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.
Your obsession with Newt has me wondering if youve once made a pass at him and he turned you down..
I'm not gay. If I were "not gay" like another "conservative", it might've worked
Seriously though, if Newt at least had the guts to back trimming the Pentagon budget half as much as the rest of the budget, he'd look more like a conservative and less like a neo-con RINO.
His insistence of government loans to investment banks just makes him look more like an NWO shill.
Baseless, and quite wrong, when viewed against the historical record.
Please elaborate so the many lurkers can weigh and evaluate for themselves? Since it is wrong when compared to the historical record we are certain you can site that record and it's practical implications for today and moving forward. Remember it is often part of conservative thought to blanketly quote the past and apply it to today and tomorrow.
I didn't ask about reducing the pension, I asked about the elimination of future benefit increases. If against debt, I would assume that you would support this, along with strong mean testing of social security benefits.
The following links are examples of games played to enhance pension payouts. It is a system that needs reform without freezing across the board future increases. Illinois Loop: Salaries and Pensions
Some of the links included in the article are excellent. There are districts usually smaller districts that give teachers enormous salary increases their last three years just for retirement purposes. There are only a few at a time but it is a game. You get paid average or less for x number of years and it all gets made up plus some at the end. The pension cost is on the state and not the district. In many areas public service supervisors are notorious for their overtime in their last couple of years.
I didn't ask about reducing the pension, I asked about the elimination of future benefit increases. If against debt, I would assume that you would support this, along with strong mean testing of social security benefits.
Am I right to assume that the first 500K invested at a minimum per person will be excluded from the calculation? It is responsible personal fiscal practice to have sufficient funds saved for health care overage and long term health care insurance and expenses once that is exhausted. We all want citizens who are working to be self sufficient and not a health care burden on family and society. Would individuals who have a capital loss in a bear market receive backpayments of benefits if their current investment level falls below a previous threshold? Those are some of the questions and concerns I have and would need answered before voicing support of or not. Same with pension containment. What and how would you freeze future benefits when they are basically a function, of salary, time served and payment formula. The formula doesn'tususally change and nothing special is needed to not change itthus freezing it as it normally is. Is the plan to contain cost going to cap the years you can accumulate towards retirement or cap the maximum salary the pension can be based on. Certainly a freeze would not tell a ten year employee this is your pension based on ten years and current salary and it will never change. Or is it that? Once again before anyone could support or not support they would probably need to see the infamous devil in the details.
Am I right to assume that the first 500K invested at a minimum per person will be excluded from the calculation? It is responsible personal fiscal practice to have sufficient funds saved for health care overage and long term health care insurance and expenses once that is exhausted. We all want citizens who are working to be self sufficient and not a health care burden on family and society. Would individuals who have a capital loss in a bear market receive backpayments of benefits if their current investment level falls below a previous threshold? Those are some of the questions and concerns I have and would need answered before voicing support of or not. Same with pension containment. What and how would you freeze future benefits when they are basically a function, of salary, time served and payment formula. The formula doesn'tususally change and nothing special is needed to not change itthus freezing it as it normally is. Is the plan to contain cost going to cap the years you can accumulate towards retirement or cap the maximum salary the pension can be based on. Certainly a freeze would not tell a ten year employee this is your pension based on ten years and current salary and it will never change. Or is it that? Once again before anyone could support or not support they would probably need to see the infamous devil in the details.
If you take a look at the Veteran Administration system, you will find that some of their medical benefits are means tested. While I'm not familiar with the nuances of the specific requirements, generally the amount you have in savings and investments determines your entitlement to receive the medical procedure without cost. The $ threshold is much less than $500K.
Basically though, I'm expecting all public employee pensions and benefits to be under significant public evaluation for the next couple of years, both those who work at the local levels and state employees. Federal addressed the issue in the mid-1980's significantly reducing the guaranteed benefits pension and switching the emphasis toward defined (and matching) contribution programs.
If you take a look at the Veteran Administration system, you will find that some of their medical benefits are means tested. While I'm not familiar with the nuances of the specific requirements, generally the amount you have in savings and investments determines your entitlement to receive the medical procedure without cost. The $ threshold is much less than $500K.
Basically though, I'm expecting all public employee pensions and benefits to be under significant public evaluation for the next couple of years, both those who work at the local levels and state employees. Federal addressed the issue in the mid-1980's significantly reducing the guaranteed benefits pension and switching the emphasis toward defined (and matching) contribution programs.
They are and will be under pressure. There are strong legal requirements that create difficulties for states in changing benefits for current employees. There are things that can and should be done especially for new employees which government is free to do anything with. I tell people there are three categories one could be in.
A. Current retirees- untouchable without significant legal changes at the national levle
B. Current employees not retired- Increases in contributions might be something that could with effort pass a legal test
C. Future retiree's
Things that make sense are changing the time served for full eligibility in all states upward to either 35 years service and or age 62.
Capping maximum salary benefits are calculated on
Equalizing the disparity in benefits between districts when salary is earned at the local level and benefits paid at the state level. Benefits should reflect and be similar within regions and not based on the wealth and ability to pay salary by a local government. Anything above the base equalization should be paid out at the local level. Certainly increasing contributions as should also be done with SS by increasing the maximum level taxed.
They are and will be under pressure. There are strong legal requirements that create difficulties for states in changing benefits for current employees. There are things that can and should be done especially for new employees which government is free to do anything with. I tell people there are three categories one could be in.
A. Current retirees- untouchable without significant legal changes at the national levle
B. Current employees not retired- Increases in contributions might be something that could with effort pass a legal test
C. Future retiree's
Things that make sense are changing the time served for full eligibility in all states upward to either 35 years service and or age 62.
Capping maximum salary benefits are calculated on
Equalizing the disparity in benefits between districts when salary is earned at the local level and benefits paid at the state level. Benefits should reflect and be similar within regions and not based on the wealth and ability to pay salary by a local government. Anything above the base equalization should be paid out at the local level. Certainly increasing contributions as should also be done with SS by increasing the maximum level taxed.
I suspect that you will see more of a shift towards defined contribution plans, vs defined benefits. I think the defined benefits will remain, but at a much lower level, say half of what generally exist today. Instead, I believe that the money contributed by the local/state public employee will go into a 401K type of plan, with a matching employer contribution, up to a certain fixed percentage.
Regarding current retirees, though their benefits cannot (and should not) be reduced, the future growth to keep pace with the cost of living can be altered. Also, the medical benefits can be reduced, or more payment may be required by the retiree. These generally can be done within the context of the agreement existing when working, and would have a significant impact on reducing public funded outlay over time (amplification of benefit reductions over multiple years).
"America" by Alistair Cooke is pretty light reading, and a good starting point.
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.
