Looks like UMass owns the top 9 out of 10 spots but $228,000 for a State Police Lieutenant? Wow, hope he's catching a lot of bad guys......


Massachusetts top paid employees for 2010 - Boston.com (http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/specials/2010_state_salaries/?p1=News_links)

Looks like UMass owns the top 9 out of 10 spots but $228,000 for a State Police Lieutenant? Wow, hope he's catching a lot of bad guys......

Massachusetts top paid employees for 2010 - Boston.com (http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/specials/2010_state_salaries/?p1=News_links)
Shovel ready projects that require SP details. Getting paid overtime to sleep in your car must be nice.

Surprised this did not get more traction.

A lot of these folks making large coin, especially in their last three years before retirement is a gift that keeps giving. Its great if you can have it but it is unsustainable.

Surprised this did not get more traction.
.

Really?

Knowing that several jackbooted staties actually read striper boards?

I read my local town report.. local yocals are pulling in well over 100K working the OT, details, and "longevity" bumps, and they all can tell you exactly how many minutes until their pension kicks in, and the up to date balance in their plans....and the DD's is the best protected store front in town.

It's Mass.. the land of Patronage.. remember the 75K a year doorman jobs at the statehouse they were handing out 2 decades ago, to their cousins and in-laws... the 100K a year tool booth jobs...???
it got some ink, but not much action...

we are just used to it... effin SADLY....

I didn't see the thirty five thousand dollar a year social worker on that list. :rotf2: :rotf2:

That list is crap, look at the 40 hour salary for putting your life on the line. I say good for them they are working many more hours than most of us. Any job that pays a decent hourly wage can turn into a high wage job if you want to work like a dog...

That list is crap, look at the 40 hour salary for putting your life on the line. I say good for them they are working many more hours than most of us. Any job that pays a decent hourly wage can turn into a high wage job if you want to work like a dog...



Spoken like a union man !

Spoken like a union man !

Most jobs are salaried, if I put it down to an hourly wage, I'd be well below most union rates.

Most jobs are salaried, if I put it down to an hourly wage, I'd be well below most union rates.

There in lies the problem, salaried should equal 40 hours no more , no less.

Salary Labor Laws
By R. E. Peters, eHow Contributor
updated: December 22, 2010

Federal labor laws for salaried employees do offer some protections. The minimum wage and overtime requirements of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) apply to all employees who come within that law's coverage, whether the employees are paid hourly or they are on a salary. The "white collar" exemption to the FLSA does exclude some salaried employees from the law's protections, but only if the employees' work duties meet the tests listed in the FLSA and accompanying regulations. The National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) does not refer to salaried employees, but does specify that professional employees come within the coverage of the federal collective bargaining law. The NLRA does not require employers to bargain collectively with supervisory employees.

Fair Labor Standards Act: Minimum Wage
The Fair Labor Act is a federal wage law that sets the federal requirements for employee wages and work hours. The FLSA requires employers to pay their employees the specified federal minimum wage, although some states require a minimum wage higher than the federal level. Although the FLSA's minimum wage requirement is expressed as an hourly rate, the law does not exclude employees who are paid in some other way. If employees are paid a salary, or at at piecework rate, or if employees' pay includes tips, they are still entitled to receive pay that is the equivalent of the FLSA's minimum hourly wage rate. Labor laws for salaried employees are often different than those that apply to hourly employees.
FLSA: Overtime Pay
The FLSA also states that employees must be paid overtime at the rate of at least

1 1/2 times the employees' regular pay rate for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a work week. The regular rate of pay for salaried employees is calculated by dividing the salary by the total number of work hours for which the salary provides compensation. For example, if an employee receives a weekly salary of $450 and works 45 hours per week, the employee's regular rate of pay is $10 per hour. In addition to the weekly salary, the employee must receive overtime pay (an additional $5 per hour) for the five overtime hours in the work week.
White Collar Exemption
The FLSA exempts certain "white collar" workers from the federal minimum wage and overtime labor laws. Exempt from FLSA coverage are executive, administrative, professional and outside sales employees, as well as some skilled computer employees. For the exemption to apply, the employee generally must be paid on a salary basis at a rate of at least $455 per week. The employee's actual work duties must also meet all the tests listed in the FLSA and the accompanying regulations issued by the U.S. Department of Labor. For example, an exempt executive employee must not only be paid on a salary basis, but must also have work duties that involve managing a business, directing the work of other employees and having the authority to hire or fire employees. It is often difficult for salaried employees to receive overtime pay.
Highly Compensated Employees
The U.S. Department of Labor revised the regulations for the FLSA's white collar exemption in 2004 to provide a streamlined exemption test for employees who are paid on a salary or fee basis, and earn at least $100,000 per year. Such highly compensated employees are exempt from the overtime labor law if their duties meet at least one of the work duty tests listed in the regulations for exempt executive, administrative or professional employees.
No FLSA Requirements
Although the Fair Labor Act contains specific minimum wage and overtime requirements, the law does not set federal labor standards on a number of employment issues for either hourly workers or salaried employees. For example, the FLSA's provisions do not require premium pay for working on weekends or at night, do not set a maximum number of work hours per week, and do not address issues such as severance pay, vacations, sick leave, lunch breaks or pay increases.
National Labor Relations Act
The National Labor Relations Act is the U.S. labor law that governs collective bargaining between an employer and its employees' bargaining representative. Supervisory employees are expressly excluded from the NLRA's coverage. In other words, the NLRA does not require an employer to bargain with a representative of its supervisory employees. The NLRA's definition of a supervisory employee does not refer to whether the employee is paid on an hourly or salary basis. Instead, a supervisor is defined as an individual who has the authority to hire, fire or discipline other employees.
Professional Employees
Professional employees do come within the coverage of the NLRA. The definition of professional employee in the NLRA does not turn on whether an employee is paid on a salary or hourly basis. Instead, the professional employee definition is based on the employee's work duties, as well as the type of training and education the employee has received. The NLRA states that professional employees and nonprofessional employees will not be placed in the same unit or group for bargaining collectively with their employer unless a majority of the professional employees vote to be included in such a collective bargaining unit.


Read more: Salary Labor Laws | eHow.com Salary Labor Laws | eHow.com (http://www.ehow.com/about_5076546_salary-labor-laws.html#ixzz1DBipj5DK)

BTW the NLRA which covers all employees both Union and Non Union was brought to you by the Labor Unions.

No need to thank us, but just don't hate. :)


If you want to hate, hate on the CEO's making far more money than they will ever need....

There in lies the problem, salaried should equal 40 hours no more , no less.
Not when you're exempt.

It really depends on the job and how easy it is to measure productivity.

-spence

Not when you're exempt.

It really depends on the job and how easy it is to measure productivity.

-spence

And most jobs are salaried and exempt, at least the one's I end up working at. In most cases, weekly hours have gone up, workload is up, expectations that you'll work more are up. Stress is up
And having a good time at the office is down,,, frowned upon in many cases

That list is crap, look at the 40 hour salary for putting your life on the line. I say good for them they are working many more hours than most of us. Any job that pays a decent hourly wage can turn into a high wage job if you want to work like a dog...

B]TRUE![/B]

Every year the daily city paper prints which city employees are making the highest pay. Here it is always the cops. Your average cop starts out at 40,000 some end up making over a hundred thou with the private road work details. Good luck to them for the hours they put in. Most of these shifts are 8 hours. Regular city employees do not make anything close to a hundred thou. :)

That list is crap, look at the 40 hour salary for putting your life on the line. I say good for them they are working many more hours than most of us. Any job that pays a decent hourly wage can turn into a high wage job if you want to work like a dog...

You have no idea what you're talking about.

In the private scetor, your comment would make sense. Because if someone can make that much money, it';s up to the consumer to decide whether or not they want to absorb that cost. If the company can make a product that people want so badly that they are willing to absorb that cost, kudos to the company.

Public servants are in a very different position. The public cannot freely choose not to bear the burden of that cost, because the cost is a tax that is imposed by rule of law. That's not even remotely comparable to what happens in the free market.

Because of that difference, it's imperitive that public servents come up with compensation that we can reasonably absorb. The current Massachusetts tax levels, combined with the current deficits, tell me that municipal employees are being a bit too generous with themselves.

Surprised this did not get more traction.

A lot of these folks making large coin, especially in their last three years before retirement is a gift that keeps giving. Its great if you can have it but it is unsustainable.

Retirement isn't based on overtime, just your base salary, which for a lt. on the MSP is probably $120,000 walking in the door. All those details they get is the reason why none of them are ever working the regular shifts on the road.

On the Mass. pike troopers are ordered to work details. If a guy is exhausted after working a double shift, say 4-12 and 12-8, he gets ordered to work a detail during the day shift if no one else takes it, so it doesn't go unfilled. Kind of insane really, but that is the reason most of them are in the cruisers during the detail, because they are too tired to stand up.

You have no idea what you're talking about.

In the private scetor, your comment would make sense. Because if someone can make that much money, it';s up to the consumer to decide whether or not they want to absorb that cost. If the company can make a product that people want so badly that they are willing to absorb that cost, kudos to the company.

Public servants are in a very different position. The public cannot freely choose not to bear the burden of that cost, because the cost is a tax that is imposed by rule of law. That's not even remotely comparable to what happens in the free market.

Because of that difference, it's imperitive that public servents come up with compensation that we can reasonably absorb. The current Massachusetts tax levels, combined with the current deficits, tell me that municipal employees are being a bit too generous with themselves.

The consumer is deciding to absorb the cost by continually voting the same town boards right back into office. Certain segments of society go to the town meetings and vote the school budgets in then get up and leave. The rest of the people in attendence care about being safe and vote the fire and police budgets in the affirmative. What a ridiculous asertion, "it's imperitive that public servents come up with compensation that we can reasonably absorb". Jim you just about call public servant thieves, but you think it should be left up to them to figure out a just compensation. Were you an actuary for an insurance company? Did you help set the usurious rates for homeowners I pay, and for collision for my car?

