Home › Forums › Other › My next door neighbor was a cop, still under 60, been retired for more than 5 yrs
- This topic has 369 replies, 31 voices, and was last updated 11 years, 10 months ago by
CA renter.
-
AuthorPosts
-
May 30, 2012 at 10:01 PM #744575May 30, 2012 at 10:10 PM #744576
paramount
ParticipantThese outlandish retirements happen for quite a few reasons (none of them good), but at the end of the day it’s nothing more than greed and thievery.
What really sickens me is when those would defend these outlandish retirements/benefits say something like:
The answer I have seen is quit whining. If you don’t like it, you apply for one of those jobs to get those pensions and those benefits.
What these people don’t get is that some people – like myself – don’t want a job that steals from tax payers. I’d rather stand on my own two feet than feed at the gov’t trough.
May 30, 2012 at 10:30 PM #744577an
Participant[quote=CA renter]Taxpayers back an awful lot of things like Social Security, Medicare, FDIC, PBGC, Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac, FHA, some student loans, USDA loans, and all the associated “investors” of govt-backed debt, etc. Taxpayers pay for wars that disproportionately benefit certain corporations/industries, pay for infrastructure that often serves only a tiny portion of the population, pay for “welfare” that only a small portion of the population directly benefit from, etc. The taxpayers have also backed many corporations/entities that would have otherwise gone bankrupt, and have directly and indirectly paid for the egregious compensation packages “earned” by the top execs of those companies who led them down the sinkhole.
We taxpayers have an awful lot to complain about, and the compensation of hard-working cops, firefighters, teachers, etc. should be at the bottom of the list. Those are some of the very few people who actually *work for and earn* what they get from the government.[/quote]
In that case, can we add 401k to the list? Since the rest of us in the private sector also work for it too. If you’re going to bring up SS, then I’d gladly give up SS if I can get my 401k back stopped by the tax payer (i.e. convert my 401k into pension, give me the same % of my final pay for retirement and give me a modest 2.5% yearly inflation adjustment).May 30, 2012 at 10:40 PM #744579CA renter
Participant[quote=paramount]These outlandish retirements happen for quite a few reasons (none of them good), but at the end of the day it’s nothing more than greed and thievery.
What really sickens me is when those would defend these outlandish retirements/benefits say something like:
The answer I have seen is quit whining. If you don’t like it, you apply for one of those jobs to get those pensions and those benefits.
What these people don’t get is that some people – like myself – don’t want a job that steals from tax payers. I’d rather stand on my own two feet than feed at the gov’t trough.[/quote]
Do you think government contractors “stand on their own two feet” rather than “feed at the govt trough”? Seriously?
May 30, 2012 at 10:43 PM #744580Participant[quote=AN][quote=CA renter]Taxpayers back an awful lot of things like Social Security, Medicare, FDIC, PBGC, Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac, FHA, some student loans, USDA loans, and all the associated “investors” of govt-backed debt, etc. Taxpayers pay for wars that disproportionately benefit certain corporations/industries, pay for infrastructure that often serves only a tiny portion of the population, pay for “welfare” that only a small portion of the population directly benefit from, etc. The taxpayers have also backed many corporations/entities that would have otherwise gone bankrupt, and have directly and indirectly paid for the egregious compensation packages “earned” by the top execs of those companies who led them down the sinkhole.
We taxpayers have an awful lot to complain about, and the compensation of hard-working cops, firefighters, teachers, etc. should be at the bottom of the list. Those are some of the very few people who actually *work for and earn* what they get from the government.[/quote]
In that case, can we add 401k to the list? Since the rest of us in the private sector also work for it too. If you’re going to bring up SS, then I’d gladly give up SS if I can get my 401k back stopped by the tax payer (i.e. convert my 401k into pension, give me the same % of my final pay for retirement and give me a modest 2.5% yearly inflation adjustment).[/quote]You, like most other people, had the option to get those very same benefits. For reasons only you know (other things seemed more lucrative, at least in the short-term?), you decided against it. Don’t blame those who’ve made other choices just because your decisions might not have turned out how you wanted.
May 30, 2012 at 11:32 PM #744582Participant[quote=CA renter]You, like most other people, had the option to get those very same benefits. For reasons only you know (other things seemed more lucrative, at least in the short-term?), you decided against it. Don’t blame those who’ve made other choices just because your decisions might not have turned out how you wanted.[/quote]
That’s pretty twisted logic. I chose my profession not because it makes me a lot of money, but because it bring me happiness and I look forward to come to work everyday. So, because I chose a career that bring me happiness, I can’t criticize those who take advantage of my tax dollar? Your logic make no sense at all. By that logic, none of us should be upset at those bankers who nearly drove our economy into the ground and those politicians who bailed out those banks. IIRC, you’re not a banker and you did plenty of blaming on the banking industry. Maybe you should heed your own advice.May 30, 2012 at 11:49 PM #744584briansd1
Guest5% of municipal budgets is reasonable to pay for pensions, not 20% or 30%.
Do any of you want to pay taxes and have a huge portion pay retired people who do nothing? Or do we want to pay salaries of employees who provide services that benefit the citizens today.
Remember that retiree pensions are backstopped by cuts to services.
