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.
Are you confusing SS for you with SS plus a state-government pension for Ed? It's not Ed's fault that you worked for a cheesy employer who didn't have a pension plan.
No, it's government's fault for continuing to increase government staff and their compensation levels, even when the wealth and incomes of the families who must pay all these costs plummeted.
Unlike private employers who have to deduct Social Security taxes from their employee's paychecks, government entities can opt out entirely and do their own pension plans. These plans then provide very large returns, whether or not investment income covers it or not--because the taxpayer must pay any difference between investment returns and "promised" benefits. Why should ANY government employees get to avoid the losing game of Social Security, and instead get lucrative pensions that are highly subsidized by people poorer than themselves? This makes absolutely no sense. Government set up the Social Security system Ponzi Scam that robs everyone not yet retired; why in the world should government employees get to avoid subsidizing the retirement of the wealthiest generations in history?
Private employers who set up pensions are doing it with money left over AFTER the 15.3% loss to FICA taxes. And guaranteed, in the future, any pension income will reduce Social Security benefits: in effect punishing employees in the private sector for saving for their own retirements.
Governments aren't constrained by bad economics (they grow in good times or bad), or the decreasing wealth of the average American. They simply pad their own luxurious nests with bigger and more well-paid staffs, and send the bill to the American taxpayer. They couldn't care less that the average American no longer makes enough money to subsidize three gigantic layers of overgrown government; doesn't get to retire, or doesn't get to stay in their family home, because government constantly grew in number of employees and overcompensated them without any restraint.
Unfortunately, virtually the ONLY employers who are continuing to offer generous pensions are Governments, and this is creating a new privileged class of government workers. This privileged class will will work only a portion of the hours of the private sector employee, and will be retired long after the private employee is still trying to work 80 hours a week despite age-related health problems. We must never forget that government is a non-productive parasite that acts as an anchor on the ability of the economy to grow. When the host is sick--as it certainly is today--a heavy parasite load can be the difference between the host living or dying.
And unless we start drastically reducing the parasite load of oversized government ASAP, we can expect to descend into a Russian-style oppressive government and a poverty-stricken citizenry that must lick the boots of the power-mad government aristocracy. We cannot afford to keep the "promises" of government administrators; the incredible cost of those unfunded obligations simply cannot be met by the already-overtaxed working class: "A report by the Pew Center on the States, a national public policy think tank, indicates that the gap between states’ public employee retirement benefit obligations and the funds set aside to pay those benefits was approximately $1.38 trillion in fiscal year 2010." GASB vote places unfunded pension liabilities on government balance sheets
And frankly, our government sat back and allowed thousands of large corporations to nullify their fully-funded pension programs, and steal the money invested for the benefit of employees. My spouse was fully vested in a pension plan that was supposed to pay 50% of the last-5 years average salary, when a perfectly legal "change of control" (that involved no actual change of control) allowed replacing the pension with a one-time payout of about 1/5 of current salary. Today that payout is worth about 1/2 the current salary--in other words, a single year of the previous pension plan that would have run for the rest of the employee's life.
So when I hear about "promised" benefits in regard to government workers, I get physically sick. Since government had no problem protecting OUR promised benefits, I really don't feel obligated to pay for THEIR ridiculously over-generous benefits.
do the government workers put in the same percentage as private company workers into social-security system ?.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TuborgP
Most state and local government workers pay into both. Some states are non SS participants. Several that come to mind are Calif, Texas, Mass I believe don't along with a few others. If anyone knows that they do please correct me.
California county school worker here. Not a teacher.
I have SS deducted from my check. It's the same percentage as private companies.
I also have a mandatory 7% deduction for my pension.
I also have a voluntary 40% deduction for savings. But I consider this one mandatory also.
I'm rank and file, not an administrator.
I live very very frugally.
California county school worker here. Not a teacher.
I have SS deducted from my check. It's the same percentage as private companies.
I also have a mandatory 7% deduction for my pension.
I also have a voluntary 40% deduction for savings. But I consider this one mandatory also.
I'm rank and file, not an administrator.
I live very very frugally.
Well you have a pretty big bite coming out of your checks before you even include your voluntary 40% deduction for savings. But there will be a nice pay-off down the road when you can collect both SS and the county (or is it through the state?) pension. Plus, in your case, you will have your own savings. Much smaller paycheck right now, but looking good in the future. Good planning on your part. Well done.
I have two relatives who work for state government, one in Arkansas and one in Mississippi. Both of them are under a similar deal: deductions for both SS and the state pension system. Their pay, especially after deductions, is quite modest, but they will reap the benefits down the road.
To NHartphotog: I didn't quote your long post, but people can read it (#31 just a few posts up). You have a good point lurking in amongst the exaggerations caused by your extreme bitterness. Rather than catalog all the exaggerations, let me just throw this out regarding all the "well-paid staffs" who work for government. I have a relative who works for the state of Arkansas full-time in a white collar but not real high up position. Want to take a guess at that person's salary? A little over $30,000 per year! True, the cost of housing in Arkansas is much lower than what I am used to in Los Angeles, but still! You are painting everybody with a very broad brush, and so the painting is highly inaccurate.
I feel sorry for you in your broken-record bitterness. In almost every post you mention your 80-hour work week. If it's true, you carry a heavy burden, but color me skeptical.
We are the exact same age and are retiring together. Ed worked in private sector for 10 years and for the state for 25. I worked 36 years for the private sector. We had the same income and Ed had better
benefits. I will receive through SS approximately 1100 per month; and Ed will receive 1800 per month.
I have to pay 990 for Health ins per month for me and he pays $380 for a family. How can the government support this inequality. Especially for 30 to 40 years. His is guaranteed and mine isn't?
There is no ceiling in the private sector. You had the opportunity to work harder and go farther. You could have shopped yourself around, taken courses, become more skilled; you had many choices. You could have left the private sector like your friend Ed who had his eye on the future. Government employees have grades and caps but in return for the limitations on their earnings they've traditionally had good benefits.
My husband retired from the government, he has an MBA, and back in the Clinton years when everyone was making double or triple what he was making in the stock market or the dot com industry, he was making $65,000. We had more fights over this and his answer was always the same, "You'll thank me when I retire." And I do! Every day!
well markets seek their own levels and now that we are global those over priced kind of jobs jobs are few and far between. there are still some low skill jobs that pay more then they should but they are harder to come by.
And didn't the unions make things much worse with their forced reported $69 per hour auto assembly line worker? JMO
I believe most of those figures were quoted by management as the hourly labor cost to management and the one thing they did bury in that number was what they were paying the retired hourly people.
Do not for one moment think it was the existing workers/unions that were getting the $69 per hour. Say I was a door hanger first class...whatever...that $69 included what the company was paying the retired door hangers first class.
Old auto management trick to make the public feel sorry for their hourly wage rate and place the blame on the unions and the door hangers first class.
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.