I don't think you should hide behind the anonimity of the internet. I think you should state your purpose at a town meeting where you live. Ya sure he is saying, and have every cop in town after me. After being on a police department for 37 years, I can truthfully say that never happened, and I worked with some pretty foolish people.

Do you fish?

Swimmer,

You hit it right on the head. The overtime money is typically DHS funding through UASI grants and other Federal programs that are not counted toward retirement. SO using the salaries of employees (especially police) is not a good indicator of how much the state is on the hook for as far as retirement benefits go. It is an indicator of how well representatives are able to get funding back to their states. But why limit ourselves to the facts when we can have a proper witch hunt? The fire is so much brighter to the uninformed...

The consumer is deciding to absorb the cost by continually voting the same town boards right back into office. Certain segments of society go to the town meetings and vote the school budgets in then get up and leave. The rest of the people in attendence care about being safe and vote the fire and police budgets in the affirmative. What a ridiculous asertion, "it's imperitive that public servents come up with compensation that we can reasonably absorb". Jim you just about call public servant thieves, but you think it should be left up to them to figure out a just compensation. Were you an actuary for an insurance company? Did you help set the usurious rates for homeowners I pay, and for collision for my car?

I don't think you should hide behind the anonimity of the internet. I think you should state your purpose at a town meeting where you live. After being on a police department for 37 years, I can truthfully say that never happened, and I worked with some pretty foolish people.

Do you fish?


Swimmer, you asked some great, probing questions. I'll try to respond.

"The consumer is deciding to absorb the cost by continually voting the same town boards right back into office."

I agree, but to a lesser extent. Here's why. If McDonald's gives all their employees a fat raise, and that causes the price of a Big Mac to go up to a price I think is unreasonable, I can easily buy at Burger King (or another competitor) instead. I don't think the same thing applies to politics. I live in CT, which is a state that has been run into the ground by liberals. It's a lot harder for me to say I'm moving to Kansas, than it is for me to switch from McDonalds to Burger King. Does that make sense? I'm much more "stuck" with the decisions made by politicians, than I am with decisions made by private businesses.

"The rest of the people in attendence care about being safe and vote the fire and police budgets in the affirmative."

Hogwash. If you can show me data that says that towns where cops get fat pensions are "safer" than towns where cops have 401(k)'s, I'd love to see it. Same with teachers. There is zero correlation between student performance and teacher compensation.

"you just about call public servant thieves, but you think it should be left up to them to figure out a just compensation."

You're right, it's not the public servents who design compensation...it's their unions, and the elected officials. I do not blame cops for accepting pensions, hell, I'd take it if someone offered me one. But here are 2 irrefutable facts...(1) Massachusetts and CT have tax rates much higher than the national average, so those states have collected a whole lot of money (2) Massachusetts and CT have massive debt and deficits, menaing that despite the fact that they collected so much, they spent a whole lot more. If that's not irresponsible, what the heck is?

"Were you an actuary for an insurance company? "

Yes.

"Did you help set the usurious rates for homeowners I pay, and for collision for my car?"

First, if you thought those rates were excessive, you were free to purchase elsewhere. Second, despite public perception, personal insurance is highly regulated, and has unbelievably thin profit margins. The best companies out there still spend 95 cents of every dollar they collect in premiums. So while you may feel ripped off if you don't have any claims, remember that you are part of a large group that's barely breaking even.

"I think you should state your purpose at a town meeting where you live"

I do. And no, I'm not worried about cops being after me. Please don't put stupid words in my mouth. At the same time, I've never had a cop give me a direct answer to this question...

"If the private scetor did away with pensions 15 years ago because they were simply too expensive, why is it fair that muncipal employees still get pensions? Put another way, why is it unfair for me to expect cops to live with benefits that are similar to what's available to the taxpayers?"

I respect cops, teachers, firefighters. But their financial security is NOT more important to society than anyone else's financial security. If everyone else has to find a way to live with whatever we can accumulate in our 401(k)'s, then certainly cops can too. It makes no sense for public servents to get benefits that dwarf anything available to the public which they claim to serve. A guaranteed pension after only 20 years of service, is simply too expensive. If it wasn't, we wouldn't be looking at the deficits we're looking at.

Swimmer, the numbers speak for themselves. Many states and towns are literally facing bankruptcy because of these union benefits. There are 2, and only 2, explanations for this. Either those municipalities set tax rates unreasonably low, or they promised benefits that were unreasonably rich. You tell me which you think is the case.

"Do you fish?"

Whenever I can!

Swimmer,

You hit it right on the head. The overtime money is typically DHS funding through UASI grants and other Federal programs that are not counted toward retirement. SO using the salaries of employees (especially police) is not a good indicator of how much the state is on the hook for as far as retirement benefits go. It is an indicator of how well representatives are able to get funding back to their states. But why limit ourselves to the facts when we can have a proper witch hunt? The fire is so much brighter to the uninformed...

Bill and Swimmer, here in CT, I do not know of a town where overtime does not contribute to cops' pensions. I have served on my town's board of education, so I know a lot about public unionized employees compensation. As a former benefits actuary, I also know exactly how much more expensive a pension is than a 401(k). If I'm uninformed, can you please point out somethiong I said that's wrong, instead of insulting me simply because you don't like what I'm saying?

Bill, instead of hurling insults at me (and baseless insults at that), can you try to answer a simple, direct question?

"If the entire private sector has to live with whatever we can accumulate in our 401(k)'s, why is it unfair to ask our public servents to do the same?"

Try not to call that question a "witchhunt", and instead try answering it.

And why on Earth is it reasonable that cops can collect those pensions afetr 20 years of service, with no age minimum? My first cousin was a police officer in New Haven, CT. He retired at age 43, and yes, his overtime fattened his pension. He works for 20 years, and gets a pension for 50 years?

B]TRUE![/B]

Every year the daily city paper prints which city employees are making the highest pay. Here it is always the cops. Your average cop starts out at 40,000 some end up making over a hundred thou with the private road work details. Good luck to them for the hours they put in. Most of these shifts are 8 hours. Regular city employees do not make anything close to a hundred thou. :)

If you think most details that are paid out for 8 hours are actually 8 hours long, you are mistaken. Very ofter a case of beer to the guy overseeing the work (phone company, construction etc) will turn a 3 hour detail into an 8 hour detail with the sign of a paper. The city doesn't pay but the company and ultimatly the consumer does in the end.

Bill and Swimmer, here in CT, I do not know of a town where overtime does not contribute to cops' pensions.

CT Town Reaches Police Pension Agreement
January 31, 2011 (PLANSPONSOR.com) – The town of Stratford, Connecticut, has hammered out an agreement with its police union to institute a 401(k) for new hires instead of traditional pensions.

A Connecticut Post story said under the new contract, the town will match 401(k) contributions made by future employees up to 6%. The agreement does not change the pension benefits for current employees.

About 60 officers hired between 1996 and July 1, 2010, will receive pensions based strictly on base pay. Officers hired before 1996 -- there are about 39 of them -- will continue to receive pensions calculated from their base pay plus overtime, the news report said.

Several police and fire department retirees now receive more than $100,000 in pension payments each year, including a police captain who retired last spring with an annual pension of $134,000 -- far above his last salary, according to the newspaper.

A $1,200 cap on health insurance obligations has also been erased, making current and future employees responsible for 12% of their insurance premiums. On July 1, 2012, that amount will increase to 13%.

The agreement still has to be ratified by the Town Council.

You have no idea what you're talking about.

In the private scetor, your comment would make sense. Because if someone can make that much money, it';s up to the consumer to decide whether or not they want to absorb that cost. If the company can make a product that people want so badly that they are willing to absorb that cost, kudos to the company.

Public servants are in a very different position. The public cannot freely choose not to bear the burden of that cost, because the cost is a tax that is imposed by rule of law. That's not even remotely comparable to what happens in the free market.

Because of that difference, it's imperitive that public servents come up with compensation that we can reasonably absorb. The current Massachusetts tax levels, combined with the current deficits, tell me that municipal employees are being a bit too generous with themselves.

By your logic then, we should send everyone home at 40 hours, then have none to pick up the rest of the work. Or should we hire enough people to pick up the extra work, whether or not that work is temporary or non consistent and pay training, and benefits, and salary. do you not think that option 2 would be more expensive to the public? As far as the police goes the details are predominately funded by the private companies and not the taxpayer. Also as a consumer I demand not to sit in line at a toll booth when there are other booths with no one manning them. Either hire more people or pay the piper. I f they have fifty details a day, and it cost them for 50 new officers to cover these details say 80-90 thousand with benefits, but we could work 50 cops and pay each one 60 thousand in ot a year it is not cheaper?

CT Town Reaches Police Pension Agreement
January 31, 2011 (PLANSPONSOR.com) – The town of Stratford, Connecticut, has hammered out an agreement with its police union to institute a 401(k) for new hires instead of traditional pensions.

A Connecticut Post story said under the new contract, the town will match 401(k) contributions made by future employees up to 6%. The agreement does not change the pension benefits for current employees.

About 60 officers hired between 1996 and July 1, 2010, will receive pensions based strictly on base pay. Officers hired before 1996 -- there are about 39 of them -- will continue to receive pensions calculated from their base pay plus overtime, the news report said.

Several police and fire department retirees now receive more than $100,000 in pension payments each year, including a police captain who retired last spring with an annual pension of $134,000 -- far above his last salary, according to the newspaper.

A $1,200 cap on health insurance obligations has also been erased, making current and future employees responsible for 12% of their insurance premiums. On July 1, 2012, that amount will increase to 13%.

The agreement still has to be ratified by the Town Council.

Seems as though I am not the only one who has no idea about what sprouts from my mouth.

Seems as though I am not the only one who has no idea about what sprouts from my mouth.

