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.
Officially, we're not really "subsidizing" their pensions because they contribute to the state pension fund (about 5% or so of their salary).
Depending on the age at which they entered the system, it could be more.
Unofficially, the pension needs an 8% return to be well funded, and they need to find a way to top it up if the stock market tanks -- so the real subsidy here is that the tax payer is taking on the downside risk of the pension fund investments.
Blame dear Christie Whitman for raiding the pension fund in the 90s and lowering the percentage of the takeout -- which state/county/municipal employees had to then make up with doubled deductions.
Blame dear Christie Whitman for raiding the pension fund in the 90s and lowering the percentage of the takeout -- which state/county/municipal employees had to then make up with doubled deductions.
I blame the system. The system is designed to be underfunded. The most attractive feature of defined benefit plans is that you can commit a supersized accounting fraud by passing off risky stock market returns as risk free.
Even when Corzine raised contributions to 5%, that was a step in the right direction but still woefully inadequate.
Now that the economy and stock market have gone down, they've stopped paying in money (at exactly the time you should be putting money in)
Really? As a municipal employee, they were hefty deductions from my paycheck every two weeks.
What you do or don't consider "hefty" is beside the point (btw, 5% is hardly "hefty" anyway -- 401k plans for example max out at 16,500)
The point is that they are passing off a risky stock market return as risk free.
That is, your benefits are risk free (the government promises them to you), but the market returns are not risk free. So the tax payer is essentially giving you free insurance on your retirement portfolio. That insurance is a huge off-balance liability for the tax payer.
I'm not sure what your point is... we ALL pay into both (well, those worried about retiring)... we in the private sector pay into Social Security AND pay into our 401(K) but guess what? We don't get a gauranteed return on our 401(K)! Maybe we win, maybe we lose, the risk is ours... the problem is, with those damn unions, their risk is ours too!
It looks rosy -- but when you deal with taxpayers on a daily basis, it's not the fun and games you think it is. Oh, there are some nice people, but the majority treat you like dirt. I've been cursed at, threatened, and called more names than I can remember -- and these were people I was trying to help.
Oh. Please. Cry me a freaking river.
The worst people I have ever met in a customer service sense are the people who work in government. Everyone knows that.
Ah, the damned unions -- the entities that were responsible for the 5-day workweek, paid holidays and vacations, paid sick time, paid jury-duty time -- yeah, they're always the bad guys.
Instead of blaming unionized workers for what the unions fought for, why not try to unionize your own workplace?
The problem is when unions ask for things that the people in the community don't even get, the people in the community tend to feel a little cranky about it.
Example, if my co-pay is 40 bucks a visit, and I hear teachers griping about a ten dollar co-pay, I have little sympathy.
on and on
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.