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

[RIROCKHOUND]

I don't think many people have said, pensions are better.

However, significant disagreements come when you start messing with agreed upon benefits and contracts of current employees. I think one answer is what many towns are doing; minimum ages and longer minimum service times for younger personnel, and new hires. You cannot penalize those that are retired or are close to retirement, who had planned accordingly. Few of us have said anything to the contrary, but you browbeat and demand answers that makes most of us not want to respond with anything logical and thoughtful.

And Jim, the Obama-civility comment is beneath you. You take an event from a > year ago, and comments made last month as proof of him talking out of his mouth. The paraphrase of his line on civility is that 'I need to be better, and we need to be better' in reference to living up to the deceased girls ideals in the close of the Tuscon speech. I choose to read this as he admits he has acted and said things he regrets now. you see it as two-faced. whatever. back to my la-la mental defective land....

[Slipknot]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

But if I want to run for office, I need to control my temper. My wife reminds me of that constantly.

there is always a good woman behind their husband politician.

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

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

I think pensions are better than 401K's because you don't have to worry about the stock market tanking.

pretty simple to me

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Slipknot

I think pensions are better than 401K's because you don't have to worry about the stock market tanking.

pretty simple to me

most states have massive unfunded pension liabitlities...the pension funds "have tanked"

LA Times
California's $500-billion pension time bomb

The staggering amount of unfunded debt stands to crowd out funding for many popular programs. Reform will take something sadly lacking in the Legislature: political courage.

By David Crane

The state of California's real unfunded pension debt clocks in at more than $500 billion, nearly eight times greater than officially reported.

That's the finding from a study released Monday by Stanford University's public policy program, confirming a recent report with similar, stunning findings from Northwestern University and the University of Chicago.

Unsustainable Pensions
To put that number in perspective, it's almost seven times greater than all the outstanding voter-approved state general obligation bonds in California.

Why should Californians care? Because this year's unfunded pension liability is next year's budget cut to important programs. For a glimpse of California's budgetary future, look no further than the $5.5 billion diverted this year from higher education, transit, parks and other programs in order to pay just a tiny bit toward current unfunded pension and healthcare promises. That figure is set to triple within 10 years and -- absent reform -- to continue to grow, crowding out funding for many programs vital to the overwhelming majority of Californians.

How did we get here? The answer is simple: For decades -- and without voter consent -- state leaders have been issuing billions of dollars of debt in the form of unfunded pension and healthcare promises, then gaming accounting rules in order to understate the size of those promises.
.................................

January 31, 2011

California tax-supported debt balloons to $137B as Moody’s treats unfunded pension liability as bond debt

Moody’s, a leading credit rating agency, says it has begun treating unfunded pension liabilities like bond debt “giving California a combiners tax-supported debt of $136.9 billion.”
According to Moody’s press release, “Pensions have always had an important place in our analysis of states, but we looked separately at tax-supported bonds and pension funds in our published financial ratios,” says Moody’s analyst Ted Hampton. “Presenting combined debt and pension figures offers a more integrated — and timely — view of states’ total obligations.”

.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Slipknot

there is always a good woman behind their husband politician.



I think pensions are better than 401K's because you don't have to worry about the stock market tanking.

pretty simple to me

"there is always a good woman behind their husband politician."

I am the luckiest guy in the world in that regard...

"I think pensions are better than 401K's because you don't have to worry about the stock market tanking"

OK, I agree with you that pensions are better for the people who receive them. But in case you didn't know this already, that money has to come from somewhere. So what about the tax burden on those who have to pay for them? You left that part out. As I said before, most major entities that still offer guaranteed pensions (social security, municipalities, and the auto industry) are facing staggering deficits and bankruptcy. Doesn't that suggest that perhaps the promised payouts are un-realistic?

Politicians have known this for decades. But they want union votes, so they say "yes" to everything the unions ask for, because the politicians know they'll be retired in Grand Cayman by the time the Ponzi scheme (and make no mistake, that's what these pensions are)implodes. Well, the Ponzi scheme is imploding. We can triple property taxes to keep paying these benefits, or we can ask these folks to live with the same benefits we have to live with. Those are the 2 choices.

I would be happy to pay more taxes if that's what cops needed to avoid living in a trailer. I don't want my taxes to triple so that they can have a guaranteed path to wealth. People who go into public service are not supposed to get rich on the backs of those they claim to serve. Public service is supposed to be about service, not guaranteed benefit pensions.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

I don't think many people have said, pensions are better.

However, significant disagreements come when you start messing with agreed upon benefits and contracts of current employees. I think one answer is what many towns are doing; minimum ages and longer minimum service times for younger personnel, and new hires. You cannot penalize those that are retired or are close to retirement, who had planned accordingly. Few of us have said anything to the contrary, but you browbeat and demand answers that makes most of us not want to respond with anything logical and thoughtful.

And Jim, the Obama-civility comment is beneath you. You take an event from a > year ago, and comments made last month as proof of him talking out of his mouth. The paraphrase of his line on civility is that 'I need to be better, and we need to be better' in reference to living up to the deceased girls ideals in the close of the Tuscon speech. I choose to read this as he admits he has acted and said things he regrets now. you see it as two-faced. whatever. back to my la-la mental defective land....

"significant disagreements come when you start messing with agreed upon benefits and contracts of current employees"

I agree, it's a rough thing to switch from a pension to a 401(k), and I do not take that lightly. However, 95% of us in the private sector made that switch 15 years ago, and we all managed to survive. I see no reason why cops and teachers would be less able to survive that switch.

"You cannot penalize those that are retired or are close to retirement, who had planned accordingly."

You are 100% correct. I've never heard anyone suggest that the switch should apply to current retirees or to those so close to retirement that they have no time to respond. It should only apply to younger workers.

However, even in the case of current retirees, what if the promised benefits are so fat that the citizens literally cannot afford them? I don't want to hurt retirees. But you can't triple property taxes either, right? That hurts everybody. We need to do what's fair and equitable for all of us, not the select few who are in unions.

"You take an event from a > year ago, and comments made last month as proof of him talking out of his mouth."

OK, a few weeks ago he said that Republicans should have to "sit in the back of the bus". Is that recent enough? Is that civilized dialogue? I'm sorry if this upsets you, but I don't recognize Obama's right to ask for civility. I picked one of my favorite examples, but there are many more recent.

[scottw]

[QUOTE=Jim in CT;835824 select few who are in unions.

"You take an event from a > year ago, and comments made last month as proof of him talking out of his mouth."

OK, a few weeks ago he said that Republicans should have to "sit in the back of the bus". Is that recent enough? Is that civilized dialogue? I'm sorry if this upsets you, but I don't recognize Obama's right to ask for civility. I picked one of my favorite examples, but there are many more recent.[/QUOTE]

there was the "hostage taker" beauty as well, there will be more...he can't help himself.....he's the least civil president I can remember