ZSpecialist, and Dad -

And the cops hired before 1996? I assume their pensions are fattened with overtime?

I never said there aren't towns that don't consider overtime, I said I wasn't aware of any, and now I am.

So Specialist, I guess there's no budget crisis facing governments because of benefits? Do you really believe that?

By your logic then, we should send everyone home at 40 hours, then have none to pick up the rest of the work. Or should we hire enough people to pick up the extra work, whether or not that work is temporary or non consistent and pay training, and benefits, and salary. do you not think that option 2 would be more expensive to the public? As far as the police goes the details are predominately funded by the private companies and not the taxpayer. Also as a consumer I demand not to sit in line at a toll booth when there are other booths with no one manning them. Either hire more people or pay the piper. I f they have fifty details a day, and it cost them for 50 new officers to cover these details say 80-90 thousand with benefits, but we could work 50 cops and pay each one 60 thousand in ot a year it is not cheaper?

"By your logic then, we should send everyone home at 40 hours, then have none to pick up the rest of the work."

Have you ever worked in the private sector? I'm expected to do my job, regardless of how many hours it takes. That is standard, accepted practice, except for municipal employees I guess.

Specialist, I see that you ignored my question. Gee, I wonder why? I'll post it again...

""If the entire private sector has to live with whatever we can accumulate in our 401(k)'s, why is it unfair to ask our public servents to do the same?"

Jim,

My statement was not pointed at anyone in particular. But hey, if you feel guilty that's all on you.

It looks as though someone already answered the question for me.

Details and overtime are typically viewed as two different things. Overtime counts toward pension and retirement "credit" and details do not as they are funded by the company needing it (which in turn passes the cost on to the consumer). Soooo, we are all paying for it in the end anyway. We are not paying the "detail" portion in pensions later.
The other question is, at what point does working all the "detail" & "overtime" hours impact the person performing their job. The rules are very lenient on allowing a lot of hours being worked in the course of the week and i hope it does not affect performance

Jim,

My statement was not pointed at anyone in particular. But hey, if you feel guilty that's all on you.

It looks as though someone already answered the question for me.


Bill, I think you'll agree that I responded dircetly to your many questions. You dodged mine completely. Who answered my question? Where? Please post the answer to my question, if you'd be so kind. Or better yet, please give me your own answer.

Is that too much to ask? If you want engaging debate, you can't just ask questions and hurl insults. My question is fair, simple, and gets right to the heart of this matter. Please answer directly. I sincerely tried to respond to your points, please show me the same courtesy.

There in lies the problem, salaried should equal 40 hours no more , no less.

Specialist, do you know what would happen if if all non-union workers in the private sector got paid overtime for every hour over 40 hours a week? Everything you buy, everything, would cost 25% more. Would that make you better off, or worse off?

Now, let's say that everyone in the private sector also had those insane healthcare and retirement benefits that union employees get. Tack on another 30% to the cost of everyhting you buy.

Are you getting it now? The reason that the private sector can't operate that way, is that no one would voluntarily buy anything that we produced.

Public unionized empmloyees are the only ones who can get away with that, because they use rule of law to FORCE their customers to absorb those costs.

I keep asking this question, and no one will answer. "Why is it fair for public employees to force upon their customers (taxpayers) costs which no one would voluntarily pay for in the private sector?"

That's a fair question, and I am a reasonable guy. If there is a good answer to that question, please share it, and you'll convince me.

If you want to hate, hate on the CEO's making far more money than they will ever need....

Wrong again, because you don't get economics 101.

I agree that CEO compensation is insane. But CEOs in the private sector, unlike unionized employees in the public sector, cannot force anyone to absorb those costs.

If Bill Gates pays himself too much, the marketplace will respond by buying from his competitors. So Gates, unlike public unions, is only getting from his customers that which his customers freely choose to give him. He can't force his costs on anybody. Bill Gates isn't hurting anybody, the free marketplace does not allow him to do so. (On a side note, what he's doing is creating thousands of good jobs, and creating wealth for his millions of shareholders. He is also taxed at the highest rate, which reduces the tax burden on the rest of us.)

Taxpayers don't have the luxury of buying from someone else. Last time I checked, I don't have the option of not paying the portion of my taxes that I think are ridiculously excessive.

By what right do public unionized employees forcibly confiscate from taxpayers, revenue to cover costs that no one in the private sector would ever be williung to pay?

We have buried this issue for decades, but the check has arrived at our table, and it's a big check. We have elected politicians who are much more concerned with getting re-elected than they are concerned with solving tough problems, and it's about to blow up in our faces.

Or do you union guys not agree that we are facing a debt crisis, due in large part to your benefits?

I want to be clear, I do not hate cops and teachers. If my property taxes are raised so that cops and teachers don't have to live in trailers and eat cat food, that's one thing. If my property taxes are raised so that cops and teachers and cops can cling to insane, antiquated benefits that dwarf anything available in the private sector, that's something else. And no rational person can suggest that the latter isn't exactly what's happening.

In the private sector, we live with 401(k)s, and we pay, on average, 35% - 40% of our healthcare costs (the company pays the rest). And we all survive. There's no reason why public employees cannot do the same. They obviously won't LIKE making the switch, but that doesn't mean it's not the right thing to do.

I have never heard of anyone who had to sell their house because of Bill Gates. Lots of people are forced out of their homes by property tax hikes.

Actually Jim I don't care to debate with you. Much like the various televangelists you don't want to discuss anything. Instead you merely want to espouse your own brand of the King James Bible. You aren't going to sway me to your way of seeing the world so lets just leave it at that. You can pick up your bible and try to win over other souls...I can tell that your insults about people not understanding economics 101 is really working.

Actually Jim I don't care to debate with you. Much like the various televangelists you don't want to discuss anything. Instead you merely want to espouse your own brand of the King James Bible. You aren't going to sway me to your way of seeing the world so lets just leave it at that. You can pick up your bible and try to win over other souls...I can tell that your insults about people not understanding economics 101 is really working.

I don't want to discuss anything? Please. I answered all of your points, you are the one who refuses to address one simple question.

Coward.

Have you ever worked in the private sector? I'm expected to do my job, regardless of how many hours it takes. That is standard, accepted practice, except for municipal employees I guess.

Everybody in the Private sector doesn't get paid Salary. There are plenty of people who work Hourly, get paid Overtime and at a time and a half rate.

Its not just the Public Sector employees that are getting paid overtime

Everybody in the Private sector doesn't get paid Salary. There are plenty of people who work Hourly, get paid Overtime and at a time and a half rate.

Its not just the Public Sector employees that are getting paid overtime

I'm sure most of us wish boat mechanics worked this way...
no more, sorry, it actually took me 5 hours not 3....

Everybody in the Private sector doesn't get paid Salary. There are plenty of people who work Hourly, get paid Overtime and at a time and a half rate.

Its not just the Public Sector employees that are getting paid overtime

Dad, if you hyper-disect every one of my posts, I promise that you'll find these issues. I don't see you doing that to anyone else, but that's OK, because I have no problem admitting when I'm wrong.

I never, ever said that no one in the private sector gets paid hourly. But many, many people in the private sector (especially those that are full time with benefits) are "exempt", which means their salary covers their workweek, regardless of how many hours they work. Is that correct?

"Its not just the Public Sector employees that are getting paid overtime"

True, very true. But it's also very different, and here's why. In the private scetor, if a company wants to pay overtime, they still have to make their customers WANT to buy their product. If a company can figure out how to pass on that cost to their customers in a way that makes those customers still willing to voluntarily pay that cost, I say good for that company. But the customer has the easy choice to say "no" to that cost of overtime, simply by buying from a competitor.

The public sector has MUCH more authority over their customers (the taxpayers). If the public unions give themselves a big fat raise, I (as a taxpayer) cannot easily choose not to pay that cost. That cost is forcibly passed on to me, taken away from my kids' college fund, and I cannot stop it (unless I move, which is a lot more cumbersome than simply buying something from another company, and a lot more expensive).

Would you say that's a significant difference Dad?

Dad, can you answer a simple direct question?

"Since most of the private sector did away with pensions years ago, because they were too expensive, why is it unfair to ask public unionized employees to follow suit? If everyone else is forced to find a way to live with whatever we accumulate in our 401(k)s, why can't teachers and cops do the same thing? Why can't public servents live with the same benefits offered to the taxpayers whom they serve?"

I'm not Hyper-dissecting anything......it just sounded from your statement that everybody in the private sector gets salary and the public sector are the ones getting the overtime.

I was just clarifying


and trust me...I've done it to others too....

If you think most details that are paid out for 8 hours are actually 8 hours long, you are mistaken. Very ofter a case of beer to the guy overseeing the work (phone company, construction etc) will turn a 3 hour detail into an 8 hour detail with the sign of a paper. The city doesn't pay but the company and ultimatly the consumer does in the end.

You are correct about some of what you say, but, around here most details today are 7-8 hours with construction crews excavating and putting in new sewer lines etc:. What is that cop usually doing, on the cell phone, drinking coffee, looking in the hole or bullsh-ting with the worker, that is why some get hit by an oncoming car.

What gets me is the city says it is a safety issue. The cop that goes on his regular 4-midnight shift leaves the road construction 3-3:30 and no cop takes his place. Where is the safety issue when the work goes on to 5 PM.

You can go back and forth about municipal employees and the private sector employees, one thing that they have in common is they are both on a fixed income, you know exactly what you are going to get in your pay check week to week for a 40 hour work week, unless you get a pay raise before you see a change in your pay check. :)

I'm not Hyper-dissecting anything......it just sounded from your statement that everybody in the private sector gets salary and the public sector are the ones getting the overtime.

I was just clarifying


and trust me...I've done it to others too....

Fair enough. How about answering my question?

