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.
I think this is hilarious. The Rightwingers keep screaming about how this is "taxpayers' money" and these lazy thugs and slugs don't contribute to their retirement plans. But right here in black and white. . .
"An employee’s required contribution would go from about 8 percent to 14 percent."
Who here is required to contribute 8% of their salary to their retirement fund? Who here would pitch a holy fit if their employer required them to put 14% of their salary into their retirement?
OMG, the screaming would echo across the entire continent.
I think this is hilarious. The Rightwingers keep screaming about how this is "taxpayers' money" and these lazy thugs and slugs don't contribute to their retirement plans. But right here in black and white. . .
"An employee’s required contribution would go from about 8 percent to 14 percent."
Who here is required to contribute 8% of their salary to their retirement fund? Who here would pitch a holy fit if their employer required them to put 14% of their salary into their retirement?
OMG, the screaming would echo across the entire continent.
Probably about 90%, that's all.
Most people contribute to a 401K or other investment vehicle and they are LUCKY if their employer kicks in a matching amount up to 6-8%.
So..the TAXPAYERS should pay for a public employees pension?
Why? What makes a public employee a protected class?
Well why the hell not. You're going to take whatever I say however you want anyway, so why bother? You can't be swayed by reason. You can't be swayed by facts. You can't be swayed by conscience. You can't be swayed, period. So there's really no further reason to try.
I'm just not seeing it here. So far, this thread has demonstrated what happens when one doesn't actually read the article linked. One or two people upset. I have yet to see TAXPAYERS, non-union, non-governmental upset at all.
if we sell all our public services to the private sector, don't think it will be cheaper! You will pay high fees for these services as well as your usual taxes.
This is a way for government to maintain its current revenue while cutting spending. They fail to tell you that you will be spending more!
Anyone who thinks privatizing public services is a good idea, must enjoy getting less for more!
you can not possibly believe that b.s. Yes yes it will be cheaper . Government drives priceses up through corruption and not to mention the people who run those public services who have no skin in the game other then a salery, they dont care if they go broke. Thier solution will always be, to raise taxes!! Never will they say what are we doing wrong, how can we save money!!
I'm just not seeing it here. So far, this thread has demonstrated what happens when one doesn't actually read the article linked. One or two people upset. I have yet to see TAXPAYERS, non-union, non-governmental upset at all.
The liberal taxpayers are upset. They want to support public worker pensions. They want higher taxes.
You know that how? It might well be a bunch of little mom and pop operations getting money so they can hire Joe Sixpack to do what the government had done before.
I think this is hilarious. The Rightwingers keep screaming about how this is "taxpayers' money" and these lazy thugs and slugs don't contribute to their retirement plans. But right here in black and white. . .
"An employee’s required contribution would go from about 8 percent to 14 percent."
Who here is required to contribute 8% of their salary to their retirement fund? Who here would pitch a holy fit if their employer required them to put 14% of their salary into their retirement?
OMG, the screaming would echo across the entire continent.
You're trying to compare a 401K retirement like most people today have to a union employee's pension which are 2 very different animals and one requires a LOT more money than the other to keep in the black since it's a lifetime benefit. Do some reading, it'll help.
Well why the hell not. You're going to take whatever I say however you want anyway, so why bother? You can't be swayed by reason. You can't be swayed by facts. You can't be swayed by conscience. You can't be swayed, period. So there's really no further reason to try.
I've seen your posts, and they include zero facts, just dogmatic nonsense like "i opened a business." Whoopedy do, so what?
Is that supposed to explain how government regulation in many states are not destroying the private sector's ability to function? I then presented multiple examples, such as the insurance and restaurant business in NY - which you of course ignored.
But you did go into the typical far left screeching emotional diatribe found in the "break when cannot compete with facts" glass box in the emergency debate kit kept by all far leftists...
So don't accuse me of being impervious to facts, since you have yet to present any.
By all means, let them contribute then. Nothing is stopping liberals from giving more of their money to the government.
But they can't. They're the 40% of the country who pay nothing in taxes each year...
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.
