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.
Yes, there is a pension plan for members of the General Assembly. It vests after 5 years. Here is some information about it from the "Member Handbook".
"The Legislative Retirement System (LRS) is a defined benefit
plan qualified under Section 401(a) of the Internal Revenue
Code. Defined benefit plans use a formula to calculate
monthly retirement benefits once eligibility requirements
have been met."
"Your share of the cost is currently 7% of your compensation, and is automatically
deducted from your paycheck. Your compensation includes all wages paid
to you as a member of the General Assembly, including the expense allowance,
but does not include your travel allowance and per diem."
"The state bases its contributions on calculations prepared by an actuary. The
state contribution rate for fiscal year 2014-2015 is 5.49% of all members’ salaries
to pay for the benefits for you and other members."
Per the Handbook, a legislator who serves 20 years and starts collecting the pension at age 65 would receive about $1,300 per month.
Thanks; the algorithm used to calculate their benefit is actually pretty much the same as for "regular" state employees, but as I suspected, a sweeter deal: they get 4.02% of (various other factors that are the same) while regular state employees get 1.82%.
Thanks; the algorithm used to calculate their benefit is actually pretty much the same as for "regular" state employees, but as I suspected, a sweeter deal: they get 4.02% of (various other factors that are the same) while regular state employees get 1.82%.
Thank you for that. I thought the pension amount seemed very high considering the (relatively) low salary number. Now I know why!
Last edited by carolinadawg2; 10-05-2015 at 01:21 PM..
Keep in mind while I'm not a die hard "*******" as those right wing folks like to call us, I certainly lean to the left, more of a "fiscally conservative democrat" if you will.
I fully support the idea of LGBT marriages (actually I support the idea that marriage is a religious thing and not a government function, but I digress...) and that anyone is free to marry anyone else, regardless of orientation. I'm not religious at all and think those who view the bible as "gospel" are very hypocritical...
OK, disclaimer made...
What do folks think about these bills mandating businesses serve customers? I actually (kinda) disagree with them. If I were a black person, and owned a party rental business, and the KKK wanted to rent from my company, I would like the opportunity to turn them down for example.
By forcing business owners to serve customers, you are protecting one group and harming another.
Plenty of businesses come out in support or against various subjects (such as Chic-fil-a) and that's fine but you don't seem them putting up a fuss refusing to serve a gay couple.
I just don't see this being a huge issue and limiting services for LGBT couples (but I'm not one, so I can't speak from experience). It seems the only issue is maybe in some small towns in the South and Mid-West that still cling to the bible, and as a gay couple I wouldn't be living there anyway due to all the prejudices against them. You can't mandate people be nice to you, and if I were a LGBT person I surely would not live in one of those places.
Keep in mind while I'm not a die hard "*******" as those right wing folks like to call us, I certainly lean to the left, more of a "fiscally conservative democrat" if you will.
I fully support the idea of LGBT marriages (actually I support the idea that marriage is a religious thing and not a government function, but I digress...) and that anyone is free to marry anyone else, regardless of orientation. I'm not religious at all and think those who view the bible as "gospel" are very hypocritical...
OK, disclaimer made...
What do folks think about these bills mandating businesses serve customers? I actually (kinda) disagree with them. If I were a black person, and owned a party rental business, and the KKK wanted to rent from my company, I would like the opportunity to turn them down for example.
By forcing business owners to serve customers, you are protecting one group and harming another.
Plenty of businesses come out in support or against various subjects (such as Chic-fil-a) and that's fine but you don't seem them putting up a fuss refusing to serve a gay couple.
I just don't see this being a huge issue and limiting services for LGBT couples (but I'm not one, so I can't speak from experience). It seems the only issue is maybe in some small towns in the South and Mid-West that still cling to the bible, and as a gay couple I wouldn't be living there anyway due to all the prejudices against them. You can't mandate people be nice to you, and if I were a LGBT person I surely would not live in one of those places.
My libertarian streak says that should be fine, as long as they were public about it and were willing to live with the consequences.
On the other hand, given that the real possibility exists, especially in the small towns that a certain segment of the population may be unable to avail themselves of a specific service due to this and the long history of segregation, that this is a useful place to enact some basic laws governing it and it's not overly burdensome.
Location: The place where the road & the sky collide
23,814 posts, read 34,693,648 times
Reputation: 10256
Quote:
Originally Posted by wheelsup
Keep in mind while I'm not a die hard "*******" as those right wing folks like to call us, I certainly lean to the left, more of a "fiscally conservative democrat" if you will.
I fully support the idea of LGBT marriages (actually I support the idea that marriage is a religious thing and not a government function, but I digress...) and that anyone is free to marry anyone else, regardless of orientation. I'm not religious at all and think those who view the bible as "gospel" are very hypocritical...
