keegs
Recycles dryer sheets
k...simply how do you propose 23% of income continue to go to the top 1% with DB pensions like the one you described. ...how 1950's...
I don't know why you don't get it,... I object to the article's one-sided presentation of the issue and its depiction of extreme cases as typical.
Where is your demand to see the author's quintile data?
To answer your specific question, even if overtime would make my pension larger, I don't think I would take it.
I would be much more inclined to thank FD if he had linked an article that included some constructive suggestions rather than one that is IMO nothing more than anti-pension propaganda. If one were to take this article at face value one would suppose that six figure pensions are commonplace, spiking and other abuses are the rule rather than the exception,...
Now I'll tell you what I don't get. I don't get why I should let this type of disinformation go uncontested. .... its depiction of extreme cases as typical. ...
As outrageous as those sunset stipends may seem, they are merely the most visible piece of what critics of generous government pensions say is a ticking time bomb of debt that is threatening to bankrupt a number of states by the end of the decade.
It implies that the true situation is even worse than the examples given suggest.Doesn't "merely" and "piece" try to provide some perspective, and indicate it isn't 'typical'?As outrageous as those sunset stipends may seem, they are merely the most visible piece of what critics of generous government pensions say ...
Well said.I would be much more inclined to thank FD if he had linked an article that included some constructive suggestions rather than one that is IMO nothing more than anti-pension propaganda. If one were to take this article at face value one would suppose that six figure pensions are commonplace, spiking and other abuses are the rule rather than the exception, that pension underfunding is caused by poorly designed systems that allow abuses and employees who take maximum advantage of them, and that the only possible solution to the problem is to eliminate DB plans altogether. I don't know if any of those things are true. I know they are not true for the one system I have any detailed knowledge of, and from my polls that they are not universal for the systems that other E-R members have knowledge of.
You asked earlier how pension problems will be solved if they are hidden under a bushel. They won't. But they won't get solved either if the causes of the problem are misidentified, and the problem depicted as insoluble, not worth solving or both, which is what this article does. It contributes absolutely nothing to keeping my pension fund solvent (since none of the abuses described in the article are permitted under our rules) and contributes everything to promoting the view that all public DB pensions are overgenerous and should be eliminated.
Now I'll tell you what I don't get. I don't get why I should let this type of disinformation go uncontested. I don't get why I should remain silent in the face of negative stereotyping aimed at me and other government employees. I don't get why I shouldn't object to this attack on the ability of my fellow employees to earn the same benefits I have. I don't get that at all.
Should we be surprised that the rich have figured out ways to get richer?k...simply how do you propose 23% of income continue to go to the top 1% with DB pensions like the one you described. ...how 1950's...
But you have to calculate, otherwise you really don't know whether your conclusion is true or not. Until I did the math, I mistakenly thought early retirement would cost the pension fund less overall than delayed retirement. You have to do the math to know the cost of employees to the general fund over time. I don't have the data to do that second calculation. But without knowing both of those costs, and maybe others too, there is no way to know what combination of pay, pension, employee turnover etc actually results in the lowest total cost over time, for services provided by government.
Finally, the “pension problem” is not excessive benefits but inadequate funding. This is the responsibility of the elected public leadership. That is, Mayors, Governors, City Councils and their Finance professionals. To blame employees and unions for pension shortfalls is akin to blame homebuyers for the housing bubble. They were participants and looked for their own benefit, but the causes are to be found in bad leadership and poor conceived and executed policy.In truth, pension systems rely on what might be considered an accounting trick, not unlike the trick which keeps the Social Security system afloat for now.
Just as pensions are a bit of an accounting trick (or a Ponzi scheme, some might argue),
I recognize that you are not suggesting pension benefits be taken from people already retired, and I don't think the author of the article did either. IIRC you've also said you favor phasing in any changes so they have less effect on people close to retirement, but I'm not at all sure the author would agree. I get the impression he'd quite happily pull the pension rug out from under government employees only a few years from retirement.
When I wrote that the article advocates taking everyone's pension away, I was referring to current employees. I think it is accurate to say that the author of the article supports conversion of all public defined benefit pension systems to defined contribution, whether the system is fully funded or underfunded, whether it is basically sound or inherently unsustainable, whether it allows abuses or not. Probably there are some pension funds that are in such bad shape there is no real alternative but to shut them down, but there are others where it is at least possible that they can be put back in the black by internal remedies like contribution increases, changes to fund investment policies or the like. For those systems where recovery is possible, IMO that should be the goal. Don't shut down all DB systems because some of them were too far gone to be saved.
