Who, exactly, supports public unions?

[TheSpecialist]

[QUOTE]And for that 7% deduction, you get a pension that costs several times what your contributions, and their earnings, could ever pay for. That's where we (taxpayers) get screwed. I put 15% of my pay into my 401(k), and whatever I can accumulate on my own, is what I have to live on. You get to put 7% of your pay into your pension, and your pension is guaranteed. Meaning, when your contributions aren't NEARLY enough to pay for the insane benefits your pension promises, we (taxpayers) have to pay the rest./QUOTE]

Jim are you self employed or do you have an employer?

Even at my last crappy nonunion job 15 years ago, my employer matched the first 6% of what I put into my 401k. If you are self employed thats one thing, if you have an employer who doesn't make any contribution shame on you for allowing that to happen.

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by TheSpecialist

Jim are you self employed or do you have an employer?

Even at my last crappy nonunion job 15 years ago, my employer matched the first 6% of what I put into my 401k. If you are self employed thats one thing, if you have an employer who doesn't make any contribution shame on you for allowing that to happen.

Depends on if it's a small business and how established it is. Many small businesses don't have the overhead to provide a substantial match on their 401k.

The cliche union mentality in your post is amusing "if you have an employer who doesn't make any contribution shame on you for allowing that to happen." In the non-unionized world, employers are the ones to set what compensation is and potential employees can accept them or find a different job that compensates the employee in a way the employee feels is appropriate. In the unionized world, the union workers operate as though they are entitled to dictate the terms of their employment and press the employer (or taxpayer) for all that they're worth.

[TheSpecialist]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

Depends on if it's a small business and how established it is. Many small businesses don't have the overhead to provide a substantial match on their 401k.

The cliche union mentality in your post is amusing "if you have an employer who doesn't make any contribution shame on you for allowing that to happen." In the non-unionized world, employers are the ones to set what compensation is and potential employees can accept them or find a different job that compensates the employee in a way the employee feels is appropriate. In the unionized world, the union workers operate as though they are entitled to dictate the terms of their employment and press the employer (or taxpayer) for all that they're worth.

Every profession has somewhere the benefits are better. White collar, blue collar what ever color collar, union and non. Maybe someone makes more in salary and less match in their 401k, thats all on that person. All of my nonunion friends have changed jobs 5-10 times in their lives. All of them seeking better pay and better benefits. Many people look for new jobs because of it. I just happen to like my pay and benefits and have 15 years with the same company. There are not many people under 50 you can say that about these days. BTW there are plenty of nonunion places to work that treat there employees with very good salary and benefits. Including payed sick time, 401k plans with good matches, healthcare at reasonable rates, tuition reimbursement, vacation, you just need to figure out what is best for you.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by TheSpecialist

, you just need to figure out what is best for you.

No, that's not all you need to do. I have a great situation here at work, good 401(k) and all. I will likely have enough to be comfortable. But I WON'T BE ABLE to be comfortable if my property taxes triple in the next 15 years, because someone decided that it's MY RESPONSIBILITY to pay for the facft that union emlpoyees CHOSE, ON THEIR OWN, to underfund their retirement.

If I have to live on what I can accumulate, so can the teachers and cops, right? I'm not any smarter than they are...

[CTSurfrat]

Jim,

Many of your points are completely valid. (Can you believe a teacher is saying this! I'm a conservative in a blue state and surrounded by liberals at work!) You are correct, my 7% plus interest will not cover the money paid out to me during my retirement. My contributions do go to help pay for the teachers who have already retired. And I agree, I have no interest in paying into SS, although I have for years with all the odd and summer jobs I have had. I will never see that money again b/c I will get no SS benefits. I have no confidence it will be there anyway. I also have no confidence that the teacher retirement plan will be there either. As such, I contribute to a 403b - the public sector version of a 401k.

Our health insurance percentage goes up every year, and we have to pay for it all when we retire.

I understand your feelings about funding someone else. I did not get in over my head with my mortgage, why can't I get bailed out or special financing. I don't want to pay for those who made bad decisions.

Many of these benefits for public sector employees were put in place, I believe, when salaries were much less than they are now. There are still many areas of the state with low teacher salaries. Even still, I do think you are correct, if we don't get a handle of some of these unrealistic benefits, we are all in trouble!

My post was not an attempt to say how bad or good teachers have it, it was just to provide some information.

[TheSpecialist]

Originally Posted by CTSurfrat

Jim,

Many of your points are completely valid. (Can you believe a teacher is saying this! I'm a conservative in a blue state and surrounded by liberals at work!) You are correct, my 7% plus interest will not cover the money paid out to me during my retirement. My contributions do go to help pay for the teachers who have already retired. And I agree, I have no interest in paying into SS, although I have for years with all the odd and summer jobs I have had. I will never see that money again b/c I will get no SS benefits. I have no confidence it will be there anyway. I also have no confidence that the teacher retirement plan will be there either. As such, I contribute to a 403b - the public sector version of a 401k.

Our health insurance percentage goes up every year, and we have to pay for it all when we retire.

I understand your feelings about funding someone else. I did not get in over my head with my mortgage, why can't I get bailed out or special financing. I don't want to pay for those who made bad decisions.