Contracts are made to be broken and renegotiated. That’s the American way.
May 31, 2012 at 12:36 AM #744585Participant[quote=briansd1]5% of municipal budgets is reasonable to pay for pensions, not 20% or 30%.
Do any of you want to pay taxes and have a huge portion pay retired people who do nothing? Or do we want to pay salaries of employees who provide services that benefit the citizens today.
Remember that retiree pensions are backstopped by cuts to services.
Contracts are made to be broken and renegotiated. That’s the American way.[/quote]
Nonsense. It’s only when contracts are honored and protected that an economy, and civilized society, can thrive.
Pension contributions are not made on behalf of retirees in most cases; they are made on behalf of CURRENT employees. Municipalities who contract with CalPERS, for instance, do not pay for a retiree’s pension benefits once they are retired. CalPERS has enough money to pay benefits for current retirees for years. They require higher contribution rates from CURRENT employees to safeguard the pension system for CURRENT employees.
May 31, 2012 at 12:59 AM #744586GuestCa renter, you obfuscate things with technicalities.
As the NYT article pointed out, the rate of return on the contributions was not enough to support the pension payouts. Show me one math example where total contributions at an assumed rate of return for an employee matches retirement payouts.
American jurisprudence is about making commerce work by encouraging parties to negotiate their differences. For municipalities bankruptcy is an option.
Larger share of municipal budgets going to pensions means layoffs and cuts to services. Taxpayers are paying the same or more and getting less. Simple math.
May 31, 2012 at 1:10 AM #744587GuestFrom a local taxpayer standpoint here’s a simple way of looking at the pension issue.
For example, I’m used to my taxes paying for 2 libraries, 5 cops and 2 firemen. Now, the same level of taxes only get me 1 library, 4 cops and 1 fireman. There’s something drastically wrong here.
I don’t care about the retirees. I want the services that I’m used to. If you want to raise my taxes, then give me more services, not less.
May 31, 2012 at 3:15 AM #744588Participant[quote=briansd1]From a local taxpayer standpoint here’s a simple way of looking at the pension issue.
For example, I’m used to my taxes paying for 2 libraries, 5 cops and 2 firemen. Now, the same level of taxes only get me 1 library, 4 cops and 1 fireman. There’s something drastically wrong here.
I don’t care about the retirees. I want the services that I’m used to. If you want to raise my taxes, then give me more services, not less.[/quote]
Brian,
If you want to use that argument, then why am I constantly paying more for less from the private sector? Groceries, utilities, housing, healthcare, gas (remember when full service and a full tank cost less than half of what we’re paying today just for a tank of gas?), etc. ALL of this — and a whole lot more — now costs more for less. Blame it on the Fed, the banking/financial system, insatiable corporate greed…not local workers.
—————–
As far as the assumed rate of return on investments…you’re preaching to the choir. Of course, I blame it on the Fed and the Greenspan/Bernanke put, in addition to inflation targeting, suppression of interest rates, encouraging risk-taking by forcing investors out on the yield curve, inept/corrupt regulators, tax policies that encourage speculation over productive work, etc…and then there are the serial bubbles which falsely lull people into believing that trees grow to the sky and [insert asset category here] prices **always go up…in the long run.**
Yes, the current assumed rates of return are overly-optimistic based on today’s market, but these returns were the norm for many decades. I believe that employees should contribute more and that benefits should be reduced going forward in some cases; but public sector workers have NOTHING to do with the financial crisis, and they have NOTHING to do with how their pensions have been managed. You keep blaming the wrong people.
May 31, 2012 at 3:48 AM #744589GuestCA renter, actually in the private sector , as a proportion of income, you’re paying less for everything except for higher education and health care and those are quasi government areas of the economy.
You’re still paying 30% on housing, much less for food, less for clothing and shoes….
Not blaming the workers. But we should move to defined contribution plans to avoid future budget surprises.
May 31, 2012 at 6:37 AM #744592SD Realtor
ParticipantAt some point fiscal sanity has to be a priority. It is unreasonable to adhere to previous agreements in the face of insolvency or unsustainable fiscal demands being placed on taxpayers. Just because the agreements were made does not mean that they cannot be broken.
I find it ironic that people argue that it is more beneficial to reduce the public benefit to the greater masses of society, to education, to cutting services rather then renegotiating the pension benefits.
I guess to some people the well of taxpayer money is endless.
May 31, 2012 at 8:27 AM #744608no_such_reality
Participant[quote=CA renter]We taxpayers have an awful lot to complain about, and the compensation of hard-working cops, firefighters, teachers, etc. should be at the bottom of the list. Those are some of the very few people who actually *work for and earn* what they get from the government.[/quote]
CAR, in Santa Ana, many firefighters are retiring with $100K/yr pensions at 50 and 55.
A $100K/yr pension is worth $3,000,000. That’s three million dollars.
How well are they paid when they get pension that is the equivalent of having amassed three million dollars by age 50 or 55?
That’s water under bridge. I’m fine with them amassing that if they contribute a large and appropriate portion of income to it. Today, they don’t.
May 31, 2012 at 9:31 AM #744615sdrealtor
ParticipantHey NSR
Stop clouding the issue with the facts -
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.