Pensions

Blister

Active Member
Honestly how many people would offer to renegotiate a nice fat pension that you are, or soon will be receiving? All of these were negotiated, legally binding contracts signed by the city officials. The unions can't get anything that is not agreed to by management. The problem is when politicians agree to give away taxpayers money, and like the article says they are long gone before the bill comes due. In the private sector company management is responsible to stockholders, and they have to justify pension, and overall compensation costs to retain employees that would be more expensive to replace.
 

Grumpy

Well-Known Member
In the private sector company management is responsible to stockholders, and they have to justify pension, and overall compensation costs to retain employees that would be more expensive to replace.

Really doesn't matter private or govt, if the pension is set up counting on retirement at 65, with caveats for retiring earlier, and most retire at 58, the company's contributions to the pension were based on 7 more years...and it all comes crashing down..
 

PeoplesElbow

Well-Known Member
Just found out New York State does not tax pensions from the federal government, problem is you have to live in NY State.
 

tommyjo

New Member
Really doesn't matter private or govt, if the pension is set up counting on retirement at 65, with caveats for retiring earlier, and most retire at 58, the company's contributions to the pension were based on 7 more years...and it all comes crashing down..

It really helps if you understand how a pension works. If an employee retires prior to full vesting in the pension, they receive less.

As for Gilligan's post, it would help if one understands the pension landscape. The two pensions that were mentioned in the first paragraph of the typical Gilligan type article are outliers not the norm. While unfunded pensions are a problem, they are not the problem as made out in the article. First off, most public pensions have been reformulated going all the way back to the late 80s (Fed employees under CSRS know how much better their benefit is than those under FERS). MD increased employee contributions 5 or so years ago.

There are underfunded pensions but they are not of the sort that create a systematic danger to the economy as the idiotic author implied with his asinine "next bubble to burst" comment.

This isn't just a union problem, as the idiotic article also implied. Retirees are living longer and we had a financial crisis that impacted pension funds initially and continues due to the low interest rate environment.

Having said that, public employee unions should be barred from political activity. They should be banned from campaigning or contributing to campaigns...they should be banned from endorsing candidates. It is not in the public interest for the union to help pick those who will negotiate contracts on the publics behalf.
 

Gilligan

#*! boat!
PREMO Member
Last edited:

stgislander

Well-Known Member
PREMO Member
It really helps if you understand how a pension works. If an employee retires prior to full vesting in the pension, they receive less.

As for Gilligan's post, it would help if one understands the pension landscape. The two pensions that were mentioned in the first paragraph of the typical Gilligan type article are outliers not the norm. While unfunded pensions are a problem, they are not the problem as made out in the article. First off, most public pensions have been reformulated going all the way back to the late 80s (Fed employees under CSRS know how much better their benefit is than those under FERS). MD increased employee contributions 5 or so years ago.

There are underfunded pensions but they are not of the sort that create a systematic danger to the economy as the idiotic author implied with his asinine "next bubble to burst" comment.

This isn't just a union problem, as the idiotic article also implied. Retirees are living longer and we had a financial crisis that impacted pension funds initially and continues due to the low interest rate environment.

Having said that, public employee unions should be barred from political activity. They should be banned from campaigning or contributing to campaigns...they should be banned from endorsing candidates. It is not in the public interest for the union to help pick those who will negotiate contracts on the publics behalf.

Hmmm, idiotic author... Stephen Moore's credentials look pretty impressive. Oh wait... I see his advanced Economics degree is from George Mason. Where is your advanced Econ degree from ToJo?
 

Larry Gude

Strung Out
Having said that, public employee unions should be barred from political activity. They should be banned from campaigning or contributing to campaigns...they should be banned from endorsing candidates. It is not in the public interest for the union to help pick those who will negotiate contracts on the publics behalf.

Outstanding. :clap:
 

Gilligan

#*! boat!
PREMO Member
Did you not read her last paragraph???

Sure. So what? She's a drive-by moron who occasionally slips up and spews something rational. But that was entirely irrelevant vapor considering that any reform of that nature is about as likely as my Mars mission succeeding.
 
Last edited:

Larry Gude

Strung Out
Why do you people always suggest someone should give up their constitutional rights to make you happy?

Could you direct me to the part where it says I have a right to your money? What other way is there to describe a public service union that is in charge of what they get paid?
 

Merlin99

Visualize whirled peas
PREMO Member
Could you direct me to the part where it says I have a right to your money? What other way is there to describe a public service union that is in charge of what they get paid?
It doesn't say that, but it does have a section on free speech.
 

PeoplesElbow

Well-Known Member
It doesn't say that, but it does have a section on free speech.

Unions do not have constitutional rights, however every single individual in that union does and it would do nothing to bar every single individual in that union from donating, but we all know most wouldn't so they have to be forced to donate through the union whether they agree with the chosen candidate or not.
 

Merlin99

Visualize whirled peas
PREMO Member
Unions do not have constitutional rights, however every single individual in that union does and it would do nothing to bar every single individual in that union from donating, but we all know most wouldn't so they have to be forced to donate through the union whether they agree with the chosen candidate or not.
According to the SC you're wrong, a union, a PAC or a HOA have essentially the same rights as Cyrus Granger as far as free speech is concerned. I do agree with your assessment of people donating to unions, but that's a completely different issue.
 

Merlin99

Visualize whirled peas
PREMO Member
I'm fine with the free speech part. I'm not fine with the part where public service unions control how much they get. Is it OK for me to say that?

Sure why not. As long as you're complaining about someone complaining about how much they get, why not complain about congress, state assemblies, county commissioners..., who also get to determine their own salaries.
 
Top