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 do not believe that if you work for the government you should be able to vote to raise tax's. In Oregon a co. voted to raise a tax by 2.3%. With in a year every employee got a raise of 2.5%.
Seriously? Government employees get raises just as you do, only theirs is usually tied to the CPI. A 2.5% raise is hardly going to be sending them to the Porsche dealer. It's kind of irrational to assume the raise was tied to the tax increase.
Those of you who claim that he deserves such a rich pension missed this sentence in the linked article in #304:
Mary Williams Walsh investigated the pension issues that are crippling the state.
If the former Oregon state employees, including Mr. Great Football Coach, were clearly generating the money that covers their pensions, why are pension issues crippling the state? I don't think Mr. GFC should be treated any differently than the others. It's not like football is an essential business.
Mr. GFC ISN'T being treated any different from the others. He's getting the 55% of his three-year FAS based on years of service just like everybody else. It's just that his FAS was $1.7 million, so he's getting $900K.
I do not believe that if you work for the government you should be able to vote to raise tax's. In Oregon a co. voted to raise a tax by 2.3%. With in a year every employee got a raise of 2.5%.
Hulburt1, I haven’t encountered that Idea before; government employees should be denied a citizen’s right to vote? This is what you advocate? Respectfully, Supposn
I do not believe that if you work for the government you should be able to vote to raise tax's. In Oregon a co. voted to raise a tax by 2.3%. With in a year every employee got a raise of 2.5%.
But non-gov't workers can vote to eliminate gov't workers raises.
Those of you who claim that he deserves such a rich pension missed this sentence in the linked article in #304:
Mary Williams Walsh investigated the pension issues that are crippling the state.
If the former Oregon state employees, including Mr. Great Football Coach, were clearly generating the money that covers their pensions, why are pension issues crippling the state? I don't think Mr. GFC should be treated any differently than the others. It's not like football is an essential business.
Pensions that are not 100% previously funded are especially troubling. That often means that current taxpayers, including those with vastly reduced economic opportunity, must pay for fat-cat pensioneers, taking advantage of lucrative legacy benefits.
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 think many people have a distorted view of pensions because of the human element tied to it. However, its not a very complex or grey area. Its like any other item that's paid with your tax dollars. I will answer your question with a few more questions:
1. Should you be exempt from paying the part of your federal tax that goes towards defense because you think your defense budget is too high? What about when the government spends extra on defense when at war with a country that you think the US has no business occupying?
2. Replace "defense" with any other word and ask the same question. What about bailouts for businesses deemed "too big to fail"? Food stamps? Section 8? etc.
3. Should you be exempt from paying to fix a road in your city you never drive down?
The list goes on and on. What your suggestion goes against the basic principles of how a country operates. The only logical argument you can make is that if you don't agree with paying for something that comes out of your taxes; get legislators in place to cut that expense.
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.
