their vulerability to certin economic conditions, and other draws on their funding can also cause a city to experience financial difficulties. It’s just the fad right now to blame everything on public employees.
Do some research for a change and find out who’s behind the attacks on public unions. They are not taxpayer advocates.