When I worked as an employee benefits actuary, there were 3 occasions where my firm was hired by towns to see what the savings would be if (1) public employees switched from pensions to 401(k)'s, and (2) public employees paid the same percentage of their healthcare costs as the average taxpayer in the town.

They were very cool studies. In all 3 cases, we determined that those actions would save each household about $1600 per year in property taxes. Those changes were not implemented in any of the 3 towns, and by coincidence all 3 towns were run by Democrats.

What that means is this. The average family pays $1600 per year just for the portion of public benefits that go beyond what's available to everyone else.

I'd like someone, anyone, to tell me why public employees have the right to take $1600 away from my kids each year, just so they can cling to benefits that don't exist anywhere else. Why is their financial security more important to society that the security of my kids?

And as a side note, that $1600 annual surcharge was at existing property tax levels. Now that towns are realizing they can't come close to paying for what the unions demanded, taxes will go up, menaing that annual surcharge will be much more than $1600.

Anyone in a union out there, please tell me why you deserve that money and those benefits. I'm a rational, reasonable guy, alwaya willing to listen.

Chris Christie for president!!

it just sounded from your statement that everybody in the private sector gets salary and the public sector are the ones getting the overtime.

....


Dad, as far as I'm concerned, a company in the private sector can do whatever they want. They can pay all employees $10 million a year for all I care. Because in the private scetor (unlike the public sector) no one is forced to pay that cost unless they decide it's a good deal for them. Private sector companies can't increase prices, and then say "pay these new higher prices or I'll seize your house".

Do you not see a big difference there? The private sector (in the vast majority of cases) cannot greedily screw their customers. Competition prohibits that.

Would you say that's a significant difference Dad?

Dad, can you answer a simple direct question?



OMG, I can't answer it, its impossible. I have been beaten by you, painted into a corner and trapped by your Superior Intellect and Amazing Internet Prowess....Kirk to Bridge, Get us out of here. :rolleyes:

You posted a question and people here are trying to give you there take on it....but everytime they post something you don't agree with you come back w/ the "Can't Anybody answer a simple question" argument.

I'll Answer them for you and then maybe we can move on.


Would you say that's a significant difference Dad?

Difference in What? I stated that Private Sector Employees receive time and a half for overtime worked also.....so in that case the answer is No....No difference at all. Overtime is Overtime

Dad, can you answer a simple direct question?

Yes.....but note that your "Simple Direct" Question is really 3 questions

"Since most of the private sector did away with pensions years ago, because they were too expensive, why is it unfair to ask public unionized employees to follow suit?

Its Not....Ask Away. No law says you can't ask

If everyone else is forced to find a way to live with whatever we accumulate in our 401(k)s, why can't teachers and cops do the same thing?

They Could

Why can't public servents live with the same benefits offered to the taxpayers whom they serve?"

They Could

There....now can we move on.

Fair enough. How about answering my question?

How about the fact you added the question AFTER I made that post

How about the fact you added the question AFTER I made that post


Ok, I concede that I asked you that question after you posted. Whoop-dee-do.

Now, how about the fact that not you, nor anyone else, tried to answer it. If someone directly addressed my question, I missed it, so please show me.

Dad, it gets tiresome when I make the attempt to directly respond to dozens of questions and points, and no one will respond to one of mine.

You say folks "gave their take" on it? Where? Where did someone directly address the question I asked about the fairness of forcing taxpayers to bear these costs?

OMG, I can't answer it, its impossible. I have been beaten by you, painted into a corner and trapped by your Superior Intellect and Amazing Internet Prowess....Kirk to Bridge, Get us out of here. :rolleyes:

You posted a question and people here are trying to give you there take on it....but everytime they post something you don't agree with you come back w/ the "Can't Anybody answer a simple question" argument.

I'll Answer them for you and then maybe we can move on.



Difference in What? I stated that Private Sector Employees receive time and a half for overtime worked also.....so in that case the answer is No....No difference at all. Overtime is Overtime



Yes.....but note that your "Simple Direct" Question is really 3 questions



Its Not....Ask Away. No law says you can't ask



They Could



They Could

There....now can we move on.

Dad -

"OMG, I can't answer it, its impossible. I have been beaten by you, painted into a corner and trapped by your Superior Intellect"

You said it, not me. I make no claims to have any special intellect. What I have is common sense, intellectual curiosity, honesty, and the desire to debate other similar individuals, especuially those who disagree with me, since that's how you learn. Unfortunately, it only works if the other folks are as willing to answer direct questions as I am, and on this issue, they keep dodging.

"Overtime is Overtime"

In the private sctor, customers can easily and freely choose to refuse to pay the costs of employee overtime. In the public sector, if unions want overtime, they take it from taxpayers with force of law. You claim you see no difference between money that is voluntarily traded and money that is confiscasted with force of law? Those 2 things are identical to you?

You did answer part of my question, in that you admit there is no reason why they can't live with 401(k)s. So, given how burdensome current tax rates are, don't you think they SHOULD live with 401(k)s, given that you concede that they COULD? Seems to me that the only answer to that question is "yes", unless you believe that public employees are somehow more entitled to wealth than taxpayers.

Dad, I admit I'm asking tough questions, these are not softballs.

How about the fact you added the question AFTER I made that post


Yes, how about that fact? Why is that important?

Dad, you seem, at times, extyremely rational, so I was curious to see your answer to my question.

Do you only feel comfortable answering questions that have been asked before you join the discussion?

Yes, how about that fact? Why is that important?

Because you asked me why I hadn't answered a question....That I didn't know was asked

Do you only feel comfortable answering questions that have been asked before you join the discussion?

as opposed to what.....answering questions that haven't been asked yet.

Because you asked me why I hadn't answered a question....That I didn't know was asked



as opposed to what.....answering questions that haven't been asked yet.

Dad, you read my posts thoroughly enough that you were quick to point out several flaws, which is fine. My point was, while you were dissecting every detail of my post looking for flaws, you might have also taken the time to answer the question I asked, which gets to the heart of the issue.

If you want to correct my grammar and punctuation, I have no problem with that. But how about you also take the time to answer the question I'm asking?

Again, I see you dodged my other, pertinent question, which was this...given that you concede that public employees "could" live with 401(k)s, don't you think they SHOULD be asked to live with 401(k)s?

My position is this...

- people in the private sector are surviving with 401(k}s
- pensions are much more expensive than 401(k}s
- public employees are public servents, they are supposed to serve the public
- taxes are pretty high right now

Given all these things, it seems morally obvious to me that public employees should, finally, have to accept benefits that reflect what's available to the public they serve, and benefits that the taxpayers can reasonably afford.

Where am I wrong?

you two should get a room :love:

Again, I see you dodged my other, pertinent question, which was this...given that you concede that public employees "could" live with 401(k)s, don't you think they SHOULD be asked to live with 401(k)s?



Then go ahead and ask them....I'm not stopping you.

Jim, the bottom line is that you had an opprutunity at one time as we all did to apply for work with the city, state or feds, you being a vet would have started out with four weeks paid vacation for time served in the military and on your way to a pension, apparently you chose another path of employment. Get over it, build a houseboat(no property taxes) kiss a mailperson, fireperson, a female that is. :)

Jim, the bottom line is that you had an opprutunity at one time as we all did to apply for work with the city, state or feds, you being a vet would have started out with four weeks paid vacation for time served in the military and on your way to a pension, apparently you chose another path of employment. Get over it, build a houseboat(no property taxes) kiss a mailperson, fireperson, a female that is. :)

it's just going to be really ugly when the teats all run dry and the checks bounce and all of these entitlement recievers realize they've been Bernie Maidoff'ed :)....maybe we can just get some advanced Obama end of life counseling for a whole bunch of people to help bail out the ship, that may be one way to make Obamacare actually work...:uhuh: instead of offering early retirement we'll offer to RETIRE them early if ya know what I mean :):rotf2: "everyone needs to have a little skin in the game"

Jim, the bottom line is that you had an opprutunity at one time as we all did to apply for work with the city, state or feds, you being a vet would have started out with four weeks paid vacation for time served in the military and on your way to a pension, apparently you chose another path of employment. Get over it, build a houseboat(no property taxes) kiss a mailperson, fireperson, a female that is. :)


No, Fly Rod, that's not the bottom line. I'm pretty comfortable, never said I wasn't. I went into actuarial science for the $$ and so I'd be home every day at 4:30.

The botom line is this. The cost of those benefits is crippling state and local governments, and taxpayers who aren't as lucky as I am will soon be forced to make enormous sacrifices so that these unionized municipal employees can continue to cling to these insane benefits. There is a reason those benefits don't exist in the private sector anymore. Those union benefits literally destroyed the auto industry in this country. I don't want my town or your town to resemble Flint, Michigan, just so cops can retire at age 45 with a guaranteed pension for life. And that's where we are headed.

If you're OK with that scenario, i would be interested to know why. If you don't think those benefits are resulting in staggering debt, please show me data to support that. But stop trying to distract attention away from the issue at hand by posting that I'm jealous.

I hate everything about muncipal unions (I served time on my town's BOE, I know exactly how they operate, witgh tactics that would have impressed Vito Corleone. Every time I brought up the subject of 401(k)s, the union rep would claim that I hate children). I'm not jeaolous of them...I'm not jealous of anyone who greedily takes what belongs to others. I have nothing but contempt for those parasites, and the politicians who lay down for them.

Fly Rod, I'll "get over it" when my property taxes stop going up 10% a year. I'll get over it when public employees stop forcing taxpayers to choose between paying property taxes and buying food and medicine.

Public service is supposed to be for those who hear a call to serve, not for those looking for the surest path to wealth.

Then go ahead and ask them....I'm not stopping you.


Nice dodge, coward. I asked you if you thought they should make the switch to 401(k)s. I'm sorry if that question points out how obviously flawed your personal agenda is. If your position on this issue is so weak that you cannot begin to answer a question that simple, perhaps you should ask yourself why you believe what you do?

