Quote:
Originally Posted by TheSpecialist
but our friend Jim would have everyone believe that these people all earn a pension close to what their salary is, and that simply is not the case. Also in many cases these people are paying large payments for health insurance in their retirement.
Is the pension system out of control and costly , sure but what is the cheaper alternative. If they instituted 401k plans, than the employer would no doubt end up with a matching contribution of some sort. This would be a taxpayer cost. Also I believe these teachers would also then have to pay into SSi, as would their employer, and they would then receive benefits , another taxpayer cost.
|
Specialist, you are either ignorant or biased.
"Jim would have everyone believe that these people all earn a pension close to what their salary is"
I never said any such thing. The pension payout is what, a % of their highest 3 years, or something? All I'm saying is, whatever the promised benefits are, the resulting debt proves that the benefits are simply too rich. Here in CT, the unfunded liabilities for retirement asnd healthcare benefits are $34 billion, which is $10,000 per person. Either our taxes are way too low (no one is saying that), or the benrfits are too rich. What other possibility is there?
"these people are paying large payments for health insurance in their retirement"
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?
"If they instituted 401k plans, than the employer would no doubt end up with a matching contribution of some sort. This would be a taxpayer cost. "
You need to get SOME FACTS before you form your opinions, sir. Yes, 401(k) contributions involve a cost, but that cost IS A PITTANCE compared to the cost of a guaranteed pension. For God's sake man, why on earth do you think the enitre non-union world switched to 401(k)'s 20 years ago? Because it was CHEAPER.
You have no idea what you're talking about. None.
"Also I believe these teachers would also then have to pay into SSi, as would their employer, and they would then receive benefits , another taxpayer cost"
Oh. So you are suggesting that teachers MADE A SACRIFICE by opting out of social security? You're saying it's CHEAPER for society to give teachers pensions, than it is for them to participate in social security?
Do you ever get tired of being so unbelievably wrong? Seriously? You really, really think that guaranteed pensions cost taxpayers LESS than social security?