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 also have a private sector pension, and nearly every one of my college friends who came out into this area to work also has one. granted, we're all in similar type of work, but it's really not that uncommon.
these deals weren't made without taxpayers knowing it. the deals were made, and the employees went through life with these expectations. maybe it's right to be unhappy with the deals, but the state owes it's side, and it's not the unions' fault that the state couldn't do basic accounting.
Agreed. It would be like if a private company all of a sudden said they were taking back all of their employer matching contributions they had made over the course of your career to your 401K because they were now in financial trouble.
you won't lose the pension, as it's insured against bankruptcy up to a certain amount. i want to say it's capped at $50k-ish. my pension won't be worth that by any means since I left that company, but it'll provide a few bucks a month on top of my other retirement funds.
these deals weren't made without taxpayers knowing it. the deals were made, and the employees went through life with these expectations. maybe it's right to be unhappy with the deals, but the state owes it's side, and it's not the unions' fault that the state couldn't do basic accounting.
i agree with some of this but not that the taxpayers should be forced to live up to these obligations no matter what. i think its unfortunate for people to be promised things and not get them but i dont think that means it shouldnt happen that way. in the private sector, people are promised things and if the company goes bankrupt or closes, things change. same should be for public sector. the only reason why people can even consider what you are saying is that the public workers feel they have some god given right to abuse taxpayers because we dont have as much choice as a customer buying a product. if GM's pension costs get too high, they cant just charge customers more money and force people to buy their cars, customers have choice. taxpayers get abused.
i also have a private sector pension, and nearly every one of my college friends who came out into this area to work also has one. granted, we're all in similar type of work, but it's really not that uncommon.
what is your pension?
i know a lot of people with 401k's and sometimes no match. is that really a pension? if the employer matched 50% of employee contributions up to 3% of their salary, can that be compared to what most public workers get?
saying "they have a pension" is just not enough detail.
i know a lot of people with 401k's and sometimes no match. is that really a pension? if the employer matched 50% of employee contributions up to 3% of their salary, can that be compared to what most public workers get?
saying "they have a pension" is just not enough detail.
FWIW, I'm not in any kind of special industry and I have a pension through my employer. I get the normal 401(k) with a match up to certain percentages and vested after 5 years.
However, my company also has a traditional pension system wherein the company deposits money into an account for each employee for each year of service. Once you have attained retirement age and 25 years of service you are eligible to draw on that pension account which pays about $500 a month. The amount increase slightly for each year of service above 25.
these deals weren't made without taxpayers knowing it. the deals were made, and the employees went through life with these expectations. maybe it's right to be unhappy with the deals, but the state owes it's side, and it's not the unions' fault that the state couldn't do basic accounting.
Is the state responsible for living to the letter of the contract even if it means doing so will virtually drive the state to bankruptcy or force the pension into bankruptcy and federal control where the employees will get far less than they would under the state plan?
So, do we break the state to meet our promises even if it means that taxes will spiral out of control...
or
Do we let the pension system sit as it is until it becomes insolvent and is taken over by the Fed and all those in it will be lucky to get 50% of what they were owed under the old plan.
my company has been through a few situations where our customers filed bankruptcy. we were promised full payment for services rendered and our employees were paid in full. however, we ended up getting anywhere from i think 10% to 97% of what we were owed for our services. promises are sometimes unfulfilled.
these deals weren't made without taxpayers knowing it. the deals were made, and the employees went through life with these expectations. maybe it's right to be unhappy with the deals, but the state owes it's side, and it's not the unions' fault that the state couldn't do basic accounting.
I agree the state shouldn't have done what it did, but if there's no money, there's no money; period.
Let's take the 9% increase that was granted some years back- why was it given? Well it was given to get the public employee vote, and it never should have been given; nobody cared how it was going to be funded. Didn't the unions ever wonder wher the money would come from? of course not.
The current pension system is based on outdated models. More baby boomers are retiring, and there are less workers to pay into they system; Again, where's the money coming from?
Arizona just raised the required employee contributions to something like 10.5%; maybe NJ should do the same.
I understand employees had expectations, well so did a lot of other hard working folks; but the reality is there isn't any money. The workers, unions, and the state need to talk and work it out, or the well will run dry.
Location: The place where the road & the sky collide
23,814 posts, read 34,735,995 times
Reputation: 10256
Quote:
Originally Posted by marc515
I agree the state shouldn't have done what it did, but if there's no money, there's no money; period.
Let's take the 9% increase that was granted some years back- why was it given? Well it was given to get the public employee vote, and it never should have been given; nobody cared how it was going to be funded. Didn't the unions ever wonder wher the money would come from? of course not.
The current pension system is based on outdated models. More baby boomers are retiring, and there are less workers to pay into they system; Again, where's the money coming from?
Arizona just raised the required employee contributions to something like 10.5%; maybe NJ should do the same.
I understand employees had expectations, well so did a lot of other hard working folks; but the reality is there isn't any money. The workers, unions, and the state need to talk and work it out, or the well will run dry.
I was horrified, but a couple of posters here might want to pack their bags for AZ.
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.
