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.
Should tax paying citizens who do not have a pension plan going for them be required to fund the pensions of others?
Few private sector employees have a pension plan in this day and age. However, most public sector employees (municipal, state and Federal) have pension plans that are funded in whole or in part from taxes imposed on all people in their respective tax base.
In my mind, it doesn't make any sense whatsoever to require people who don't have a pension to fund the pensions of people in the public sector. If it were up to me, I would provide for a tax credit for people without a pension plan or, better yet, pass a law that required all public sector employees to fund their own pensions.
What makes sense to you?
I don't have a problem paying for a public employee pension. At the same time, we can't ignore how demographics have changed over the past 90 years, essentially keeping the same calculations in place as if frozen in amber.
In the mid-1930s, the average life expectancy in this country was 59 years. Today, the average life expectancy is close to 80. That is essentially adding an additional third to our lifespan. Enter the system at age 22, work thirty years, retire with a pension, and there is a very good chance you could be taking money out of the pension system for significantly longer than you paid in.
The same is true of Social Security, which has been a slow motion crisis for the past forty years, the ultimate case of kicking the can down the road.
States with incredibly generous pension plans such as Chicago, New Jersey, Connecticut and more are really facing reality right now.
Yet if we don't resolve this now, it's going to get a lot worse down the road.
Companies should be required to setup pension plans
No, they shouldn't.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowpacked
and the feds should be providing the service of monitoring the investments to ensure they are being properly manged.
Repeat after me: It is NOT the job of the Federal Government to take care of me. You need to write that on a white board 500 times.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowpacked
Severe punishment should be the result for manipulating the accounts.
There already is.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowpacked
Or, don't work for companies that decide to use revenue for shareholders or themselves.
I realize you never studied economics. But, given that this is an economics forum, it would be worth your while to take an online class or two in the subject. There are even basic economics classes available where you don't need calculus, although having calculus under your belt and studying economics with calculus will help you understand the concepts.
I don't have a problem paying for a public employee pension. At the same time, we can't ignore how demographics have changed over the past 90 years, essentially keeping the same calculations in place as if frozen in amber.
In the mid-1930s, the average life expectancy in this country was 59 years. Today, the average life expectancy is close to 80. That is essentially adding an additional third to our lifespan. Enter the system at age 22, work thirty years, retire with a pension, and there is a very good chance you could be taking money out of the pension system for significantly longer than you paid in.
The same is true of Social Security, which has been a slow motion crisis for the past forty years, the ultimate case of kicking the can down the road.
States with incredibly generous pension plans such as Chicago, New Jersey, Connecticut and more are really facing reality right now.
Yet if we don't resolve this now, it's going to get a lot worse down the road.
Demographics have not been ignored.
Most, if not all jurisdictions have changed their pension plans over the years. More generous plans have been discontinued, less generous plans implemented, and contributions from employees have increased.
Ignoring these facts in favor of a simplistic argument that people are living longer is counterproductive.
Should tax paying citizens who do not have a pension plan going for them be required to fund the pensions of others? ... What makes sense to you?
Wudge, we who prefer more left of center candidates disagree but understand conservative employee voters, believing their government's opposition to organized labor organizations are in our nation's best interests. They altruistically vote in favor of non-union environments that provide them with lesser wages, fringe benefits and economic security.
Additionally, there are voters opposed to their governments' legal toleration for persons political and personal philosophies, or their genetic differences and some of them do, and the remainder of them do not knowingly vote contrary to their own and their descendants' economic interests.
But all of us must accept the consequential lesser rewards for labors' contributions to our economy.
Most, if not all jurisdictions have changed their pension plans over the years. More generous plans have been discontinued, less generous plans implemented, and contributions from employees have increased.
Ignoring these facts in favor of a simplistic argument that people are living longer is counterproductive.
But the thing is, before pension benefits were cut, in many places, they were increased. Right around 2000-2001 is when it happened in many places in California. They KNEW the Boomers were going to start retiring and they went ahead and increased benefits anyway.
The employees left behind had to take a pay cut (which was an indirect, but effective, swipe at pension benefits) and new hires got less generous plans.
If they had just left the plans alone during the late 1990s, early 2000s, (as places like San Francisco did, because they had to go before the voters for pension benefit increases. The unions knew even liberal San Franciscans weren't going to go for it.), many of these plans would be in much better financial shape (as San Francisco's is, and they have the top AAA bond rating to show for it).
Tight pension management helped San Francisco get an upgrade this month to Moody’s highest general obligation bond rating, something many might not expect in a city known for liberal-leaning politics......
.......
Moody’s mentions two factors: a retiree health reform that takes longer to earn benefits and aims for full pre-funding, and pensions with higher employee payments and lower police and firefighter formulas than one widely adopted after a CalPERS-sponsored bill, SB 400 in 1999......
.....the San Francisco pension system takes a smaller bite out of the general fund than some other big-city retirement systems, leaving more money for basic services and programs.
Certainly not someone who stands to benefit from letting a public union raise pension benefits to unsustainable levels.
One would think that would be a conflict of interest.
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.