You can keep pointing out all of the hypertechnical flaws in my posts. The logic is unassailable. Your refusal to answer my question makes that crystal clear.

I'm a #^&#^&#^&#^&.....Get over it

I'm a #^&#^&#^&#^&.....Get over it
And a coward. Hell, you couldn't even man up to meet me for that music stand :eek::laugha::humpty:

-spence

Nice dodge, coward. I asked you if you thought they should make the switch to 401(k)s.

and besides.....thats not what you asked.

This is what you asked

Again, I see you dodged my other, pertinent question, which was this...given that you concede that public employees "could" live with 401(k)s, don't you think they SHOULD be asked to live with 401(k)s?


and I said Go ahead and ask them.....seems like I answered the question you asked.

And a coward. Hell, you couldn't even man up to meet me for that music stand :eek::laugha::humpty:

-spence

When the Subject line of the PM you sent me said "To My Future Gimp"...I got a-scared

I'm a #^&#^&#^&#^&.....Get over it

Maybe you are, maybe you aren't. I truly couldn't care less.

You have a habit, with me at least, of ignoring the issue at hand, and focusing instead on trivial (in my opinion) details. I want to be as accurate as possible, i think you'll see that I never got defensive to the corrections you made to my posts.

But along the way, you repeatedly dodged (or perhaps missed) my main point. So I'll ask it one last time, and you can choose whether or not to answer.

"Dad, pretend you are governor of Mass. Given the current economic climate, would you recommend that public employees switch from pensions to 401(k)'s? Or would you recommend leaving the pensions in place, and raising taxes significantly to pay for that?"

If I've made any typos or spelling mistakes, feel free to call me on them. But perhaps you could also give a yes or no answer to that question, with maybe a sentence or 2 of explanation as to why.

Answer it, don't answer it, ignore it and insult me instead...your choice.

and besides.....thats not what you asked.

This is what you asked



and I said Go ahead and ask them.....seems like I answered the question you asked.

Again, focusing on the details, instead of the main issue.

Dad, I didn't ask you if I had your permission to ask them. I asked if they "SHOULD" be asked...meaning, do you think switching from pensions to 401(k)s is the right thuing to do?

Dad, do you know the difference between "can" and "should"? If my question was "CAN I ask them", then your response (that no one is stopping me) would have been pertinent. But, as you see, what I posted was "SHOULD we ask them". The word "should", to most people, gets at whether or not something is the right thing to do, not whether or not you have permission to do something.



Is that clear enough?

"By your logic then, we should send everyone home at 40 hours, then have none to pick up the rest of the work."

Have you ever worked in the private sector? I'm expected to do my job, regardless of how many hours it takes. That is standard, accepted practice, except for municipal employees I guess.

Specialist, I see that you ignored my question. Gee, I wonder why? I'll post it again...

""If the entire private sector has to live with whatever we can accumulate in our 401(k)'s, why is it unfair to ask our public servents to do the same?"



1st I have and still do work in the private sector, in fact every job I have had has been in the private sector. Since High School I have worked for 4 different private companies, with the exception of 1 all offered 401k, and the current one offers a pension as well. So in all 4 private sector jobs, ot was offered to complete the days tasks as opposed to hiring more employees. It makes more sense because it cost less money, and the ot is not always consistant. My salary is probably less than yours, and when I work ot I have the chance to get into 6 figures. On some weeks it is not uncommon to work as many as 30 hours of ot. Now if you make say $100,000 a year and 50-60 hrs a week , how is it any differant than someone to make 60 or 70,000 a year and then work as many hours as you and turn it into 90-100,000. ? Most of the employees in that article probably make 60-70,000 as a base salary, they then work an enormous amount of extra hours like you do and they made more. Big friggin woop. Now if you got all of your work done within yourr 40 hours, you make out, no? The reasons givem for the Massport workers was that due to constuction and some other problems some employees worked more hours, but it was n, because it was a temporary thing to worth it to hire any new employees.

As fas as your benefits question goes, this posting had nothing to do with benefits, 401k's or pensions, it was about the amount of money some people made in one year. Are the costs out of control absolutely, should something be done, for sure but what I don't know.

I will also tell you this that my pension in know way will ever meet or exceed my salary. Those are the promplem pensions.

I thought that 401's should have been introduced several years ago. The energy spent here should be directed to your local city council or town selectmen. Not one thing would be solved here. The rant goes on.:)

I thought that 401's should have been introduced several years ago. The energy spent here should be directed to your local city council or town selectmen. Not one thing would be solved here. The rant goes on.:)

Fly Rod, I don't expect issues to be solved here. What I hoped for, was good, rigorous, open debate. But when I ask a pointed question, one gyu accuses me of being jealous of public employees, one guy tells me to stop hating public employees, one guy tells me that people are only "safe" if cops get these benefits...

1st I have and still do work in the private sector, in fact every job I have had has been in the private sector. Since High School I have worked for 4 different private companies, with the exception of 1 all offered 401k, and the current one offers a pension as well. So in all 4 private sector jobs, ot was offered to complete the days tasks as opposed to hiring more employees. It makes more sense because it cost less money, and the ot is not always consistant. My salary is probably less than yours, and when I work ot I have the chance to get into 6 figures. On some weeks it is not uncommon to work as many as 30 hours of ot. Now if you make say $100,000 a year and 50-60 hrs a week , how is it any differant than someone to make 60 or 70,000 a year and then work as many hours as you and turn it into 90-100,000. ? Most of the employees in that article probably make 60-70,000 as a base salary, they then work an enormous amount of extra hours like you do and they made more. Big friggin woop. Now if you got all of your work done within yourr 40 hours, you make out, no? The reasons givem for the Massport workers was that due to constuction and some other problems some employees worked more hours, but it was n, because it was a temporary thing to worth it to hire any new employees.

As fas as your benefits question goes, this posting had nothing to do with benefits, 401k's or pensions, it was about the amount of money some people made in one year. Are the costs out of control absolutely, should something be done, for sure but what I don't know.

I will also tell you this that my pension in know way will ever meet or exceed my salary. Those are the promplem pensions.

"So in all 4 private sector jobs, ot was offered to complete the days tasks as opposed to hiring more employees. It makes more sense because it cost less money"

If the pensions are fattened by the overtime (as they are in many cases), then that system does not cost less money. It makes cops rich and taxpayers poor. If the pensions do not reflect overtime, you have a point.

"Now if you make say $100,000 a year and 50-60 hrs a week , how is it any differant than someone to make 60 or 70,000 a year and then work as many hours as you and turn it into 90-100,000. ? "

First, I don't work 50 hours on average, though I do some weeks...In some cases, you are right. In the case of some police departments, where the overtime is so steady, it would in fact be cheaper to hire additional employees to do that work at base pay instead of 150% of pay. They could hire part-time officers to do the extra work. But the unions won't allow that, because they want those cops to get rich.

"this posting had nothing to do with benefits, 401k's or pensions, it was about the amount of money some people made in one year."

Granted. But my question (about benefits) is pretty closely tied to the issue of public employee compensation, it's an issue that effects us all, and it's an isue that provides a huge benefit to a small number of people, while asking a large number of people to make huge sacrifices.

"Are the costs out of control absolutely, should something be done, for sure but what I don't know"

It's not rocket science, there are 2 choices. Raise taxes or cut benefits. We need to decide which is more fair. If cutting benefits meant that cops/teachers would have to eat cat food, I'd say raise taxes. But if cutting benefits simply means that cops/teachers have to live like the rest of us, then I say cut benefits.

I have no problem with folks in the private sector getting rich, because they still have to make their customers want to pay for their product or service. But no one in public service should be rich, because taxpayers do not have the option of refusing to pay.

Good, thoughtful post. Thanks.

Answer it, don't answer it, ignore it and insult me instead...your choice.

Because you, yourself, would never insult anybody in the context of a thread

You have no idea what you're talking about.

Wrong again, because you don't get economics 101.


Nice dodge, coward.

Are you getting it now?

I'll answer your question...

"Dad, pretend you are governor of Mass. Given the current economic climate, would you recommend that public employees switch from pensions to 401(k)'s? Or would you recommend leaving the pensions in place, and raising taxes significantly to pay for that?".


I would keep the pensions in place for those who were hired under that plan. These were the benefits packages that were offered them when they accepted the job, so they need to be honored. Going forward w/ new hires I would go to a 401k scenario.

Does that answer your question? You can throw out more questions or find flaws in this but I really don't care....you're not changing my view on this. You can't renege' on benefits offered...sorry that's just me.

I truly couldn't care less.
Now here's a statement that I've been trying to strike from conversation. Seems like every time I say, "You know what, I could not f(*&ing care less," I always surprise myself in how much less caring there is to do. I get there eventually though.

I love the new civility...isn't it great? :buds:

Because you, yourself, would never insult anybody in the context of a thread









I'll answer your question...




I would keep the pensions in place for those who were hired under that plan. These were the benefits packages that were offered them when they accepted the job, so they need to be honored. Going forward w/ new hires I would go to a 401k scenario.

Does that answer your question? You can throw out more questions or find flaws in this but I really don't care....you're not changing my view on this. You can't renege' on benefits offered...sorry that's just me.

Dad, after all that, and it turns out our positions are almost identical. The only difference is, I would require that younger workers (say under 35) hired under a pension, be forced to switch to a 401(k), of course keeping the portion of the benefit that they have earned. That's what the private sector did in the mid 1990s.

Yes, that answers my question. That was a direct answer, and I only needed to ask you 300 times to get it out of you.

Dad, after all that, and it turns out our positions are almost identical. The only difference is, I would require that younger workers (say under 35) hired under a pension, be forced to switch to a 401(k), of course keeping the portion of the benefit that they have earned. That's what the private sector did in the mid 1990s.

Yes, that answers my question. That was a direct answer, and I only needed to ask you 300 times to get it out of you.

