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 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).
Agreed 100%. The states can do what ever they want with future employees and have changed previously and will again. The combination you suggest is a reasonable format. However independent of this discussion there are parallel discussions on retirement and the emerging retirement disaster. That is another discussion. In addition there is the problem that salary in many places is determined and paid at the local level and pensions determined and funded at the state level. In states where salary is determined at the local level you have the following. Senior teachers who don't retire because they can't afford to create higher than average costs for the local district while still making their contribution to the state retirement fund. When they retire that cost transfers to the state and they are no longer contributing. Teachers working 40 plus years is good for the state and not the local government.
Location: Jonquil City (aka Smyrna) Georgia- by Atlanta
16,259 posts, read 24,752,651 times
Reputation: 3587
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moth
You speak mounds of wisdom. Sadly, both sides have dropped the ball.
The GOP heaped tons of debt on us during the Bush years. Now Obama is outdoing Bush.
Funny none of the Republicans complained when Bush was starting wars and spending like a drunk in a Singapore whorehouse. But now they all got religion since a Democrat is in there.
You speak mounds of wisdom. Sadly, both sides have dropped the ball.
The GOP heaped tons of debt on us during the Bush years. Now Obama is outdoing Bush.
Yeah, it's like there is some competition going on to see who can spend the most. There are a handful of politicians who are opposed to spending, but most just keep spending like there will be no tomorrow. Well all we can do is stop spending ourselves. I am cutting back and paying off old debts. Too bad our government isn't doing the same.
"America" by Alistair Cooke is pretty light reading, and a good starting point.
We may not disagree. America has had a history of social welfare. However most of that history has seen a distinct separation between the deserving poor and the undeserving poor. Perhaps it is time out of necessity of financial surival to revisit that distinction.
Yeah, it's like there is some competition going on to see who can spend the most. There are a handful of politicians who are opposed to spending, but most just keep spending like there will be no tomorrow. Well all we can do is stop spending ourselves. I am cutting back and paying off old debts. Too bad our government isn't doing the same.
I bet you are cutting the least productive items from your budget and those that have not been productive with little prospect of becoming. If you only have $5 to spare and each of your children want and need that much do you use a system of which is and has done what you have asked to determine who gets it?
I bet you are cutting the least productive items from your budget and those that have not been productive with little prospect of becoming. If you only have $5 to spare and each of your children want and need that much do you use a system of which is and has done what you have asked to determine who gets it?
?????
Whatever you say. I'm paying off a wedding dude. My kids are grown.
Well if I do have $5 to spare, I usually splurge on my favorite coffee and a lottery ticket. Actually, if instead of bailing out gm, the gov would have bought lottery tickets, they would probably gotten a much better return on the investment. The bottom line is that at the end of the day, my checkbook balances and if I don't have the money in the bank, I don't spend it.
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.
