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

[RIROCKHOUND]

Jim,

I think Ted was asking if you get a pension from your service in the USMC.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

Jim,

I think Ted was asking if you get a pension from your service in the USMC.

No pension.

I will say this. If I did receive a pension, I would take it, i wouldn't burn the money. But if it was put to a vote, I would vote to abolish pensions.

My wife will likely receive some kind of pension. We'll take it, because we did pay into it with our own money, but I don't think it's fair. And I would support any politician who agreed with me.

I wish we all had enough money to give teachers and cops a blank check, I really do. But the fact is, we don't.

[RIROCKHOUND]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

No pension.

I will say this. If I did receive a pension, I would take it, i wouldn't burn the money. But if it was put to a vote, I would vote to abolish pensions.

My wife will likely receive some kind of pension. We'll take it, because we did pay into it with our own money, but I don't think it's fair.

Fair enough.

thanks for the answer

[Chesapeake Bill]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

I will say this. If I did receive a pension, I would take it, i wouldn't burn the money.

Comes across as hypocritical IMHO. A sort of, "I can't have it so neither can you" approach. Not that you meant it that way but rather the way the words read.

[likwid]

Military Retired Pay Overview - Military Benefits - Military.com

Military has quite a few different pension/retirement pay systems.

Seems a bit better than having to wait till you're 55 too!

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by likwid

Military Retired Pay Overview - Military Benefits - Military.com

Military has quite a few different pension/retirement pay systems.

Seems a bit better than having to wait till you're 55 too!

Likwid, I am as opposed to pensions for veterans as I am opposed to pensions for everyine else. In my opinion, pensions so expensive that they represent an unreasonable burden on the customer (taxpayer).

The fact that the only entities that still offer pensions are all going bankrupt, seems to support my opinion.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Chesapeake Bill

Comes across as hypocritical IMHO. A sort of, "I can't have it so neither can you" approach. Not that you meant it that way but rather the way the words read.

Bill, I guess it does sound hypocritical. But if a pension is all that is offered to cops, I don't begrudge them for taking it...after all, if a 401(k) isn't an option, then I don't expect cops to turn down the only retirement vehicle available to them. That's reasonable, don't you think?

I will do all I cam here in my town (as will my wife) to try to get pensions abolished. We live in a democracy. If the majprity of the citizenry votes to keep pensions, I realize I have to live with that. That's democracy.

I said before, I don't begrudge anyone for accepting pensions that are offered to them. I do, however, take exception with those who support keeping those pensions around. Given the deficits that states and towns are facing, I just don't see how you justify pensions. In fact, I've asked dozens of times on this thread why cops are entitled to pensions, and NOT ONE person has offered any shred of support. Not one. Zip. Zilch. Nada. Bupkus.

No one has said "I think pensions are better than 401(k)s because..."

That tells me that even the folks here who disagree with me are totally unable to explain why. Amazing. Why does one support a posiiton that you cannot begin to explain?

[The Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

In fact, I've asked dozens of times on this thread why cops are entitled to pensions, and NOT ONE person has offered any shred of support. Not one. Zip. Zilch. Nada. Bupkus.

I'm pretty sure I answered that question......

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

I would keep the pensions in place for those who were hired under that plan. These were the benefits packages that were offered them when they accepted the job, so they need to be honored. Going forward w/ new hires I would go to a 401k scenario.

[Slipknot]

thanks for the info scott, shows how little I know

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Slipknot

thanks for the info scott, shows how little I know

I don't think that's the case, I think the depth of the problem escapes most people as well as many politicians, there's an assumption that government will always produce the revenue to fund whatever is needed....those existing within the safe bubble created by the dependence on govt. for their revenue stream assume it can't and will not end...fact is...in the real world, the sources of these incomes(pension funds, social security, other "entitlements" etc.) would be bankrupt entities and the entitled would be out of luck....the governments at every level have overspent themselves to the point that these "obligations" are not only unfunded but operating in the red and completely dependent on funding from current collections to pay current obligations rather than drawing from any previous contributions from current recipients(in otherwords...you(you meaning anyone not you specifically) may have contributed all you life but you are being paid with the contributions from people currently paying in...it's not your contributed money that you are getting back with interest).....don't know what those currently making contributiuons have to look forward to but I do know that Bernie Maidoff would be very, very proud

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Slipknot

thanks for the info scott, shows how little I know

Here in CT, the current shortfall for pension and healthcare benefits to municipal employees is $34 billion, which works out to $10,000 for every human being in the state. $50,000 for my soon-to-be family of five.

