Why can't teachers/cops live with 401(k)'s instead of pensions?

[Piscator]

Originally Posted by Raider Ronnie

I had 2 shop teachers from my high school (blue hills vo tech)
Both of them would be hitting the bottle every day, one of them it was so obvious as he would turn bright red like santa clause !
I was told some years ago that one of them retired on a 100% disability plus his pension.
He claimed students caused him to become an alcoholic so his union felt he should get 100% disability plus his pension !

so it was your fault!

What did you do to him?

[Fly Rod]

Because your elected officials have no balls to bring it to a vote to put city or state workers on a 401K

I have talked to several councillors to do away with pension plans and put the city on 401 K's after a certain date. Keep the present workers on a pension, any new workers hired after starting in 2013 go on their own 401k, the older workers will die off reducing people on a pension.

[Chesapeake Bill]

Originally Posted by Fly Rod

Keep the present workers on a pension, any new workers hired after starting in 2013 go on their own 401k, the older workers will die off reducing people on a pension.

That doesn't reduce the pension demand until they all die off. With today's life expectancies that coul dbe a while. What it does do is require future generations to continue paying for the misdeeds of today's leaders.

Everyone keeps electing these officials who make sweetheart deals and then expect them to find a way to back out of the agreement. I agree that the going forward approach is plausible. However, I wonder how many of those on this thread who speak ill of the workers are willing to sit back and allow someone to blatently cancel an agreement that they had. Let the bank call in your mortgage for no reason and see how fast they claim the rules were changed fo rno reason.

They often say that today's republican was a democrat who got mugged yesterday...

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Chesapeake Bill

Let the bank call in your mortgage for no reason and see how fast they claim the rules were changed fo rno reason.

...

Chesepeake Bill, I am not saying we need to kill pensions "for no reason". Many towns and states, which already have insane tax rates, have no chance of meeting these obligations. So you tell me, what's the choice? Does everyone in the private sector have to work 75 hours a week, so that cops can retire at 45 years old, with a guaranteed pension for life?

I don't blame the cop for the fact that politicians (who only cared about getting the union vote) had no business making that deal. But the fact is, governments don't have nearly enough money to fund those benefits. That's the harsh reality.

Your insinuation that I suggest cutting back is "for no reason" is insulting and deeply offensive. My "reason" is that I don't want to pay $15,000 a year in property taxes for a 3 bedroom house on half an acre. For my house, my current property tax bill of $8,000 feels like more than enough. If municipal employees cannot find a way to live within that level of revenue, that greed shouldn't be forced upon me and my family. Public service is not supposed to be a guaranteed path to wealth and comfort. If cops and teachers want to be wealthy, let them earn it in the private sector.

I respect cops and teachers. However, their financial security is not more important to society than my own financial security.

In another post, someone suggested that teachers would all leave the profession if they did away with pensions. FAT CHANCE. I'd like to see tenured teachers hack it in the private sector, where you have to earn your job every single day, work more hours for significantly less benefits, and not get a raise unless you worked for it.

[Piscator]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

In another post, someone suggested that teachers would all leave the profession if they did away with pensions. FAT CHANCE. I'd like to see tenured teachers hack it in the private sector, where you have to earn your job every single day, work more hours for significantly less benefits, and not get a raise unless you worked for it.

My in-laws both worked for the public sector (Teacher and City Attorney). My wife and I work for in the private sector. My in-laws cannot fathom the fact that we have to travel for work from time to time and be away from home. They've told us they would never do that when they were working and think it's crazy (obviously they are a little old school). They also can't understand that my wife and I work more than "9 to 5" hours. Work issued Black Berries so that you can be contacted at any time are another thing they can’t understand.

On the flip side, they are retired and have a great pension and great Health coverage from the State. I don't want them to lose any of that and since they are retired, I don’t think that should be taken away from them. My point is that the private and public sector are different in many ways. I think it’s gotten a bit out of control and the public sector has a lot of “perks” that are taken for granted that are now expected. As I posted on another thread, it is not sustainable as the only way pensions and high percentages of health coverage can be paid is to continue to increase taxes. The Government isn’t in business to make money and profit so you can’t compare or compete salaries with the private sector.