Who, exactly, supports public unions?

[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?

[TheSpecialist]

[QUOTE]EARTH TO SPECIALIST. In the real world, where people have to earn their money instead of confiscating it through taxes, no one gets healthcare in retirement. It's simply too expensive for any customer to voluntarily absorb that cost. Public union employees force me, through force of law, to give you benefits that NO ONE would voluntarily pay for. Is that fair?
/QUOTE]

You might want to check that fact

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by TheSpecialist

You know we have listened to you bitch about this for two years now. Instead of biotching lay out a proposal that would fix the mess, and be fair to all parties involved. You want to do away with pensions fine, then how do you make the people already working for the government and invested in said pensions whole in order to get rid of the pensions? Your an actuary, you must have a plan?

"Instead of biotching lay out a proposal that would fix the mess"

How about this?

RETIREMENT: Just like everyone else, you put as much into your retirement plan as you choose (with a modest employer match). Whatever you can accumulate over the course of your career, is yours to keep. No more, no less. And everyone takes part in social security. That's how it works for the entire private sector. What could be more fair? But if you suggest that, MSNBC says you're declaring war on the middle class or some such nonesense.

HEALTHCARE: If the entire private scetor pays 30% of the cost of their plans, then you can too. What could be more fair?

Try making that wrong.

[Jim in CT]

[QUOTE=TheSpecialist;899904]

EARTH TO SPECIALIST. In the real world, where people have to earn their money instead of confiscating it through taxes, no one gets healthcare in retirement. It's simply too expensive for any customer to voluntarily absorb that cost. Public union employees force me, through force of law, to give you benefits that NO ONE would voluntarily pay for. Is that fair?
/QUOTE]

You might want to check that fact

Instead of calling me wrong without any support whatsoever, how about telling me where I'm wrong?

I keep asking you guys, if the benefits aren't excessive, why are so many cities and states so underfunded? YOU NEVER TRY TO ANSWER THAT QUESTION.

I don't want to move to South America, which some genius suggested. I want to pay reasonable taxes. I want my public servents to have compensation that is somewhat in line with mine.

[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.

[CTSurfrat]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

"From my district retirees pay about 12k a year for health insurance"

Please sir, tell me the other piece of that, which is, how much do the taxpayers pay for an eaverage health plan for retirees? Are you saying that the retired teacher pays 100% of the cost of the plan? I seriously doubt that.

"We have the option to contribute to a 403b, which is similar to 401k, but there is no matching"

Oh. So you want the taxpayers to match your contribution into your 403b, ON TOP OF GIVING YOU A GUARANTEED PENSION?

Jim,

Slow down! This seems to be a very emotional topic for you. First of all, yes, retirees from my district pay 100% of their health insurance, the district pays NONE of it. Second, I never said I wanted taxpayers to match anything, I just stated the fact that we have 403b plans and that the town does not match at all. I never hinted, insinuated or stated that I wanted them to match the money I contribute.

[TheSpecialist]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

"Instead of biotching lay out a proposal that would fix the mess"

How about this?

RETIREMENT: Just like everyone else, you put as much into your retirement plan as you choose (with a modest employer match). Whatever you can accumulate over the course of your career, is yours to keep. No more, no less. And everyone takes part in social security. That's how it works for the entire private sector. What could be more fair? But if you suggest that, MSNBC says you're declaring war on the middle class or some such nonesense.

HEALTHCARE: If the entire private scetor pays 30% of the cost of their plans, then you can too. What could be more fair?

Try making that wrong.

Great but you didn't answer my question. What would bea fair way to make these people whole, cause it is not fair for them to start with zero. I am not a public employee, and my health care is paid 100%. I am a blue collar worker.

As far as health care you are wrong there are still corporations out there that cover 100% of employee health care, and many that have employees paying less than 30%. You need to stop using broad strokes with your approach.

[TheSpecialist]

[QUOTE=Jim in CT;899908]

Originally Posted by TheSpecialist

Instead of calling me wrong without any support whatsoever, how about telling me where I'm wrong?

I keep asking you guys, if the benefits aren't excessive, why are so many cities and states so underfunded? YOU NEVER TRY TO ANSWER THAT QUESTION.

I don't want to move to South America, which some genius suggested. I want to pay reasonable taxes. I want my public servents to have compensation that is somewhat in line with mine.

I never said I was a genius, whining about a problem, and not putting something substantial forward to the right people is useless. Come up with a real plan, not just give them what we have, everyone knows that what should happen. Where is the transition from what they have now, to getting what we have now. What do you do with the people that have 15 years invested in their pensions that is fair to both sides. I say give them a lumpsum into a 401k, if the feds would allow it.

Here is where you are wrong on healthcare, the retirees for the company I work for get their healthcare covered 100% just like us. There are other companies that do the same, but the majority probably do not. I don't paint with broad strokes see.

