Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Exactly, they have been turned into dependent children. Who live on a paltry check that had it been invested in the economy, would have provided them a much better retirement.
Oh really?
I had a tax sheltered annuity matched by my employer. I lost 80% of what I had put in and what my employer had put in. What do you think happens every time there's a recession or a GoergeBushDepression? It's about as reliable as Vegas.
Exactly, they have been turned into dependent children. Who live on a paltry check that had it been invested in the economy, would have provided them a much better retirement.
The problem is that there are so many people who would have absolutely no idea how to go about that. And let's be realistic here. Investing is gambling, and somebody always will lose.
Exactly, they have been turned into dependent children. Who live on a paltry check that had it been invested in the economy, would have provided them a much better retirement.
You misunderstand the purpose of Social Security.
Social Security is an income supplement to your pension or 401(k) plan, and your personal savings and investments.
No one should bet the farm on a just a pension/401(k) or just their personal savings and investments or both.
There needs to be a guaranteed base of retirement income for everyone, and that's what Social Security provides.
Quote:
Originally Posted by maat55
A fair compromise today would be mandated private investments.
And why should I be coerced into supporting a publicly-traded corporation?
Publicly-traded corporations are not a requirement for any economy. If publicly-traded corporations never existed, your economy would do just fine.
Should tax paying citizens who do not have a pension plan going for them be required to fund the pensions of others?
Homeless guy begs on the corner, gets $5. He goes and buys a Budweiser. A portion of his money pays for the BUD CEO's salary package, who makes $5.17 million a year. Should everyone who makes less than the CEO get a special discount on the price of beer because "it's not fair" that the CEO gets paid more?
Homeless guy begs on the corner, gets $5. He goes and buys a Budweiser. A portion of his money pays for the BUD CEO's salary package, who makes $5.17 million a year. Should everyone who makes less than the CEO get a special discount on the price of beer because "it's not fair" that the CEO gets paid more?
The beer purchase is optional, but I agree with the point.
However, I believe this thread is talking about taxpayers' taxes being diverted to pensions, when those taxpayers themselves do not have a pension.
The beer purchase is optional, but I agree with the point.
However, I believe this thread is talking about taxpayers' taxes being diverted to pensions, when those taxpayers themselves do not have a pension.
Of course you should pay taxes--And, that money then goes to cover the administrative costs of government, including pensions. I'm a bit puzzled by the notion that citizens are somehow entitled to make every decision on state expenditures. We are required to pay taxes, after the money is collected, it becomes the state's money and therefore is subject to spending by the state according to the state's budgets.
Pensions are a hot topic among those who are working and have no pension in their place of employment, most of those in that situation become prey for the anti union propaganda with regard to the notion that union garnered pensions in the public workplace are somehow unfair, and therefore be subject to taxpayer approval.
Are those same complainers asking for their approval of military expenditures to be a requirement? Are they asking for a voter approval of ALL expenditures--Or are they just looking to "even the score" between that of a benevolent government, and their self centered and selfish employer? Many of those who would take the pensions away from public employees are among the more vociferous anti unionists, and that fact moves the conversation closer to one of labor organizing, and whether it should be allowed for ALL in a free society..
Of course you should pay taxes--And, that money then goes to cover the administrative costs of government, including pensions. I'm a bit puzzled by the notion that citizens are somehow entitled to make every decision on state expenditures. We are required to pay taxes, after the money is collected, it becomes the state's money and therefore is subject to spending by the state according to the state's budgets.
Pensions are a hot topic among those who are working and have no pension in their place of employment.
That last line itself explains the taxpayer concerns which you are puzzling over.
The great majority of taxpayers will receive no employer pension. And that group of "zero pension" taxpayers will continue to increase for the forseeable future. Yet they are also confronted with local property tax increases (especially in certain locales) that in many cases are increasing largely because of pension costs. This is a growing disconnect.
It will become a major political hot potato soon. Already is in Illinois and a few other places.
An example that you may be familiar with already, or can easily find out about.
Early 2000’s, a well known band teacher at Lewis Palmer high school suddenly is no longer the band teacher, but instead he moved into a much higher paid administrator position at the school. He stays three or four more years and then retires. The result? Depending on the exact rules in place at the time, he has a pension that is based in whole or in part on an administrator salary level rather than a band director salary level.
Are you unaware of this type of thing happening?
If the taxpayers approve of a salary and retirement package for music teacher, but end up paying retirement for a higher paid administrator, there’s a problem. Is it allowed for under the contract? Most assuredly. But it is certainly not what the taxpayers believed they were signing up for.
Police officers in many departments are able to do this. Just before retirement, they are making their normal salary of $80,000. But then by working significant overtime, and cashing in vacation and sick time, suddenly they have qualifying compensation of $150,000, and a pension based on $150,000 rather than $80,000. Do you believe that the taxpayers knew they were signing up for this?
Although it's certainly doable in certain situations, I can't imagine it being widespread. At least not in the educational world. As mentioned, if you're a seasoned teacher, moving up to an Admin position late in your career would be almost a lateral compensation move. You'd have to move into the Admin role early so you have a substantial pay increase, then you ride the wave of pay increases until retirement, but then you're not really gaming the system. For example; a teacher in my area with just 5 years experience with a graduate degree (required for Admin role anyway, but you get a $2,000 stipend if you have it for teaching) along with an athletic stipend, tantamount to what a band teacher gets in the area, makes right in-line with what a first year Admin would make at the same school. A teacher with a dozen or more years experience would make the move and have a decent pay decrease to show for it. Add in the way, way more hours required of you, and the motivation to make the move late in your career doesn't sound prudent.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