Here's what that means. Even though CT has one of the top 3 tax rates in the nation, and even though we get zillions of dollars a year from the casinos, the politicians have still overspent on the union benefits by $10,000 per person.

Slipknot, should every person in the state of CT really have to fork over another $10k (on top of tax rates that are already insane) so that a miniscule number of people can keep benefits that simply don't exist anywhere else?

Swimmer would say yes. In that case, maybe he would be willing to write the state a check for $50k on behalf of my family. Because as much respect as I have for cops, I don't believe that their financial security is THAT much more important than anyone else's financial security.

In my opinion, it's perfectly reasonable to ask public servents to find a way to live with what they currently take from us. If the current spending levels are $10,000 too high per person, the problem isn't that we aren't paying enough taxes, the problem is that we have no control in spending.

Put it this way. Mike Tyson is bankrupt. Is that because he didn't get paid enough? Or is it because he was irresponsible with the money he had? Our politicians have been every bit as reckless with our money, as Mike Tyson was with his.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

I'm pretty sure I answered that question......

Actually, what you said was that we should switch them to 401(k)s. There are some folks here who say that the pension structure should be kept in place. Not one of them has been able to tell us why that position is better for society. I get why it's better for them personally...but I'm concerned about everyone...

[TheSpecialist]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Bill, I guess it does sound hypocritical. But if a pension is all that is offered to cops, I don't begrudge them for taking it...after all, if a 401(k) isn't an option, then I don't expect cops to turn down the only retirement vehicle available to them. That's reasonable, don't you think?

I will do all I cam here in my town (as will my wife) to try to get pensions abolished. We live in a democracy. If the majprity of the citizenry votes to keep pensions, I realize I have to live with that. That's democracy.

I said before, I don't begrudge anyone for accepting pensions that are offered to them. I do, however, take exception with those who support keeping those pensions around. Given the deficits that states and towns are facing, I just don't see how you justify pensions. In fact, I've asked dozens of times on this thread why cops are entitled to pensions, and NOT ONE person has offered any shred of support. Not one. Zip. Zilch. Nada. Bupkus.

No one has said "I think pensions are better than 401(k)s because..."

That tells me that even the folks here who disagree with me are totally unable to explain why. Amazing. Why does one support a posiiton that you cannot begin to explain?

Unless the companies pull something shady they are pretty much guaranteed or more stable, where as the 401k can take a nose dove on you as it has recently. Many people who would have retired in the last couple of years h with 401k are now having to work to make up the losses.

[likwid]

Originally Posted by TheSpecialist

Unless the companies pull something shady they are pretty much guaranteed or more stable, where as the 401k can take a nose dove on you as it has recently. Many people who would have retired in the last couple of years h with 401k are now having to work to make up the losses.

401k's
stock options
etc etc etc

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by TheSpecialist

Unless the companies pull something shady they are pretty much guaranteed or more stable, where as the 401k can take a nose dove on you as it has recently. Many people who would have retired in the last couple of years h with 401k are now having to work to make up the losses.

That's debatable and only guaranteed due the feds pension bailout system.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by TheSpecialist

Unless the companies pull something shady they are pretty much guaranteed or more stable, where as the 401k can take a nose dove on you as it has recently. Many people who would have retired in the last couple of years h with 401k are now having to work to make up the losses.

If you are close to retirement age, you should know not to have most of your 401(k) in stocks, because you don't have th etime to recover from losses.

But again, you're telling me why pensions are better than 401(k)s for the folks receiving them, and we all get that.But why are pensions better than 401(k)s for everyone, including the folks who get stuck with the bill? Why is society better off if we all have to make enormous sacrifices just so that a small number of people can have pensions?