I also feel that donheff summarized it very well, from both views in post #20.
What I 'dislike' (hate is too strong), is when a poster comes in with some preconceived idea that their views will be automatically shot down. I think we occasionally see a poster say something like "This board is all about DIY, (or passive index funds, or Buy & Hold), so of course no one will listen to anything contrary (using an FA, active funds, market timing)". Well, I don't think that is the case - mostly people ask for data to back up the claim so it can be openly and intelligently discussed. But sometimes the poster comes out preemptively painting themselves as a victim, before a single response is made! Maybe the OP did not intend that, but it may come across that way to some of us.
OK, in a way that I think the OP did not intend, I will admit that I "hate" pensions (public and private). I hate them, because they are promises made today, by people not on the hook to fulfill those promises when they come due. As we have evidenced, that can be a recipe for disaster. At a minimum, it simply isn't prudent. I would much rather have some form of pay-as-you-go system for retirement benefits. Keep it transparent, keep it 'real time'.
I can think of one area that brings up some hostility though. Sometimes a public pensioner will really wave the flag that they earned these benefits and that they are 'sacred', and no one should be discussing cuts to them. OK, I understand the feeling, but I can't recall seeing any acknowledgment from them that those in the private are subject to limits on their pension benefits if their company goes bust (covered by the PBGC, which we paid into). So yes, it might get a little hostile when they claim their benefits are sacred, but mine aren't, and they need to raise my taxes to pay their benefits. None of that would be a problem if taxes were collected this year to pay benefits this year, with no future promises.
-ERD50