OK, disclaimer made...
What do folks think about these bills mandating businesses serve customers? I actually (kinda) disagree with them. If I were a black person, and owned a party rental business, and the KKK wanted to rent from my company, I would like the opportunity to turn them down for example.
By forcing business owners to serve customers, you are protecting one group and harming another.
Plenty of businesses come out in support or against various subjects (such as Chic-fil-a) and that's fine but you don't seem them putting up a fuss refusing to serve a gay couple.
I just don't see this being a huge issue and limiting services for LGBT couples (but I'm not one, so I can't speak from experience). It seems the only issue is maybe in some small towns in the South and Mid-West that still cling to the bible, and as a gay couple I wouldn't be living there anyway due to all the prejudices against them. You can't mandate people be nice to you, and if I were a LGBT person I surely would not live in one of those places.
If the right-wing loons make it just fine to not serve lgbt customers, how big of a step is it for shopkeepers to refuse to serve members of another race, ethnicity, gender, what have you?
What if you were an lgbt person who was born in one of those places?
As a native of the Midwest, I was brought up that religion is private. If you want to be prejudiced, don't hide behind God.
What do folks think about these bills mandating businesses serve customers? I actually (kinda) disagree with them. If I were a black person, and owned a party rental business, and the KKK wanted to rent from my company, I would like the opportunity to turn them down for example.
You would have that opportunity. The KKK is not a protected class under any law I know of. You are free to deny service to members of the KKK, members of Congress, or members of the Nickelback Fan Club if you are so inclined.
But meanwhile, in the real world, back when discrimination on the basis of race was legal, black people were far more likely to find themselves denied service by a member of the KKK than the other way around.
Quote:
Plenty of businesses come out in support or against various subjects (such as Chic-fil-a) and that's fine but you don't seem them putting up a fuss refusing to serve a gay couple.
Have you just returned from a trip to outer space? There have been numerous business owners who have "put up a fuss" because they did not want to serve a gay couple.
Quote:
I just don't see this being a huge issue and limiting services for LGBT couples (but I'm not one, so I can't speak from experience). It seems the only issue is maybe in some small towns in the South and Mid-West that still cling to the bible, and as a gay couple I wouldn't be living there anyway due to all the prejudices against them.
That's nice for you, but in the real world, people live where they live, and they are entitled not to be discriminated against on the basis of their race, sexual orientation, etc. "If you don't like it, just move" was an argument made in favor of discriminatory real estate covenants and Jim Crow laws, but such restrictions are now illegal.
My libertarian streak says that should be fine, as long as they were public about it and were willing to live with the consequences.
On the other hand, given that the real possibility exists, especially in the small towns that a certain segment of the population may be unable to avail themselves of a specific service due to this and the long history of segregation, that this is a useful place to enact some basic laws governing it and it's not overly burdensome.
Exactly this. As y'all know, I am gay, and frankly I tend to think along the lines of "No way would I want to give my business to someone who didn't want to serve me."
BUT... sometimes there may be something necessary and only one place to get it. We've already seen this kind of thing rear its head before, when some pharmacists didn't want to dispense "Plan B" and Wal-Mart (I believe) allowed its pharmacists to refuse on "religious grounds". Somehow if you were a pregnant teenager in dire need of Plan B, I think you'd bite the bullet and patronize a business that "judged" you, for something critical, if you didn't have an opportunity or means to come back when a different pharmacist was there. A wedding cake may not be "necessary" (I didn't have one at mine, and if the only cakemaker in town has been a homophobic ass about it, I would have just found a friend to make one or do without) BUT, again, where do you draw the line between "just go get it somewhere else" and "this really is unfair discrimination".
To put it more bluntly, I'm sure people told Rosa Parks "you can just sit in the back of the bus; you'll still get there at the same time", but that argument wasn't a logical one to her, nor is it to many of us nowadays. Or, the Woolworth's lunch counter that told black would-be customers "You can just go eat somewhere else, why do you have to force us to serve you?"
Sometimes social fairness trumps "why can't you just go somewhere else?" "We don't serve [demographic group X]" has been considered unacceptable in the USA for a few decades now.
It was Target (although Wal-Mart may have the same policy, for all I know).
Thanks--though I could swear the case I heard about was Wal-Mart. At any rate, it's a "where do you draw the line?" scenario when someone uses their religious views to deny something to someone ELSE who is not "bound" by those religious views. It would be like a Muslim or Orthodox Jewish cashier at a grocery store refusing to ring up someone's pork chops just because THEY don't eat it, which most would find ridiculous...and yet it's the same situation as far as "religious freedom" goes.
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.