It implies that the true situation is even worse than the examples given suggest.
Your analogy is defective, because in the analogy, the potholes are not examples of the real situation of the road.OK, but it doesn't follow that the total situation is solely due to those examples.
Analogy: I could open a news article with - "There are some potholes left from a recent utility installation in that road that are really bad, drivers have complained about damage to their cars. But the real situation with that road is far more serious."
Then I could go on to say that the underlying foundation and soil conditions just won't support the traffic.
I think the article approaches the pension deficits by focusing on some practices and intentionally creates the impression of systematic abuse by employees and unions. It furthermore implies that this abuse widespread. This is done using anecdotes instead of analyzing data.
I'll agree that it would have been a much better article if it put issues like spiking and abuses in perspective with data to back it up. Unfortunately, I rarely find that level of journalism anywhere (I might start a new thread on that subject, using non-controversial examples).
I still say that to the extent that abuses are a problem they should be fixed. I don't care if it is 0.0004% - it ain't right. It shouldn't take the focus away from the bigger problem, nor should it be ignored.
-ERD50
Your analogy is defective, because in the analogy, the potholes are not examples of the real situation of the road.
.A Ponzi scheme?
In truth, pension systems rely on what might be considered an accounting trick, not unlike the trick which keeps the Social Security system afloat for now. While state workers contribute payments to the system – typically about 5 percent of their salary -- and those payments are matched by government employers -- about 10 percent -- those payments scarcely cover the eventual payouts.
A Ponzi scheme?
In truth, pension systems rely on what might be considered an accounting trick, not unlike the trick which keeps the Social Security system afloat for now. While state workers contribute payments to the system – typically about 5 percent of their salary -- and those payments are matched by government employers -- about 10 percent -- those payments scarcely cover the eventual payouts.
Seems to sum it pretty well.
-ERD50
which points to a pension funding problem not a benefits problem.
the benefits were promised by the employer (in this case some government agency) but the employer (if the pension fund is in trouble) didnt fund the pension sufficiently. it is totally the responsibility of said employer to determine the total amount required to sufficiently fund the pension, after all they offered that pension as a part of the salary package to their employees.
(how would any of you that are advocating the demise of DB pensions feel if, when you got to the end of your career, your employer said to you "all those dollars that are supposed to be in your 401k arent really there and i am not going to give them to you"?)
we call that employer "the government" but really the employer is the citizens of the city, county, state or USA offering said job. therefore we citizens have underfunded the pensions of our employees and it is our responsiblity to bring that funding to up what is needed to pay the pensions promised.
"It isn't personal."
Of course it's personal. ....
Once again - it is personal and I, personally, would not wish what you want to happen to civil servants on anyone.
I emphatically reject the idea that taxpayers, of whom I am one, after years and years of receiving the benefits (and whether or not you, personally, consider it a benefit, is irrelevant), don't want to foot the bill for promised pensions.
Have you looked at a chart of the market for the past decade? That is exactly what has happened to many people.
-ERD50
I'll make the same offer I've made before. You show which boxes I could have been "smart enough" to check in the voting booth to prevent all this, and then we can talk about whether I'm responsible or not.
-ERD50
or are you saying that because big business screwed many people by eliminating company DB plans that now we the people of <insert government name here> should screw our employees?
well you (citizens as a whole, as a group) got the benefit of receiving more services from government than you paid for (since you didnt fully fund the pensions and that was part of your employees pay package so you should have) and now is the time to pay up, not cheat the employees.
your statement is a copout and you know it. our governments are not true democracies, they are representative governments and you picked (or had the opprotunity to pick) who ran them, so there was your box
Pay-as-you go?? I have no idea how this can be applied to DB pensions, therefore you espouse the elimination of such. Please feel free to vote your preference.
No. I am saying:
1) That there are certain economic realities facing all of us.
2) That you shouldn't be surprised that the people who got their pensions cut are real excited about the prospect of having their taxes raised to keep you 100% whole.
3) It's not about wanting to see someone else 'get screwed'. It's a situation we are in that can't be 'wished away'.
But that has all been said before, and some people are not listening, so I guess it's time for me to try to bow out of this 'conversation'.
See my reply to beowulf, your time to pay up for all those products you bought that were under-priced such that private companies had to cut benefits for their employees. I doubt you see it that way, but that's what you are asking from us.