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.
NJ was not the point of the thread. The point was that Perry was double dipping at the same time making it harder for others. No shared sacrifice. On Morning Joe, some polling expert was pointing out that people get that some should earn more etc - what they dont like is that the sense of fairness seems to be on the decline.
Wrong. The point of the thread was to claim somehow Perry was doing something wrong or illegal. When in fact he has done nothing wrong. If the people of Texas don't like the system, it is up to them to change it.
Wrong. The point of the thread was to claim somehow Perry was doing something wrong or illegal. When in fact he has done nothing wrong. If the people of Texas don't like the system, it is up to them to change it.
I was the OP of the thread so I'll clarify this. The point was to claim that he's doing something wrong and hypocritical, NOT illegal. I pointed out multiple times that what he's doing is permitted by Texas law. I also pointed out that I don't like the system and that I think the laws need to be changed. My main point, however, was Perry's hypocrisy.
As a side note, I am opposed to anyone retiring from a public position and then returning as an employee or consultant. If they return to work, they aren't retired.
If we dig up the old actuarial assumptions that were made in the 50, 60's, and 70's, they are pretty interesting. The problem we have today exists partly because we have short memories and because so many elected officials are good at tallying [votes], but bad at math.
But they CAN get another job and still collect their pensions. AFTER a YEAR for some and 90 days for others and that's only if they want to work for the state or civil service! What is the problem here? Everyone who is already double dipping it will have no effect on, like HIMSELF! Like I said earlier, don't cherry pick what Perry is doing, ALL states need to fix this. Like I said, the Democrats in NJ threw a tantrum when Christie tried to change this practice.
Problem is Perry is ok with putting restrictions on others, not himself. He did not put any restrictions on himself - say on him lobbying if he ceases to be the gov. becuase things like that simply dont occur to people (D, R) in power.
As a side note, I am opposed to anyone retiring from a public position and then returning as an employee or consultant. If they return to work, they aren't retired.
So what about retirees who need extra money and get a job at McDonalds. Or the greeters you see at WalMart. Should they be required to give up the retirement they earned after working hard all their life because they got an extra job after retiring?
What about retirees who do volunteer jobs. Should we say "You aren't earning a paycheck but it's a job dammit. You're able to work so give up your pension Grandpa!"
If it's all about income, then what about retirees who earn extra income by investing? Or renting out an apartment above their house? Are we going to say they must give up their pensions because they're getting income so they're not retired?
Retirement is part of your compensation. It's not something society hands to you because you can't work anymore, it's part of the contract you make when you work for an employer. Once you've earned it, you're entitled to it. Why should it matter if you then decide you still need to work? This idea that if you complete a contract (i.e. earn your retirement) you are now banned from ever working again is bizarre to me.
Retirement is part of your compensation. It is promised to you from the time you start a job. Once you've earned it, you're entitled to it. Why should it matter if you then decide you still need to work? This idea that if you complete a contract (i.e. earn your retirement) you are now banned from ever earning more money is bizarre to me.
Pretty much the way I see it. If wants wants to work elsewhere to live a better lifestyle, that should be their choice.
Problem is Perry is ok with putting restrictions on others, not himself. He did not put any restrictions on himself - say on him lobbying if he ceases to be the gov. becuase things like that simply dont occur to people (D, R) in power.
Now this argument I'll give you--but it's a different issue IMO. Like I said I do have reasons I dislike Perry, but the fact that he is taking retirement pay is not one of them.
I was the OP of the thread so I'll clarify this. The point was to claim that he's doing something wrong and hypocritical, NOT illegal. I pointed out multiple times that what he's doing is permitted by Texas law. I also pointed out that I don't like the system and that I think the laws need to be changed. My main point, however, was Perry's hypocrisy.
Sorry, there is NOTHING wrong or hypocritical with adhering to current law and policies.
If you don't like those laws and policies get them changed.
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.