[TheSpecialist]

Originally Posted by CTSurfrat

Jim,

Slow down! This seems to be a very emotional topic for you. First of all, yes, retirees from my district pay 100% of their health insurance, the district pays NONE of it. Second, I never said I wanted taxpayers to match anything, I just stated the fact that we have 403b plans and that the town does not match at all. I never hinted, insinuated or stated that I wanted them to match the money I contribute.

Ct Surfrat that takes a big bite out of your pension then, sorry to hear that.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by TheSpecialist

Great but you didn't answer my question. What would bea fair way to make these people whole, cause it is not fair for them to start with zero. I am not a public employee, and my health care is paid 100%. I am a blue collar worker.

As far as health care you are wrong there are still corporations out there that cover 100% of employee health care, and many that have employees paying less than 30%. You need to stop using broad strokes with your approach.

Specialist, can you elaoborate on who is starting "with zero"? EVERYONE starts with $0. That's what happens when you "start". Not sure what you mean by "making them whole". You get "made whole" by socking away enough of your own money to fund your own retirement. That's what most adults are expected to do in th ereal world, so I see no reason why union folk cannot get on board.

You are trying to refute my healthcare opinion by suggesting that some people get 100% of their healthcare paid for? Specialist, you cannot manage to such a rare exception. Some people also win the lottery, but that's not a viable strategy for the majority of us. When I say "all", can we assume that if I'm right for 98% of the group, that's close enough? Nit-picking isn't debate. I guess when you know you don't have facts or common sense that can justify the cost of the benefits, all you can do is dodge and dodge and dodge...

[TheSpecialist]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Specialist, can you elaoborate on who is starting "with zero"? EVERYONE starts with $0. That's what happens when you "start". Not sure what you mean by "making them whole". You get "made whole" by socking away enough of your own money to fund your own retirement. That's what most adults are expected to do in th ereal world, so I see no reason why union folk cannot get on board.

You are trying to refute my healthcare opinion by suggesting that some people get 100% of their healthcare paid for? Specialist, you cannot manage to such a rare exception. Some people also win the lottery, but that's not a viable strategy for the majority of us. When I say "all", can we assume that if I'm right for 98% of the group, that's close enough? Nit-picking isn't debate. I guess when you know you don't have facts or common sense that can justify the cost of the benefits, all you can do is dodge and dodge and dodge...

New employees start with zero that is fine, but what would you do with current tenured employees? You are stating take away their pensions and start them with zero? I am saying based on years of service give them a lumpsum into a 401k plan to equal what they would earn if you freeze their pensions today. Then all pesions would be null and void. All most everyone would be happy clams. The taxpayers because there would be no more pensions, and the people who would lose them would be bought out of them and given a substantial start to their 401k.

If your employer came to you tomorrow and said, "Jim business is down and I can no longer contribute to your 401k, and any contributions I have already made I will be taking back." Would you be ok with that?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by TheSpecialist

New employees start with zero that is fine, but what would you do with current tenured employees? You are stating take away their pensions and start them with zero? I am saying based on years of service give them a lumpsum into a 401k plan to equal what they would earn if you freeze their pensions today. Then all pesions would be null and void. All most everyone would be happy clams. The taxpayers because there would be no more pensions, and the people who would lose them would be bought out of them and given a substantial start to their 401k.

If your employer came to you tomorrow and said, "Jim business is down and I can no longer contribute to your 401k, and any contributions I have already made I will be taking back." Would you be ok with that?

Sorry, you did clear that up...

"what would you do with current tenured employees? You are stating take away their pensions and start them with zero? "

No, you don't wipe away what people already have vested in their pensions. YOu transition them gradually from pensions to 401(k)s. This is precisely what happened to almost the entire private scetor, 20 years ago. No rational person would just erase what you have already accrued. That is an important point to make clear, so it was good you thought of that.

I have never heard anyone suggest that any contributions be taken back. I'm saying union folk cannot contribute 5% of their pay toward a pension that gives them 70% of their salary for the rest of their lives. You either need to drastically increase the employee contribution, or decrease the benefit. That is mathematical fact. I don't LIKE THAT by the way, but I accept it as unfortunate truth. Liberals would say that means I hate the middle class, which is insane.

[TheSpecialist]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Sorry, you did clear that up...

"what would you do with current tenured employees? You are stating take away their pensions and start them with zero? "

No, you don't wipe away what people already have vested in their pensions. YOu transition them gradually from pensions to 401(k)s. This is precisely what happened to almost the entire private scetor, 20 years ago. No rational person would just erase what you have already accrued. That is an important point to make clear, so it was good you thought of that.

I have never heard anyone suggest that any contributions be taken back. I'm saying union folk cannot contribute 5% of their pay toward a pension that gives them 70% of their salary for the rest of their lives. You either need to drastically increase the employee contribution, or decrease the benefit. That is mathematical fact. I don't LIKE THAT by the way, but I accept it as unfortunate truth. Liberals would say that means I hate the middle class, which is insane.

Fair Enough.