I also agree with this, but I think that anyone already hired should be either left alone, or some form of buyout in the form of a lumpsum payment equal to the current value of their pension be place into the new 401k plan to get them started. Like I stated earlier this post was strictly about the amount of income these people earned.

Also you previously stated in the private sector the companies make the customer pay for services they want. As an intelligent person I assume you would agree, that we all have wants and needs. Seeing as basic needs are that potholes are repaired, traffic, and street lights work, water and sewer work, someone protects our property, and someone teaches our children, then we must pay for these services as well. If we did not there would be fewer public servants to provide these services, cause like you stated you did, they would go to the private sector for more money.

then we must pay for these services as well. If we did not there would be fewer public servants to provide these services, cause like you stated you did, they would go to the private sector for more money.

now ya did it....I'm weeping...

Details and overtime are typically viewed as two different things. Overtime counts toward pension and retirement "credit" and details do not as they are funded by the company needing it (which in turn passes the cost on to the consumer). Soooo, we are all paying for it in the end anyway. We are not paying the "detail" portion in pensions later.
The other question is, at what point does working all the "detail" & "overtime" hours impact the person performing their job. The rules are very lenient on allowing a lot of hours being worked in the course of the week and i hope it does not affect performance

I wasn't going to get involved in this again, but in Massachusetts overtime does not add to police pensions. Not one dime. Detail pay does not count either. Base salary only counts toward retirement. For thirty seven years when the phone guy or the N Star/Edison crew went for coffee I had to pay for my own and they never took money from me for thiers. No coffee, no beer, and I worked with some pretty loose crews, but thier was never any quid pro uo, never. Everyone always wants to think the worse, no doubt thier are some #^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&s out there who try make all of us look bad, but we only look bad as the #^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&s, if we allow ourselves to be included in your and thier thought processes.

I wasn't going to get involved in this again, but in Massachusetts overtime does not add to police pensions. Not one dime. Detail pay does not count either. Base salary only counts toward retirement. For thirty seven years when the phone guy or the N Star/Edison crew went for coffee I had to pay for my own and they never took money from me for thiers. No coffee, no beer, and I worked with some pretty loose crews, but thier was never any quid pro uo, never. Everyone always wants to think the worse, no doubt thier are some #^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&s out there who try make all of us look bad, but we only look bad as the #^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&s, if we allow ourselves to be included in your and thier thought processes.

:btu:

Jim, the next time you need help call a friend or a stranger, and see if the can help you clean up your problems. Get in a crash, exchange papers with the other person, and dont bother the cop Fall flat on your face, unresponsive, at the post office and see who get there more quickly, cop or a firefighter. Cops do CPR really well. Remember, it is the first few minutes that count the most. Your relative that retired at 43 and is going to collect his retirement for 50 years is an anomaly. In Mass. the only way that would occur would be if he retired on a disability. To max out here you have to served 32 years and be 55 years of age. You can retire under 55 on a regular retirement, but the pay is reduced drastically for every year under 55 that that the person is who is retiring.

My wife has a grad degree in math and she cant stand it either when everyone (me) doesn't agree with her . You need something more to do in the winter. And stop calling people cowards here. That word shouldn't be used loosely.

Swimmer,

I can take it. I've been called worse by better. I have lots of ribbons and metals to prove him wrong. If you look at my early discussions I tried to be civil. Then, like others here, I realized it was like wrestling the proverbial pig in mud...so I started just poking into the corral to get teh bull mad. It worked.

You hit it right on the head. He needs more to do in the winter.

Bill

I wasn't going to get involved in this again, but in Massachusetts overtime does not add to police pensions. Not one dime. Detail pay does not count either. Base salary only counts toward retirement. For thirty seven years when the phone guy or the N Star/Edison crew went for coffee I had to pay for my own and they never took money from me for thiers. No coffee, no beer, and I worked with some pretty loose crews, but thier was never any quid pro uo, never. Everyone always wants to think the worse, no doubt thier are some #^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&s out there who try make all of us look bad, but we only look bad as the #^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&s, if we allow ourselves to be included in your and thier thought processes.

Hey Swimmer, thanks for getting involved in the post again. You are correct. Quinn Bill $ does count but OT & Details do not. I stand corrected. More importantly, I apologize if my post lumped all the good in with the bad. It wasn't my intention and I should have been more careful. Sorry for that. Thank you for posting and pointing that out. The reason I posted is that I know of very specific instances where this quid pro quo happens consistently in a particular town/city with a number (not all) of particular officers. I know this because I have some close friends/relatives that are on the force there (& no, not the town I live in). You are correct, the few bad eggs make everyone else look bad.

One thing I don't get is why does a 4 hour and 30 minute detail get rounded up to 8 hours?

Swimmer,

I have lots of ribbons and metals to prove him wrong.

Bill

can we see your "metals" ?

Swimmer,
The fire is so much brighter to the uninformed...


I'm noticing that cheap shots and reveling in prodding, insults... is OK if it goes one way(your way)...."do you fish""...that's a good one....proverbial pig...brilliant...just don't say "coward"...the thought/word police get mad and tell you what you may and may not do and say here(themselves excluded of course)....I think there's a word for that too but I wouldn't want to use it loosely...

Scott,

You are more than welcome to see both the ones I display in my shadow box (properly referred to as medals) and the ones I sling! Good catch. My bad for typing too fast. I can take a ribbing. I actually nejoy the good natured subtle humor that this board provides. There are many closet commedians here.

I have found that with the written word it is often difficult to tell when you have crossed that thin line from kidding into insults or accusations. Pardon me while I continue maintaining some reels for the upcoming season.

Scott,

You are more than welcome to see both the ones I display in my shadow box (properly referred to as medals) and the ones I sling! Good catch. My bad for typing too fast. I can take a ribbing. I actually nejoy the good natured subtle humor that this board provides. There are many closet commedians here.

I have found that with the written word it is often difficult to tell when you have crossed that thin line from kidding into insults or accusations. Pardon me while I continue maintaining some reels for the upcoming season.

get on it man...spring is coming fast...building my collection of bucktails as we speak...good to have thick skin, particularly in here :)

Jim, the next time you need help call a friend or a stranger, and see if the can help you clean up your problems. Get in a crash, exchange papers with the other person, and dont bother the cop Fall flat on your face, unresponsive, at the post office and see who get there more quickly, cop or a firefighter. Cops do CPR really well. Remember, it is the first few minutes that count the most. Your relative that retired at 43 and is going to collect his retirement for 50 years is an anomaly. In Mass. the only way that would occur would be if he retired on a disability. To max out here you have to served 32 years and be 55 years of age. You can retire under 55 on a regular retirement, but the pay is reduced drastically for every year under 55 that that the person is who is retiring.

My wife has a grad degree in math and she cant stand it either when everyone (me) doesn't agree with her . You need something more to do in the winter. And stop calling people cowards here. That word shouldn't be used loosely.

Swimmer, let me see if I understand you, OK?

I am not saying cops don't deserve a fair wage. What I am saying is, I don't see why they deserve richer benefits (retirement and healthcare) than what's available to the public they claim to serve.

Instead of telling me what's wrong with that (because obviously there is nothing wrong with that), you tell me that I therefore don't deserve police protection?

I'll say this. If my town offered a private company-alternative to public police, and I got to choose which covered me, I would go private, because it would obviously be much cheaper.

You are another one of thise clowns who cannot attempt to respond to the merits of my argument, so you come up with some stupid response that's off point. Somehting that's designed to stop the debate.

Dad Fisherman also agreed with me that they should switch to 401(k)s, I guess he doesn't deserve that protection either.

"Your relative that retired at 43 and is going to collect his retirement for 50 years is an anomaly"

How would you know that? How could you possibky know how many guys do that? Here in CT, most towns have no age minimum, they only require 20 years of service.


"stop calling people cowards here. That word shouldn't be used loosely"

Last time I checked, I don't answer to you, I don't need your permission to state my opinion. I don't use that term loosely. I use it when it fits, for example, when someone like you refuses to answer a simple question, and instead hurls insults.

I asked many times why cops deserve pensions instead of 401(k)s. It's a simple, direct, fair question. Instead of answering, you went on a nonsensical rant about how, if I want some limits on public compensation, then I don't deserve those services. Believe me, if I could opt out o fthose services, and get my property taxes back, I would. Because every service provided by a public union, can be provided by a private entity for a fraction of the cost. Everyone knows this. That fact may not serve your personal agenda, but it's a fact nonetheless.

You didged my question completely. That's intellectually cowardly.

"You need something more to do in the winter."

Sorry if my questions make you uncomfortable. In the description of this forum, John R stated somehting to the effect of "if you don't want to hear what someone has to say, then do not enter".

I have no problem admitting when I'm wrong, I'm as flawed as anyone else. However, I apply a thoughtful, common sense thought process to these issues, and that makes it tough for someone like you to debate me, because you aren't able to articulate why you feel the way you do. If you could, you would have responded to my question instead of dodging and insulting.

I just cannot think of a reason why towns should face bankruptcy so cops should have pensions instead of 401(k)s. Obviously you disagree, but you will not tell me why. Can't you try?

Swimmer, in another one of your asinine rants, you said people give cops pensions to "feel safe".

I asked you to support your assertion that communities where cops have pensions are "more safe" than communities where cops have 401(k)s. I noticed you never responed to that, either.

Swimmer, I respond to your points directly, I think you'll agree. All you do is dodge my points.

If that's not cowardly, what do you call it.

One last time Swimmer. Why would it be inappropriate to expect cops to live with 401(k)s instead of pensions, since everybody else has to do that?

Am I going too fast for you? Too many big words in that question?

I was a Marine, Swimmer, I was in combat twice, and I'm damn proud of that. However, I don't think that entitles me to lifetime benefits that people are genuinely burdened to have to pay for. I don't feel entitled to benefits so rich that it literally effects the bond rating of the government that pays for them. I don't want senior citizens to have to do without medicine or heat so that I can have a fat, cushy pension.