Many of these benefits for public sector employees were put in place, I believe, when salaries were much less than they are now. There are still many areas of the state with low teacher salaries. Even still, I do think you are correct, if we don't get a handle of some of these unrealistic benefits, we are all in trouble!

My post was not an attempt to say how bad or good teachers have it, it was just to provide some information.

So will you have a 70,000 dollar a year pension?

[TheSpecialist]

[QUOTE] It public employees want a $70,000 a year pension, than they can figure out, ON THEIR OWN, how to amass that much. If they choose to only put 7% of their pay into their pension, and it turns out that was less than half of what they needed, THAT SHOULD NOT BE MY PROBLEM TO SOLVE.
/QUOTE]


Although these numbers are from 2002, I highly doubt that anyones pension benefit has doubled since then.

If you are talking 70,000/ year pension where are you getting these actual numbers?


TEACHER RETIREMENT COMPARISONS

[CTSurfrat]

Originally Posted by TheSpecialist

So will you have a 70,000 dollar a year pension?

If a teacher earns 100k year after 35 years of teaching, then yes he/she will have a pension of 70k. Most teachers don't make that kind of money! In 2006-2007 year average ct teacher salary was about 61k.

[TheSpecialist]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

Depends on if it's a small business and how established it is. Many small businesses don't have the overhead to provide a substantial match on their 401k.

The cliche union mentality in your post is amusing "if you have an employer who doesn't make any contribution shame on you for allowing that to happen." In the non-unionized world, employers are the ones to set what compensation is and potential employees can accept them or find a different job that compensates the employee in a way the employee feels is appropriate. In the unionized world, the union workers operate as though they are entitled to dictate the terms of their employment and press the employer (or taxpayer) for all that they're worth.

If you worked for someone offering no healthcare would that not be your own fault?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by TheSpecialist

If you worked for someone offering no healthcare would that not be your own fault?

The entire private sector offers no healthcare in retirement.. It's too expensive. That's why prices are where they are, if we offered healthcare for life, the price for everythinhg would double. See, in the real world (private sector) we have to make people WANT to buy our products and services, therefore, we cannot pass excessive costs on to our customers. Keeps things efficient.

In the public unionized world, unions give big $$ to elect politicians, and those politicians then reward the unions with insane perks. The cost of those perks is confiscated from taxpayers with force of law.

Those are irrefutable facts. If I'm wrong, please specify.

[Jim in CT]

[QUOTE=TheSpecialist;899670]

And for that 7% deduction, you get a pension that costs several times what your contributions, and their earnings, could ever pay for. That's where we (taxpayers) get screwed. I put 15% of my pay into my 401(k), and whatever I can accumulate on my own, is what I have to live on. You get to put 7% of your pay into your pension, and your pension is guaranteed. Meaning, when your contributions aren't NEARLY enough to pay for the insane benefits your pension promises, we (taxpayers) have to pay the rest./QUOTE]

Jim are you self employed or do you have an employer?

Even at my last crappy nonunion job 15 years ago, my employer matched the first 6% of what I put into my 401k. If you are self employed thats one thing, if you have an employer who doesn't make any contribution shame on you for allowing that to happen.

My employer matches, and you are missing the point, and the point is this..I need to find a way to live on whatever it is that I manage to accumulate on my own. If I fail to amass much, that is MY PROBLEM, it's not up to the teachers in my town to get second jobs to pay for my retirement.

Public unionized employees have it much, much better. Their pensions are all way underfunded, and when that happens, taxpayers get stuck with a huge bill.

It public employees want a $70,000 a year pension, than they can figure out, ON THEIR OWN, how to amass that much. If they choose to only put 7% of their pay into their pension, and it turns out that was less than half of what they needed, THAT SHOULD NOT BE MY PROBLEM TO SOLVE.

[TheSpecialist]

[QUOTE=Jim in CT;899686]

Originally Posted by TheSpecialist

My employer matches, and you are missing the point, and the point is this..I need to find a way to live on whatever it is that I manage to accumulate on my own. If I fail to amass much, that is MY PROBLEM, it's not up to the teachers in my town to get second jobs to pay for my retirement.

Public unionized employees have it much, much better. Their pensions are all way underfunded, and when that happens, taxpayers get stuck with a huge bill.

It public employees want a $70,000 a year pension, than they can figure out, ON THEIR OWN, how to amass that much. If they choose to only put 7% of their pay into their pension, and it turns out that was less than half of what they needed, THAT SHOULD NOT BE MY PROBLEM TO SOLVE.

I believe the line above covers you position those are your words right?

Your employer contributes to your 401k right, so if he tells you tomorrow he cant contribute anymore are you going to roll over and take it or are you gonna complain or maybe find a different job.

Fact of life everything is more expensive when you retire, just like it was for the people who retired 20 years ago and are still alive today, many with no increase in benefits.

As far as SSI goes, do you think that the SSi plan could handle the influx of public employees across the USA, and not have an across the board increase for all who pay into it? The money would have to come from somewhere, and yes I think that the states probably would pay less than combining a 401k, and ssi payment.