Who, exactly, supports public unions?

[Jim in CT]

[QUOTE=TheSpecialist;899670]

And for that 7% deduction, you get a pension that costs several times what your contributions, and their earnings, could ever pay for. That's where we (taxpayers) get screwed. I put 15% of my pay into my 401(k), and whatever I can accumulate on my own, is what I have to live on. You get to put 7% of your pay into your pension, and your pension is guaranteed. Meaning, when your contributions aren't NEARLY enough to pay for the insane benefits your pension promises, we (taxpayers) have to pay the rest./QUOTE]

Jim are you self employed or do you have an employer?

Even at my last crappy nonunion job 15 years ago, my employer matched the first 6% of what I put into my 401k. If you are self employed thats one thing, if you have an employer who doesn't make any contribution shame on you for allowing that to happen.

My employer matches, and you are missing the point, and the point is this..I need to find a way to live on whatever it is that I manage to accumulate on my own. If I fail to amass much, that is MY PROBLEM, it's not up to the teachers in my town to get second jobs to pay for my retirement.

Public unionized employees have it much, much better. Their pensions are all way underfunded, and when that happens, taxpayers get stuck with a huge bill.

It public employees want a $70,000 a year pension, than they can figure out, ON THEIR OWN, how to amass that much. If they choose to only put 7% of their pay into their pension, and it turns out that was less than half of what they needed, THAT SHOULD NOT BE MY PROBLEM TO SOLVE.

[TheSpecialist]

[QUOTE=Jim in CT;899686]

Originally Posted by TheSpecialist

My employer matches, and you are missing the point, and the point is this..I need to find a way to live on whatever it is that I manage to accumulate on my own. If I fail to amass much, that is MY PROBLEM, it's not up to the teachers in my town to get second jobs to pay for my retirement.

Public unionized employees have it much, much better. Their pensions are all way underfunded, and when that happens, taxpayers get stuck with a huge bill.

It public employees want a $70,000 a year pension, than they can figure out, ON THEIR OWN, how to amass that much. If they choose to only put 7% of their pay into their pension, and it turns out that was less than half of what they needed, THAT SHOULD NOT BE MY PROBLEM TO SOLVE.

I believe the line above covers you position those are your words right?

Your employer contributes to your 401k right, so if he tells you tomorrow he cant contribute anymore are you going to roll over and take it or are you gonna complain or maybe find a different job.

Fact of life everything is more expensive when you retire, just like it was for the people who retired 20 years ago and are still alive today, many with no increase in benefits.

As far as SSI goes, do you think that the SSi plan could handle the influx of public employees across the USA, and not have an across the board increase for all who pay into it? The money would have to come from somewhere, and yes I think that the states probably would pay less than combining a 401k, and ssi payment.