You, apparently, are fine with asking people to work an extra job so that you can have benefits that do not exist, in fact can not exist, in the real world.

I was a Marine, Swimmer, I was in combat twice, and I'm damn proud of that.

Someone with a taxpayer paid retirement system complaining about taxpayer paid retirment systems.

Classic.

Someone with a taxpayer paid retirement system complaining about taxpayer paid retirment systems.

Classic.

My wife was a schoolteacher before we had kids. She agrees with me that pensions are an unfair burden to ask the taxpayers to pay for, and she has ticked off her union by saying that. She has begged her union to switch to 401(k)s, and she has made more than a few enemies.

I don't just talk the talk likwid. In this economic climate, pensions are just wrong and unfair. If that means my wife gets a smaller retirement package, fine, that's what I want. As I said before, I don't feel personally entitled to benefits that are so rich that folks have to struggle to pay for them.

I'm being less hypocritical given that this effects me personally, not more hypocritical. I stick to my convictions. When she goes back to teaching, I'd prefer that she get a 401(k) than a pension.

Jim,

I think Ted was asking if you get a pension from your service in the USMC.

Swimmer, I apologize for the personal insults. I was called on it, and the person who called me on it was exactly right to do so. A perfect example of my many flaws that I need to work on.

I stand by my assertion that you have repeatedly refused to answer my direct questions. If I ask why do cops deserve pensions, I don't think an appropriate response is that I don't deserve police protection.

I said before that I respect cops and teachers. I have 2 family members who are cops, and my wife is a temporarily retired teacher. These are difficult, vitally important jobs.

That being said, I see no reason why these folks (who are public servents) should not be expected to get by with the same benefits available to the public the claim to serve.

If anyone disagrees with me, instead of insulting me, perhaps you could explain why. I genuinely like to debate with those who disagree with me, it's the best way to learn.

Jim,

I think Ted was asking if you get a pension from your service in the USMC.

No pension.

I will say this. If I did receive a pension, I would take it, i wouldn't burn the money. But if it was put to a vote, I would vote to abolish pensions.

My wife will likely receive some kind of pension. We'll take it, because we did pay into it with our own money, but I don't think it's fair. And I would support any politician who agreed with me.

I wish we all had enough money to give teachers and cops a blank check, I really do. But the fact is, we don't.

No pension.

I will say this. If I did receive a pension, I would take it, i wouldn't burn the money. But if it was put to a vote, I would vote to abolish pensions.

My wife will likely receive some kind of pension. We'll take it, because we did pay into it with our own money, but I don't think it's fair.

Fair enough.

thanks for the answer

I will say this. If I did receive a pension, I would take it, i wouldn't burn the money.

Comes across as hypocritical IMHO. A sort of, "I can't have it so neither can you" approach. Not that you meant it that way but rather the way the words read.

:stir:

Military Retired Pay Overview - Military Benefits - Military.com (http://www.military.com/benefits/military-pay/retired-pay/military-retired-pay-overview)

Military has quite a few different pension/retirement pay systems.

Seems a bit better than having to wait till you're 55 too!

Military Retired Pay Overview - Military Benefits - Military.com (http://www.military.com/benefits/military-pay/retired-pay/military-retired-pay-overview)

Military has quite a few different pension/retirement pay systems.

Seems a bit better than having to wait till you're 55 too!

Likwid, I am as opposed to pensions for veterans as I am opposed to pensions for everyine else. In my opinion, pensions so expensive that they represent an unreasonable burden on the customer (taxpayer).

The fact that the only entities that still offer pensions are all going bankrupt, seems to support my opinion.

Comes across as hypocritical IMHO. A sort of, "I can't have it so neither can you" approach. Not that you meant it that way but rather the way the words read.

:stir:

Bill, I guess it does sound hypocritical. But if a pension is all that is offered to cops, I don't begrudge them for taking it...after all, if a 401(k) isn't an option, then I don't expect cops to turn down the only retirement vehicle available to them. That's reasonable, don't you think?

I will do all I cam here in my town (as will my wife) to try to get pensions abolished. We live in a democracy. If the majprity of the citizenry votes to keep pensions, I realize I have to live with that. That's democracy.

I said before, I don't begrudge anyone for accepting pensions that are offered to them. I do, however, take exception with those who support keeping those pensions around. Given the deficits that states and towns are facing, I just don't see how you justify pensions. In fact, I've asked dozens of times on this thread why cops are entitled to pensions, and NOT ONE person has offered any shred of support. Not one. Zip. Zilch. Nada. Bupkus.

No one has said "I think pensions are better than 401(k)s because..."

That tells me that even the folks here who disagree with me are totally unable to explain why. Amazing. Why does one support a posiiton that you cannot begin to explain?

can we see your "metals" ?




I'm noticing that cheap shots and reveling in prodding, insults... is OK if it goes one way(your way)...."do you fish""...that's a good one....proverbial pig...brilliant...just don't say "coward"...the thought/word police get mad and tell you what you may and may not do and say here(themselves excluded of course)....I think there's a word for that too but I wouldn't want to use it loosely...

Thanks...it's like Obama calling for civility out of one side of his mouth, and out of the other side, he says the Cambridge police acted stupidly.

But if I want to run for office, I need to control my temper. My wife reminds me of that constantly.

I don't think many people have said, pensions are better.

However, significant disagreements come when you start messing with agreed upon benefits and contracts of current employees. I think one answer is what many towns are doing; minimum ages and longer minimum service times for younger personnel, and new hires. You cannot penalize those that are retired or are close to retirement, who had planned accordingly. Few of us have said anything to the contrary, but you browbeat and demand answers that makes most of us not want to respond with anything logical and thoughtful.

And Jim, the Obama-civility comment is beneath you. You take an event from a > year ago, and comments made last month as proof of him talking out of his mouth. The paraphrase of his line on civility is that 'I need to be better, and we need to be better' in reference to living up to the deceased girls ideals in the close of the Tuscon speech. I choose to read this as he admits he has acted and said things he regrets now. you see it as two-faced. whatever. back to my la-la mental defective land....

But if I want to run for office, I need to control my temper. My wife reminds me of that constantly.

there is always a good woman behind their husband politician.



No one has said "I think pensions are better than 401(k)s because..."




I think pensions are better than 401K's because you don't have to worry about the stock market tanking.

pretty simple to me

I think pensions are better than 401K's because you don't have to worry about the stock market tanking.

pretty simple to me

most states have massive unfunded pension liabitlities...the pension funds "have tanked"

LA Times
California's $500-billion pension time bomb

The staggering amount of unfunded debt stands to crowd out funding for many popular programs. Reform will take something sadly lacking in the Legislature: political courage.

By David Crane

The state of California's real unfunded pension debt clocks in at more than $500 billion, nearly eight times greater than officially reported.

That's the finding from a study released Monday by Stanford University's public policy program, confirming a recent report with similar, stunning findings from Northwestern University and the University of Chicago.

Unsustainable Pensions
To put that number in perspective, it's almost seven times greater than all the outstanding voter-approved state general obligation bonds in California.

Why should Californians care? Because this year's unfunded pension liability is next year's budget cut to important programs. For a glimpse of California's budgetary future, look no further than the $5.5 billion diverted this year from higher education, transit, parks and other programs in order to pay just a tiny bit toward current unfunded pension and healthcare promises. That figure is set to triple within 10 years and -- absent reform -- to continue to grow, crowding out funding for many programs vital to the overwhelming majority of Californians.

How did we get here? The answer is simple: For decades -- and without voter consent -- state leaders have been issuing billions of dollars of debt in the form of unfunded pension and healthcare promises, then gaming accounting rules in order to understate the size of those promises.
.................................

January 31, 2011

California tax-supported debt balloons to $137B as Moody’s treats unfunded pension liability as bond debt

Moody’s, a leading credit rating agency, says it has begun treating unfunded pension liabilities like bond debt “giving California a combiners tax-supported debt of $136.9 billion.”
According to Moody’s press release, “Pensions have always had an important place in our analysis of states, but we looked separately at tax-supported bonds and pension funds in our published financial ratios,” says Moody’s analyst Ted Hampton. “Presenting combined debt and pension figures offers a more integrated — and timely — view of states’ total obligations.”

.

In fact, I've asked dozens of times on this thread why cops are entitled to pensions, and NOT ONE person has offered any shred of support. Not one. Zip. Zilch. Nada. Bupkus.


I'm pretty sure I answered that question......

I would keep the pensions in place for those who were hired under that plan. These were the benefits packages that were offered them when they accepted the job, so they need to be honored. Going forward w/ new hires I would go to a 401k scenario.

thanks for the info scott, shows how little I know

I don't think many people have said, pensions are better.

However, significant disagreements come when you start messing with agreed upon benefits and contracts of current employees. I think one answer is what many towns are doing; minimum ages and longer minimum service times for younger personnel, and new hires. You cannot penalize those that are retired or are close to retirement, who had planned accordingly. Few of us have said anything to the contrary, but you browbeat and demand answers that makes most of us not want to respond with anything logical and thoughtful.

And Jim, the Obama-civility comment is beneath you. You take an event from a > year ago, and comments made last month as proof of him talking out of his mouth. The paraphrase of his line on civility is that 'I need to be better, and we need to be better' in reference to living up to the deceased girls ideals in the close of the Tuscon speech. I choose to read this as he admits he has acted and said things he regrets now. you see it as two-faced. whatever. back to my la-la mental defective land....

"significant disagreements come when you start messing with agreed upon benefits and contracts of current employees"

I agree, it's a rough thing to switch from a pension to a 401(k), and I do not take that lightly. However, 95% of us in the private sector made that switch 15 years ago, and we all managed to survive. I see no reason why cops and teachers would be less able to survive that switch.

"You cannot penalize those that are retired or are close to retirement, who had planned accordingly."

