[RationalExpectations]

Originally Posted by Svoboda

So they were cooking their books eh?

I guess that's one way to look at it. Another way to look at it was volume discounts -- "If you purchase over $X in office supplies from us over the course of the year we will refund back to you .5% of total purchases. If you purchase over $Y in office supplies from us over the course of the year we will refund back to you 1% of total purchases" etc.

[RationalExpectations]

Originally Posted by Trash Can

Further, it's common for many govt employees to "double dip". They retire after X number of years, then get hired as a consultant doing the same job while drawing their pension.

Originally Posted by 08grad

This is common in education. There are several teachers I worked with that retired, only to come back because there was a shortage in the subject.

Now they're collecting 75% of their salary through the pension, in addition to their salary through the district which is at the top of the payscale given their experience. Their annual income is more than 3x what Millennial teachers make.

^^^ This is why I'm in favor of the Death Penalty.

[RationalExpectations]

Originally Posted by WestieJeff

I don't get what the issue is here? If they are entitled to a pension, why should they not be able to continue working and earn more?

Well, let's see.

Case 1: An employee, called Jeff, is a dedicated public servant and doesn't want to retire at age 65 and instead continues to work. Fine. He's paid his salary.

Case 2: An employee, called Mary, is evil and sees a loophole and decides to scam taxpayers by "retiring" in name only at age 65 on Friday only to return to work the exact same job on Monday, collecting both a pension and a paycheck for doing the same job.

Clearly, Mary is defrauding the taxpayer. Mary should receive a fair trial followed by a 1st class execution.

[Cold Warrior]

Originally Posted by RationalExpectations

Well, let's see.

Case 1: An employee, called Jeff, is a dedicated public servant and doesn't want to retire at age 65 and instead continues to work. Fine. He's paid his salary.

Case 2: An employee, called Mary, is evil and sees a loophole and decides to scam taxpayers by "retiring" in name only at age 65 on Friday only to return to work the exact same job on Monday, collecting both a pension and a paycheck for doing the same job.

Clearly, Mary is defrauding the taxpayer. Mary should receive a fair trial followed by a 1st class execution.

There is nothing evil, dishonest or fraudulent about retiring at any age and receiving a pension. The pension has been earned through years of service. It is not a gift and imposes no obligation upon the recipient.


Further, there is nothing evil, dishonest or fraudulent about an employee leaving one job and taking another. Almost every working person has done this at least one time. Get over it.

[Tek_Freek]

Cindy Whiner is alive and well.

[WestieJeff]

Nice to see there is a healthy level of crazy here on the board.

I don't see that as a loophole at all. No different than collecting social security and going back to work. The terms of the pension say it's earned after whatever length of time.

Originally Posted by RationalExpectations

Well, let's see.
Case 2: An employee, called Mary, is evil and sees a loophole and decides to scam taxpayers by "retiring" in name only at age 65 on Friday only to return to work the exact same job on Monday, collecting both a pension and a paycheck for doing the same job.

Clearly, Mary is defrauding the taxpayer. Mary should receive a fair trial followed by a 1st class execution.

[Trash Can]

Originally Posted by WestieJeff

I don't get what the issue is here? If they are entitled to a pension, why should they not be able to continue working and earn more? No different than a person saving money and then drawing off their savings and continuing to work.

There is a huge difference in drawing a monthly check for life fully funded by the taxpayer vs living off whatever a particular individual was able to save and invest on their own.

Originally Posted by WestieJeff

Nice to see there is a healthy level of crazy here on the board.

I don't see that as a loophole at all. No different than collecting social security and going back to work. The terms of the pension say it's earned after whatever length of time.

I've asked this before, but who outside of the public sector receives a monthly pension check anymore? Monthly pensions are a standard benefit for all govt workers across the board but no longer exist in the private sector for the most part. You may say govt employees are entitled to it, that it was promised to them many years ago. Well, many in the private sector were once promised a monthly pension check too, but these promises were broken when companies went bankrupt or could no longer afford them. Our government is broke, largely because of these lavish retirement packages. Why should public sector retirement benefits be treated any different when the govt can no longer afford them?

[Cold Warrior]

who outside of the public sector receives a monthly pension check anymore?

Myself, my wife, all of our retired friends.

[lvmensch]

Originally Posted by Trash Can

There is a huge difference in drawing a monthly check for life fully funded by the taxpayer vs living off whatever a particular individual was able to save and invest on their own.

I've asked this before, but who outside of the public sector receives a monthly pension check anymore? Monthly pensions are a standard benefit for all govt workers across the board but no longer exist in the private sector for the most part. You may say govt employees are entitled to it, that it was promised to them many years ago. Well, many in the private sector were once promised a monthly pension check too, but these promises were broken when companies went bankrupt or could no longer afford them. Our government is broke, largely because of these lavish retirement packages. Why should public sector retirement benefits be treated any different when the govt can no longer afford them?

No there is not. There is a contract between the employer and the employee as to future payments to be made. Absolutely nothing evil or untoward about a person accepting what was agreed to and working more.

There is a big problem with many of these government pensions. Actually the same problem as many of the auto makers had. They do not invest enough at the time of employment to pay the agreed to benefit. But this is not the fault of the employee.

I have received a nice payment from my ex employer since I was 55. So decades. And most years I make a lot more than they pay me in other employment. There is no guilt in any of that. Later on SS as well.

[boatpi]

One thing sensible people do not do, that is blame the employee for their pension.

They paid into it, the employer entered into a contract and everyone lives by it, or quit. If the government agency hired them, and employee paid many thousands into a plan, then they earned it as part of their employment contract. What is so difficult about that to accept.

Some states re hired retired employees if they are short on employees, often no more than 500 hours a year or so. These employees are called retired annuitants. Not a bad deal for employer, no health plan, no co pay to a retirement plan, just a salaried employee for a limited time period to fill a void.