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?

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....

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

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.”

.

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

thanks for the info scott, shows how little I know

"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 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.

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...

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::)

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:

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:

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:

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.

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

That's debatable and only guaranteed due the feds pension bailout system.

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?