You are 100% correct. I've never heard anyone suggest that the switch should apply to current retirees or to those so close to retirement that they have no time to respond. It should only apply to younger workers.

However, even in the case of current retirees, what if the promised benefits are so fat that the citizens literally cannot afford them? I don't want to hurt retirees. But you can't triple property taxes either, right? That hurts everybody. We need to do what's fair and equitable for all of us, not the select few who are in unions.

"You take an event from a > year ago, and comments made last month as proof of him talking out of his mouth."

OK, a few weeks ago he said that Republicans should have to "sit in the back of the bus". Is that recent enough? Is that civilized dialogue? I'm sorry if this upsets you, but I don't recognize Obama's right to ask for civility. I picked one of my favorite examples, but there are many more recent.

there is always a good woman behind their husband politician.



I think pensions are better than 401K's because you don't have to worry about the stock market tanking.

pretty simple to me

"there is always a good woman behind their husband politician."

I am the luckiest guy in the world in that regard...

"I think pensions are better than 401K's because you don't have to worry about the stock market tanking"

OK, I agree with you that pensions are better for the people who receive them. But in case you didn't know this already, that money has to come from somewhere. So what about the tax burden on those who have to pay for them? You left that part out. As I said before, most major entities that still offer guaranteed pensions (social security, municipalities, and the auto industry) are facing staggering deficits and bankruptcy. Doesn't that suggest that perhaps the promised payouts are un-realistic?

Politicians have known this for decades. But they want union votes, so they say "yes" to everything the unions ask for, because the politicians know they'll be retired in Grand Cayman by the time the Ponzi scheme (and make no mistake, that's what these pensions are)implodes. Well, the Ponzi scheme is imploding. We can triple property taxes to keep paying these benefits, or we can ask these folks to live with the same benefits we have to live with. Those are the 2 choices.

I would be happy to pay more taxes if that's what cops needed to avoid living in a trailer. I don't want my taxes to triple so that they can have a guaranteed path to wealth. People who go into public service are not supposed to get rich on the backs of those they claim to serve. Public service is supposed to be about service, not guaranteed benefit pensions.

I'm pretty sure I answered that question......

Actually, what you said was that we should switch them to 401(k)s. There are some folks here who say that the pension structure should be kept in place. Not one of them has been able to tell us why that position is better for society. I get why it's better for them personally...but I'm concerned about everyone...

thanks for the info scott, shows how little I know

I don't think that's the case, I think the depth of the problem escapes most people as well as many politicians, there's an assumption that government will always produce the revenue to fund whatever is needed....those existing within the safe bubble created by the dependence on govt. for their revenue stream assume it can't and will not end...fact is...in the real world, the sources of these incomes(pension funds, social security, other "entitlements" etc.) would be bankrupt entities and the entitled would be out of luck....the governments at every level have overspent themselves to the point that these "obligations" are not only unfunded but operating in the red and completely dependent on funding from current collections to pay current obligations rather than drawing from any previous contributions from current recipients(in otherwords...you(you meaning anyone not you specifically) may have contributed all you life but you are being paid with the contributions from people currently paying in...it's not your contributed money that you are getting back with interest).....don't know what those currently making contributiuons have to look forward to but I do know that Bernie Maidoff would be very, very proud :uhuh::)

thanks for the info scott, shows how little I know

Here in CT, the current shortfall for pension and healthcare benefits to municipal employees is $34 billion, which works out to $10,000 for every human being in the state. $50,000 for my soon-to-be family of five.

Here's what that means. Even though CT has one of the top 3 tax rates in the nation, and even though we get zillions of dollars a year from the casinos, the politicians have still overspent on the union benefits by $10,000 per person.

Slipknot, should every person in the state of CT really have to fork over another $10k (on top of tax rates that are already insane) so that a miniscule number of people can keep benefits that simply don't exist anywhere else?

Swimmer would say yes. In that case, maybe he would be willing to write the state a check for $50k on behalf of my family. Because as much respect as I have for cops, I don't believe that their financial security is THAT much more important than anyone else's financial security.

In my opinion, it's perfectly reasonable to ask public servents to find a way to live with what they currently take from us. If the current spending levels are $10,000 too high per person, the problem isn't that we aren't paying enough taxes, the problem is that we have no control in spending.

Put it this way. Mike Tyson is bankrupt. Is that because he didn't get paid enough? Or is it because he was irresponsible with the money he had? Our politicians have been every bit as reckless with our money, as Mike Tyson was with his.

[QUOTE=Jim in CT;835824 select few who are in unions.

"You take an event from a > year ago, and comments made last month as proof of him talking out of his mouth."

OK, a few weeks ago he said that Republicans should have to "sit in the back of the bus". Is that recent enough? Is that civilized dialogue? I'm sorry if this upsets you, but I don't recognize Obama's right to ask for civility. I picked one of my favorite examples, but there are many more recent.[/QUOTE]

there was the "hostage taker" beauty as well, there will be more...he can't help himself.....he's the least civil president I can remember

OK - I am getting to this party a little late as I have been working my a$$ off.

I read this recently paraphrasing "The oxygen of a democracy is intense debate". I support intense debate, I do not support bashing and excessive name calling. I am not calling anyone in particular out on this because we all/most engage in it at one degree or another.

WE - all of us, certainly most, have pushed the envelope WRT this. So lets focus more on the issues debated and less on the insults.

Thank you very much, the management :yak5::buds::wall::gh::love::fury:

the governments at every level have overspent themselves to the point that these "obligations" are not only unfunded but operating in the red and completely dependent on funding from current collections to pay current obligations rather than drawing from any previous contributions from current recipients::)

That is the exact definition of a Ponzi scheme. And they all fail eventually...

SUPPLEMENTAL NUTRITION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
( Data as of January 31, 2011)

Fiscal PARTICIPATION BENEFIT
ANNUAL SUMMARY
Year.... Persons... Households.... COSTS
FY 2011 43,398,316 20,293,942 11,593,629,205


and we continue to pile more and more people into the currently busting underfunded safety nets/pension and entitlement systems....

In December 2006 food stamp participation at 26,363,031 persons


and realize that from the government's perspective, nearly doubling the number of people on food stamps is touted as evidence of success of the program:confused:

SUPPLEMENTAL NUTRITION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
( Data as of January 31, 2011)

Fiscal PARTICIPATION BENEFIT
ANNUAL SUMMARY
Year.... Persons... Households.... COSTS
FY 2011 43,398,316 20,293,942 11,593,629,205


and we continue to pile more and more people into the currently busting underfunded safety nets/pension and entitlement systems....

In December 2006 food stamp participation at 26,363,031 persons


and realize that from the government's perspective, nearly doubling the number of people on food stamps is touted as evidence of success of the program:confused:

To liberal politicians, that is most definitely a success, because they have expanded their voting base, by making more people addicted to the welfare/entitlements they provide.

Republicans want everyone to be independently financially comfortable. Democrats want everyone addicted to their entitlements. That way, the limousine liberals have a permanent voting base that is forever bought off, but since that voting base has no upward economic mobility, the limousine liberals will still have Nantucket beaches to themselves.

The last thing liberals want is for those folks to become rich, because if they did...they'd vote Republican!

The myth that liberals care more about the poor is just that, a myth. Look at studies that look at who (conservatives or liberals) gives more time and money to charity. It's conservatives.

you just keep on begging for trouble don't you? :rotf2:

The last thing liberals want is for those folks to become rich, because if they did...they'd vote Republican!

Oh don't worry, plenty of poor people vote against Obama.

Ain't gonna vote for no neeeegraw!

I'd bet money the poor towns surrounding Punxsawtawney, PA all voted republican in the last election.

Bill, I guess it does sound hypocritical. But if a pension is all that is offered to cops, I don't begrudge them for taking it...after all, if a 401(k) isn't an option, then I don't expect cops to turn down the only retirement vehicle available to them. That's reasonable, don't you think?

I will do all I cam here in my town (as will my wife) to try to get pensions abolished. We live in a democracy. If the majprity of the citizenry votes to keep pensions, I realize I have to live with that. That's democracy.

I said before, I don't begrudge anyone for accepting pensions that are offered to them. I do, however, take exception with those who support keeping those pensions around. Given the deficits that states and towns are facing, I just don't see how you justify pensions. In fact, I've asked dozens of times on this thread why cops are entitled to pensions, and NOT ONE person has offered any shred of support. Not one. Zip. Zilch. Nada. Bupkus.

No one has said "I think pensions are better than 401(k)s because..."

That tells me that even the folks here who disagree with me are totally unable to explain why. Amazing. Why does one support a posiiton that you cannot begin to explain?


Unless the companies pull something shady they are pretty much guaranteed or more stable, where as the 401k can take a nose dove on you as it has recently. Many people who would have retired in the last couple of years h with 401k are now having to work to make up the losses.

Unless the companies pull something shady they are pretty much guaranteed or more stable, where as the 401k can take a nose dove on you as it has recently. Many people who would have retired in the last couple of years h with 401k are now having to work to make up the losses.

401k's
stock options
etc etc etc

Unless the companies pull something shady they are pretty much guaranteed or more stable, where as the 401k can take a nose dove on you as it has recently. Many people who would have retired in the last couple of years h with 401k are now having to work to make up the losses.
That's debatable and only guaranteed due the feds pension bailout system.

Unless the companies pull something shady they are pretty much guaranteed or more stable, where as the 401k can take a nose dove on you as it has recently. Many people who would have retired in the last couple of years h with 401k are now having to work to make up the losses.

If you are close to retirement age, you should know not to have most of your 401(k) in stocks, because you don't have th etime to recover from losses.

But again, you're telling me why pensions are better than 401(k)s for the folks receiving them, and we all get that.But why are pensions better than 401(k)s for everyone, including the folks who get stuck with the bill? Why is society better off if we all have to make enormous sacrifices just so that a small number of people can have pensions?