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.
Pensions, private and government, can work if enough profit or taxes, are allocated to pay the money. The problem is the payments would eat into managerial bonuses and selected tax breaks or subsides. The recipients of the latter would be quite upset. The recipients of the agreed upon pensions would be receiving what the contracted with their employer as part of their employment. Both the profits and the taxes can be protected by installing countervailing tariffs to eliminate the price advantage of imported goods and services. The increased profits go to the private sector and the taxes to the government pensions. Everybody wins except the foreign slave shop polluters and their Wall Street backers.
I think requiring Federal employees to have to put their pension money at risk in the private equity market should entail at least a 30% raise to make up for the increased risk. In my experience the two reasons people work for the Government is to accomplish good works that would be impossible in the private sector for decent wages and an almost guaranteed, except for criminal activities, 30 to 40 year career with a decent pension after retirement.
I wonder why forcing people to put their pension money at risk in the privately controlled equities market is considered the only option. To the market owners’ that require continuous expansion a monopoly on the pension savings it is mandatory. I believe it is simple coercion. Government employees and interested private individuals should have a choice to put their retirement money in a Government pension plan and avoid the risk of the private market system.
I may consider the government to be sometimes inept but I am certain the private system, except on a very local lever, to be inimical and willing to coerce and steal if it is necessary to keep the scheme operating.
Have you completely ignored the articles I posted of pensions failing all over the country? They simply don't work
but you have been saying specifically to cut out (not decrease, but cut out) all FEDERAL pensions. You weren't talking about anyone else's pensions. and you weren't talking about cutting back. So from the sound of it, how do you propose the retiree live since they didn't get paid enough to built a retirement nest eggs they can live on (only to supplement), they weren't allowed to put in to SS (which doesn't pay enough to live on anyway since that wasn't what it was designed for), you don't believe in welfare (in general neither to do I), so that means they will retire with only a limited amount of savings for the rest of their life because you think there should be no pensions (that's what you say when you say 'cut all federal pensions')? fine way to treat someone who has been working for you all their lives.
Quote:
You can't work 30 years and expect a company or the .gov to pay you 75-80% of your salary for the next 20-25 years. The math simply doesn't add up. I don't care what is fair and what isn't the simple economics of it don't work.
even under CSRS someone working for 30 years did not get 75-80% of their pay, and now under FERS it's not even what it was. And if you take an early-out, it gets cut down even more.
Quote:
I sure wouldn't want to yank existing pensions, he's earned it. I'm talking moving forward.
thank goodness for that. however why does the person who worked 30 years under CSRS (old style) and retired 5 years ago deserve it more than the last few CSRS employees that didn't change to FERS (new style) and retire in a couple of years? They've both put in their time, they've both worked just as hard, so they are both just as deserving. and since the change in styles occurred over 20 years ago.... isn't that 'moving forward'?
besides, many fed employees get paid less than they would with the same jobs in private sector. that also means they have less available funds during their work years to put into 401k/IRAs. so if the balance is handled by giving a slightly higher retirement to makeup for the deficit, the money works out the same, just delayed. mind you, I'm still speaking old style for the few remaining old-timers left.
besides, many fed employees get paid less than they would with the same jobs in private sector. that also means they have less available funds during their work years to put into 401k/IRAs. so if the balance is handled by giving a slightly higher retirement to makeup for the deficit, the money works out the same, just delayed. mind you, I'm still speaking old style for the few remaining old-timers left.
I think the problem you run into is that there is a lot of diversity in government job responsibilities.
There are plenty of highly educated/motivated/hard-working folks who are in very specialized/technical positions where they are underpaid vs. the private sector. Granted they may be making $140k; but the comparable private sector position may pay over $200k (with a sizable bonus).
On the flip side you also have plenty of employees with easily replaceable skill sets who sit in a position for a number of years where the starting salary may have been appropriate but the current salary is not- so they are clearly overpaid and could never earn the same amount in the private sector.
The system is setup for "one size fits all" (mostly) vs. career field specific and longevity vs. merit based pay increases (NSPS was supposed to fix that for DoD, but some stupid decisions were made and it was later repealed in part because of them).
This also results in another issue...you get a glut of people applying for the more menial jobs- and less people applying for the very critical jobs; when the flip-side is what's needed.
lol! thanks, I needed that laugh. You're quoting the Huffington Post?? rotfl
Interesting that you also quote National Institute on Retirement Security, I went to check out the site in general and a front page post said : "Pensions Are Economically Efficient" []National Institute on Retirement - Pensions Are Economically Efficient and fascinating that the first paragraph of the link you provided says "Employees of state & local government earn an average of 11% and 12% less, respectively, than comparable private sector employees. An analysis spanning two decades shows the pay gap between public and private sector employees has widened in recent years." so since you've now contradicted yourself, I still maintain you're talking through your hat. maybe you should go into the kitchen and make those sammiches. I'll take roast venison if you've got any! (sorry, I didn't bother with the middle link, the other two were enough)
basically the problem is that there are a lot of people who hate gov't employees simply because they are gov't employees. I don't understand it, but I see it (and seem to be seeing it here). Such people easily write up trumped up articles for others to copy. But it still amounts to a situation similar to me, down here in MD, telling you, up there, that you don't know anything about the town you live in and your family lives in and where many of your friends live because I can quote ridiculous liberal sources like the HuffPost that says stuff you know first hand isn't true.
