More than 6,400 Mass employees make over $100K

[The Dad Fisherman]

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....

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

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?

[Jim in CT]

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!!

[The Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Fair enough. How about answering my question?

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

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

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?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

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?

[The Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

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

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

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.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

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?

[scottw]

you two should get a room

[The Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

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.

[Fly Rod]

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 in CT]

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

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.