CalPERS to post pensioner's names and pension amounts online (San Jose: bankrupt, taxes)

[Curmudgeon]

Originally Posted by nullgeo

Because you haven't received any benefit from having a state government [which requires personnel], right? You, and the other big mouths on this thread, do nothing but pay taxes and get nothing in return. No infrastructure built or managed or maintained. No public safety. No recreational land. Nothing. Public employees are just parasites. Perfect example of the modern American mentality.

Small-minded, closed minded people just never get it, Nully. To do so would interfere with their feelings of self-importance and ruin a good rage. Anger is such a waste of emotional energy but some thrive on it until it destroys them.

[JGC97]

Originally Posted by zdg

Obviously I read your post, you can likely assume that much, EyeRollerEmoticon Person.

You have yet to explain why you believe that it is imperative that government employees have to pay a share of their health insurance premiums in retirement. All you say (over and over) is that it is in fact what you "feel."

I'll type is slowly for you.

Many of these government agencies give healthcare (for life) as an added perk to the retiree's retirement package. It's a contract negotiation. Unless an employee's sick leave "bank hours" are used to offset those costs, it's, as ryuns stated, a backdoor wage increase. Giving a retiree free healthcare, without the employee having to contribute to that benefit, is just another fleecing of the taxpayer.

[zdg]

Originally Posted by HereOnMars

I'll type is slowly for you.

Many of these government agencies give healthcare (for life) as an added perk to the retiree's retirement package. It's a contract negotiation. Unless an employee's sick leave "bank hours" are used to offset those costs, it's, as ryuns stated, a backdoor wage increase. Giving a retiree free healthcare, without the employee having to contribute to that benefit, is just another fleecing of the taxpayer.

So the answer is you really can't answer my question, you can just regurgitate anti-tax rhetoric. Got it.

[countofmc]

Originally Posted by nullgeo

Of course you are complaining. If you have a beef with the salaries and benefits take it up with your elected officials, not the worker-bees that comprise the vast majority of state employees you are sneering at. Do you think most state workers were on the prowl to see if they could hoodwink the public -- slip the taxpayers a fast one? The majority don't retire on fat pensions. They signed on for the contracts that were offered with the job -- and then they put in their hours and years. They made a choice to take the jobs based on what they were offered. As would have most of you whiners. But now the pensions should be snatched back, right? Suck it up. Correct course. Move on. If you paid too much for the car you bought 15 years ago you don't get to take it back to the dealership for a refund.

Give it a damn rest. Just be quiet and enjoy the gravy train while it lasts instead of provoking the increasing majority that resents gov't employees.

[countofmc]

Originally Posted by Curmudgeon

Yeah, I'll cry as soon as you tell me what government functions you wish to do without. To begin with consider streets, bridges, police, fire, parks and forestry, courts, prisons and jails. You can take it from there and add your personal favorites you don't want to pay for.

Two truths: There ain't no free lunch and haters gotta hate.

LOL at this tired old line, still not divorcing gov't services from gov't waste. Yawn. Like I told the other guy, just quiet down and enjoy the gravy train while it lasts.

But maybe you are afraid the public is increasingly becoming aware of the scam, why else would you be so worked up over pensioneers having to divulge how much they are getting?

[Plantweed]

I'm waiting for the online database of every tax break or PILOT program/"we'll move if we don't get it" extortion scam that's been given away to private industry. Guess who has to make up the difference of those unpaid taxes?

You.

[zdg]

To sum up, contractual obligations are to be met, unless one party or a non-related vocal agent of said party feels the contract is now one-sided.

The only benefits promised to employees that must be upheld are those that don't (somehow) cost taxpayers money at a future date.

Did I get that correct?

[Curmudgeon]

Originally Posted by HereOnMars

I'll type is slowly for you.

Many of these government agencies give healthcare (for life) as an added perk to the retiree's retirement package. It's a contract negotiation. Unless an employee's sick leave "bank hours" are used to offset those costs, it's, as ryuns stated, a backdoor wage increase. Giving a retiree free healthcare, without the employee having to contribute to that benefit, is just another fleecing of the taxpayer.

You should be happy to know that there have been and most likely will be major reforms of benefits and retirement perks going forward. What we old fogies who have already retired receive is water under the bridge unless the retiree worked for a city that declares bankruptcy. The state can't do so. Therefore, their former contracts with employees are legally binding. I'll be the first to admit that it was the pension as well as the benefits while working and in retirement that were a draw for me to enter state service although not my prime motivation to do so. The big thing was the opportunity to be of service to others. It was a given there would be those who wouldn't appreciate it and for some it's nothing more than pension envy. But they could have "joined up" as well.

[JGC97]

Originally Posted by zdg

So the answer is you really can't answer my question, you can just regurgitate anti-tax rhetoric. Got it.

I pretty sure I did answer your question. Twice. I know how government contracts are negotiated, having been a recipient. I'm not against government pensions, at all. A government pension is no different than any retirement package offered by some private-sector employers. An employee makes a contribution and the employer contributes, sometimes matches it equally or more. There's not a darned thing wrong with that. However, when an employee works for an agency for decades and pays a portion of their healthcare each month, yet when they retire, they continue to receive that benefit without contributing a dime to it, that's where I have a problem. There is nothing wrong with a former employee being expected to contribute to their own healthcare coverage. Even those who are laid off, have the option of COBRA, but must pay for it themselves.

Not sure how clearer I can make it. If you don't understand that concept, there's no point in explaining it again.

[Curmudgeon]

Originally Posted by countofmc

LOL at this tired old line, still not divorcing gov't services from gov't waste. Yawn. Like I told the other guy, just quiet down and enjoy the gravy train while it lasts.

But maybe you are afraid the public is increasingly becoming aware of the scam, why else would you be so worked up over pensioneers having to divulge how much they are getting?

You do suffer from both a lack of reading comprehension as well as a dearth of analytical reasoning. It's not the fact that my pension will be made public. That's appropriate in this "nothing is sacred" day-and-age. It was the lack of notice.

Now continue your pout. It's really cute.