How would YOU balance the budget? (loans, contractors, wages)

[seamusnh]

There should be a minimal Federal income tax for every adult over 21 that is not a full time student or in the military. $100 per year. And that number would be indexed to Federal spending. If Federal Spending goes up 3.5% in a year, the minimal would be $103.5 per year. Everyone should pay as everyone gets some Federal services (Defense)...

[Aptor hours]

Originally Posted by sgthoskins

I'd start by stopping federal government pensions.

My husband retired on a State law enforcement pension.....would you plan on taking away his....that seems kind of like a big meanie

[sgthoskins]

Not trying to be mean, just trying to be a realist. Pensions are nothing but a Ponzi scheme.

[Aptor hours]

Originally Posted by sgthoskins

Not trying to be mean, just trying to be a realist. Pensions are nothing but a Ponzi scheme.

I don't think it is a good idea since people like my husband didn't take out 401's since they were told that they would have pensions. Thankfully you aren't in charge though

[BF66389]

I think sgthoskins isn't saying to yank pensions away from those who have contractual obligations to have them (ie, don't screw the 59 year old whose retiring next year). I think what he is saying is that they are now a broken system that should be done away with and replaced with private investment choices for new members of the workforce.

One key to reform is that it needs to be done in a way that makes sense; we can phase out a lot of programs without hurting anyone...the devil is always in the details.

[GotBackHome]

Sorry, BF, but I think you're giving more credit to Sgt Hoskins than that absurd post merits. He does sound like he wants to yank the pension from the 59yr old that's retiring next year. While I usually agree with his comments, this time I think he's talking through his hat!

SgtHoskins wrote: Pensions are nothing but a Ponzi scheme.

How do you figure that? "A Ponzi scheme is an investment fraud that involves the payment of purported returns to existing investors from funds contributed by new investors." [www.sec.gov/answers/ponzi.htm] essentially, a ponzi scheme is a pyramid scheme: you make money by bringing in other investors/people who pay in money. how on earth that applies to hard working employees whose 'corporation' happens to be the federal govt I have no idea. I don't think it applies at all.

BF wrote: I think what he is saying is that they are now a broken system that should be done away with and replaced with private investment choices for new members of the workforce.

yeah, and that's what's happening. for a long time. a switch began in the mid-1980ss for federal employees paying into an old system (aka CSRS) that had been exclusive for fed employees, they did not pay into SS at all. that's the fund the fed pensions come/came from - there aren't that many CSRS employees left. However, in 1986 a change was made and current employees at that time were given a choice to stay with the old style pension or switch to the new style (aka FERS) which does pay into SS and the govt (like any other corporation) matches what you pay into a 401k style setup. It's pretty much like private industry. New hires since 1987 are not given the choice, they are only enrolled in the newer system. It's been 23 years!!! [www.opm.gov/retire/pre/fers/index.asp]

So, please tell me why a hard working employee who has given their life's employment and is now retiring isn't entitled to a pension from the business they were at for 30+ years simply because their 'business' happened to be the gov't - but someone in private industry is entitled just because it's not the gov't? believe me, I know a lot of fed (civil) employees and they are acutely aware that they are paid through tax dollars (which they themselves pay as well) and do the best they can at their work. Now I'm still waiting to hear why they don't deserve a pension. You can't seriously want to penalize them simply because they have had better job security than some others.

[Aptor hours]

Originally Posted by WannaComeHome

Sorry, BF, but I don't think that's what Sgt Hoskins is saying. While I usually agree with his comments, this time I think he's talking through his hat!



How do you figure that? "A Ponzi scheme is an investment fraud that involves the payment of purported returns to existing investors from funds contributed by new investors." [www.sec.gov/answers/ponzi.htm] essentially, a ponzi scheme is a pyramid scheme: you make money by bringing in other investors/people who pay in money. how on earth that applies to hard working employees whose 'corporation' happens to be the federal govt I have no idea. I don't think it applies at all.



yeah, and that's what's happening. for a long time. a switch began in the mid-1980ss for federal employees paying into an old system (aka CSRS) that had been exclusive for fed employees, they did not pay into SS at all. that's the fund the fed pensions come/came from. However, in 1986 a change was made and current employees were given a choice to stay with the old style pension or switch to the new style which does pay into SS and the govt (like any other corporation) matches what you pay into a 401k style setup. It's pretty much like private industry. New hires since 1987 are not given the choice, they are only enrolled in the newer system (aka FERS). It's been 23 years!!! [www.opm.gov/retire/pre/fers/index.asp]

So, please tell me why a hard working employee who has given their life's work and is now retiring isn't entitled to a pension from the business they were at for 30+ years simply because their 'business' happened to be the gov't - but someone in private industry is entitled just because it's not the gov't? believe me, I know a lot of fed (civil) employees and they are acutely aware that they are paid through tax dollars (which they themselves pay as well) and do the best they can at their work. Now I'm still waiting to hear why they don't deserve a pension.

From what I understood he just said take them all away

[sgthoskins]

Originally Posted by Aptor hours

I don't think it is a good idea since people like my husband didn't take out 401's since they were told that they would have pensions. Thankfully you aren't in charge though

I sure wouldn't want to yank existing pensions, he's earned it. I'm talking moving forward.

[sgthoskins]

Originally Posted by WannaComeHome

Sorry, BF, but I think you're giving more credit to Sgt Hoskins than that absurd post merits. He does sound like he wants to yank the pension from the 59yr old that's retiring next year. While I usually agree with his comments, this time I think he's talking through his hat!


How do you figure that? "A Ponzi scheme is an investment fraud that involves the payment of purported returns to existing investors from funds contributed by new investors." [www.sec.gov/answers/ponzi.htm] essentially, a ponzi scheme is a pyramid scheme: you make money by bringing in other investors/people who pay in money. how on earth that applies to hard working employees whose 'corporation' happens to be the federal govt I have no idea. I don't think it applies at all.


yeah, and that's what's happening. for a long time. a switch began in the mid-1980ss for federal employees paying into an old system (aka CSRS) that had been exclusive for fed employees, they did not pay into SS at all. that's the fund the fed pensions come/came from - there aren't that many CSRS employees left. However, in 1986 a change was made and current employees at that time were given a choice to stay with the old style pension or switch to the new style (aka FERS) which does pay into SS and the govt (like any other corporation) matches what you pay into a 401k style setup. It's pretty much like private industry. New hires since 1987 are not given the choice, they are only enrolled in the newer system. It's been 23 years!!! [www.opm.gov/retire/pre/fers/index.asp]

So, please tell me why a hard working employee who has given their life's employment and is now retiring isn't entitled to a pension from the business they were at for 30+ years simply because their 'business' happened to be the gov't - but someone in private industry is entitled just because it's not the gov't? believe me, I know a lot of fed (civil) employees and they are acutely aware that they are paid through tax dollars (which they themselves pay as well) and do the best they can at their work. Now I'm still waiting to hear why they don't deserve a pension. You can't seriously want to penalize them simply because they have had better job security than some others.

Have you completely ignored the articles I posted of pensions failing all over the country? They simply don't work. You can't work 30 years and expect a company or the .gov to pay you 75-80% of your salary for the next 20-25 years. The math simply doesn't add up. I don't care what is fair and what isn't the simple economics of it don't work.

You can say I'm talking out of a hat all day long but until you prove otherwise I suggest you get back in the kitchen and make some sammiches.

[sgthoskins]

Again you can keep your head in the sand and pretend they are working.

The pension crisis | crisis, gravity, unfunded - Opinion - Victorville Daily Press