BTW, BF: hardly any govt employees make that much money. and the few who do aren't civil service and can be fired at any time. Congress has capped federal wages for some time, feds are lucky to get cost of living raises, they don't get bonuses at all and to make $140k you have to be a very senior exec, not the average worker - not even a highly qualified technical worker. but yes, IF there was such an avg paid employee, they would be getting more like the $200k you mentioned in private sector.
I am going to agree with Wanna about gov't. employees not making high salaries. They are usually valued/performance-assessed on a curve, which is the most hideous part of being a fed. With that said, I think private sector employment to the tune of 220k plus bonus is a rare animal at this rate.
Independent contractors on FFR &Ds - that is where earning potential has been, as well as the opportunity to be independent. However, Fed. institutions have squeezed indies out, even those who flawlessly wrap up projects in a percentage of the time, pissing off dead weight feds who prefer to milk it as long as they can while pondering the molecular structure of their navels and writing endless papers about paradigms never before related to science.
How many of you erudite petitioners are willing to carry a gun in harm's way as a Federal Military employee at 2 grand a month plus room and board? I'll guess not many. I carried one back in 'Nam for $40 per month.
My problem with all these "capitalists" is they seem to need a monopoly on everyone's money. They want everyone to work for the private sector, invest in the private sector and trust their savings and pensions to the private sector. The reason for this is without continuous growth in the total amount of money being processed their system collapses. As continuous growth without any downturns is impossible the small investor is certain to eventually lose. The money they lost is collected by the people at the top of the scheme.
[SIZE=3] [/SIZE]
I had to invest a substantial amount of my savings in a private sector mutual fund. I did not want to do this but as bank interest rates for small savers were effectively below inflation (another way the private sector steals money) I was forced to put my savings at risk. I believe there should be an absolutely guaranteed pension plan that paid 5% above inflation. Why should all of us be forced to trust the unworthy with our money.
As far as balancing the budget is concerned the government could simply using a progressive income tax and countervailing tariffs tax the money from the same people they have been borrowing from.
Actually it is the government that wants a monopoly on everyone's $$. 7.65% of my paycheck is taken from me every week for 2 programs I have no choice to participate in- I am forced. No one forced you Greg to participate in a private sector mutual fund-it was not forcibly taken from you like social security and medicare are forcibly taken. It was your choice to seek a higher return and that comes with risk. If the fund returns 20% I doubt you will complain. I will never see a dime from all the money I have paid and will continue to pay for many years. My mother worked full time since she was 16 years old, died at 61 and she never received a dime of all the $$ from all the years she had forcibly taken from her by the government. If my mother was not forced to partricipate in social security, that $$ could have been privately invested and she could have used it herself or passed some on to my dad or me or charity or whatever. Instead the government took it from her all those years and she received nothing. There are many others like her as well.
I should be free to invest my $$ how I see fit and accept both the rewards and the risks.
Many corporations have done away with pensions ("defined benefit plans") in favor of 401k's (defined contribution). Even Fidelity has done so. This does not mean that those that have already contributed to a pension won't get anything, it means that those joining the company no longer have a pension option, just the 401k.
As for the ponzie scheme, that is more Social Security than pensions. The difference is that Social Security does not invest the money, but loans it to the Fed for a 1.8% return. Pensions invest in a combination of stocks and bonds to get a return that enables the pension plan to pay its members.
Government workers definitely make more money that they would in the private sector. I have a nephew in the EPA that makes far more money for what he does than if he worked outside the government. When one calculates in the entire compensation (pension, health benefits, vacation time, etc.), the difference is startling....
lol! thanks, I needed that laugh. You're quoting the Huffington Post?? rotfl
I'm done trying to pull your head out of the sand. You're nothing but a typical big government fanboy because it directly benefits you. The Huffington Post reported the study that was done by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, just like hundreds of other media outlets.
If you knew anything about web traffic you would understand why HP was at the top of the list.
You better hope to god the system doesn't collapse.
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.
however why does the person who worked 30 years under CSRS (old style) and retired 5 years ago deserve it more than the last few CSRS employees that didn't change to FERS (new style) and retire in a couple of years? They've both put in their time, they've both worked just as hard, so they are both just as deserving. and since the change in styles occurred over 20 years ago.... isn't that 'moving forward'?
I'll take roast venison if you've got any! (sorry, I didn't bother with the middle link, the other two were enough)
