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.
Actually until this year with the new tax law here in Ca you could actually deduct state taxes and fees off of your federal income taxes. But more to the point of your question do i think i should pay for pensions when I don't earn one. I see it as kind of the same as someone who pays for my stock options when they don't earn them it's just the cost of doing business. We are all connected people who make pensions use services and products from the companies you and I work for and we use the services from the government which require government employees and part of their pay package happens to be a pension. Part of mine happens to b stock options some other people have a 401k match.
HOT TAKE: Millennial should not have to pay into social security considering they will never see it paid out. If that means baby boomers don't get their money back so be it. They are the ones who elected the politicians who ****ed up the system.
Last edited by history nerd; 07-07-2018 at 03:47 PM..
HOT TAKE: Millennial should not have to pay into social security considering they will never see it paid out. If that means baby boomers don't get their money back so be it. They are the ones who elected the politicians who ****ed up the system.
You do realize, as a self-proclaimed "history nerd", that the ones who voted for the system ****ing were the Greatest Generation legislators and voters? The oldest Baby Boomer wasn't old enough to vote, or just barely, when Social Security started to get screwed up in the 1960s and before. And unlike the prior generations, Baby Boomers paid into the system every single day of their working lives.
Why won't millennials see Social Security? Their kids will be paying into it for their parents' benefits. Just like Baby Boomers and Gen X did for the prior generations.
You do realize, as a self-proclaimed "history nerd", that the ones who voted for the system ****ing were the Greatest Generation legislators and voters? The oldest Baby Boomer wasn't old enough to vote, or just barely, when Social Security started to get screwed up in the 1960s and before. And unlike the prior generations, Baby Boomers paid into the system every single day of their working lives.
Why won't millennials see Social Security? Their kids will be paying into it for their parents' benefits. Just like Baby Boomers and Gen X did for the prior generations.
I'm not sure you are picking up on the satire that I attempted to convey through use of the "HOT TAKE" label. I'll go ahead and edit in a winky face or something to make it more clear.
I have no issue at all with public sector defined benefit pensions as long as total compensation aligns with an equivalent job skill level in the private sector. Sometimes it does. Sometimes it doesn't.
For example, there is a Massachusetts state police scandal in the news with the cops who worked the Massachusetts Turnpike detail. The worst of them were pulling $200K out of the system by submitting fraudulent overtime. Writing ghost traffic citations to make it look like they were working. One of them being prosecuted retired a couple of years ago. He spiked his pension with this fraudulent overtime and cashing in "unused vacation time". In his mid-40's with 20 years in, a $72K COLA-protected pension for life with full health care benefits. If I had to buy an annuity that paid that at age 45, it's $3 million dollars. This is somebody with a criminal justice degree from a 3rd tier state school where pretty much anyone who can fog a mirror gets admitted and the academics aren't exactly challenging. In the private sector in Massachusetts, that guy is worth $50K with minimal benefits, maybe. This is a traffic cop on an interstate highway, not somebody combating gang bangers and drug dealers. This guys 20 year total comp must have averaged $250K+ when you factor in the value of the pension.
That's the kind of outlier case that gives public sector workers the bad reputation. Massachusetts has a ton of state social workers who make next to nothing so they'll never get that juicy pension deal. Total comp might be $50K. They make the front page of the newspaper if they ever screw up and a kid gets killed. How do you reconcile $50K total comp against that corrupt cop with $250K? There are lots of examples like this where you have one end of the spectrum feeding at the trough while a bunch of other public sector employees aren't getting much of a deal. Since it's so political and under union control, there's no way to fix it.
1. My pension wasn't paid for solely by the state. I contributed heavily every month.
2. When I signed a contract to work for the school system the contract stated, if you work for us, we will pay you this much, we will give you these benefits, and you will get this retirement. To not follow through is breaking a contract. Any contract I ever signed, I fulfilled to the letter. I expect legal contracts to be fulfilled. If not, then I should have the right to break any contract. If I sign a contract for the HVAC company to install a new furnace, the after they install it, I should be able to break the contract and not pay them, or not pay them the full amount agreed to.
Do you really think that we'll have a stable economy if contracts don't need to be honored?
As long as teachers and other public service employees are allowed to “back end “ or “pension stuff” it will absolutely be appropriate to reduce their pensions.
As long as teachers and other public service employees are allowed to “back end “ or “pension stuff” it will absolutely be appropriate to reduce their pensions.
An example that you may be familiar with already, or can easily find out about.
Early 2000’s, a well known band teacher at Lewis Palmer high school suddenly is no longer the band teacher, but instead he moved into a much higher paid administrator position at the school. He stays three or four more years and then retires. The result? Depending on the exact rules in place at the time, he has a pension that is based in whole or in part on an administrator salary level rather than a band director salary level.
Are you unaware of this type of thing happening?
If the taxpayers approve of a salary and retirement package for music teacher, but end up paying retirement for a higher paid administrator, there’s a problem. Is it allowed for under the contract? Most assuredly. But it is certainly not what the taxpayers believed they were signing up for.
Police officers in many departments are able to do this. Just before retirement, they are making their normal salary of $80,000. But then by working significant overtime, and cashing in vacation and sick time, suddenly they have qualifying compensation of $150,000, and a pension based on $150,000 rather than $80,000. Do you believe that the taxpayers knew they were signing up for this?
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.
