Why can't teachers/cops live with 401(k)'s instead of pensions?

[likwid]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Likwid, if property taxes double in 6 years because teachers refuse to accept the economic realities that face the rest of us, then that guy making $50k isn't necessarily living beyond his means. he just had no way of knowing that his teachers are completely unwilling to live on the tax revenue that he can provide.

It's the unions that won't live within the means that the public can reasonably provide.

I don't know of a business that isn't cutting exoenses. That being said, it's extremely rare for a town budget to decrease from year to year, it almost never happens.

Property taxes going up has been well discussed in the grumpy old farts forum, I believe you contributed to that discussion?

We'll say joe bob's property taxes were 1500, and in 6 years went up to 3000.
If he can't afford that, there's something wrong with him. Not the town.

I'm amazed at the number of people so quick to blame their financial woes on everyone but themselves.
Why hasn't joe bob looked for a better job?
Why hasn't joe bob bettered himself (whether it be via schooling or some other means) in that 6 years to either get paid more or find a better job?

[scottw]

Originally Posted by likwid

I'm amazed at the number of people so quick to blame their financial woes on everyone but themselves.
Why hasn't joe bob looked for a better job?
Why hasn't joe bob bettered himself (whether it be via schooling or some other means) in that 6 years to either get paid more or find a better job?

that would be a great argument the next time they want to extend unemployment and borrow even more money to do so


maybe joe bob recognizes that he is working much harder to fund a bloated, inefficient, bankrupt behemoth at the local, state and federal level and is also aware that many of those that he is funding are working much less, with embarassing results and getting far more in terms of pay and benefits than he or they could ever get in the real world....

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by likwid

Property taxes going up has been well discussed in the grumpy old farts forum, I believe you contributed to that discussion?

We'll say joe bob's property taxes were 1500, and in 6 years went up to 3000.
If he can't afford that, there's something wrong with him. Not the town.

I'm amazed at the number of people so quick to blame their financial woes on everyone but themselves.
Why hasn't joe bob looked for a better job?
Why hasn't joe bob bettered himself (whether it be via schooling or some other means) in that 6 years to either get paid more or find a better job?

"We'll say joe bob's property taxes were 1500, and in 6 years went up to 3000.
If he can't afford that, there's something wrong with him. Not the town."

Likwid, if Joebob isn't as fortunate as me, he might work for a company that is freezing raises. On top of that, everyone's medical insurance costs more. So if Joebob is forced to live with less, why do unionized employees always, always get more.

As I said likwid, I am fortunate enough to be able to pay whatever they want to tax me, my kids are still fine. But please re-read the question at the title of this thread. If teachers, cops, etc switched to 401(k)'s, property taxes could be reduced significantly. Instead of calling me a crybaby, how about answering the first question I asked...why can't teachers and cops live with 401(k)'s like the rest of us? What is the reason? Anyone?

In my town, the first education proposed budget for this year called for a 4% increase in spending over last year, and the teachers union is talking about all the sacrifices they made to keep the increase at 4% (still keeping their pensions, naturally).

The amount teachers receive ought to be proportional to the amount that the public has available to give them. And collectively, we don't have 4% more than last year, we have less. But their budgets never, ever, ever decrease.

Finally likwid, how come you never address my repeated point about current debt levels. If what we pay these parasites isn't excessive, why are so many municipalities in so much debt, that their bond ratings are being downgraded? If CT takes in enormous tax ravenue, plus gazillions from the casinos, and we still have the highest debt (per citizen) in the country, doesn't that necessarily mean we spent recklessly?

You like to make fun of Joebob, Likwid. But he knows something that you (and certainly teachers unions) have not figured out yet...whatever you have, you need to spend less.

[scottw]

States Warned of $2 Trillion Pensions Shortfall
Published: Tuesday, 18 Jan 2011 | 4:51 AM ET Text Size By: Nicole Bullock, Financial Times
Twitter LinkedInMore Share
US public pensions face a shortfall of $2,500 billion that will force state and local governments to sell assets and make deep cuts to services, according to the former chairman of New Jersey’s pension fund.

News Headlines

hey, didn't these unions spend all of their pension money getting democrats elected?

Campaign's Big Spender
Public-Employees Union Now Leads All Groups in Independent Election Outlays.

By BRODY MULLINS And JOHN D. MCKINNON

The American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees is now the biggest outside spender of the 2010 elections, thanks to an 11th-hour effort to boost Democrats that has vaulted the public-sector union ahead of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the AFL-CIO and a flock of new Republican groups in campaign spending.

AFSCME, the public-employees union, has vaulted ahead of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce to become the largest campaign spender of 2010.

The 1.6 million-member AFSCME is spending a total of $87.5 million on the elections after tapping into a $16 million emergency account to help fortify the Democrats' hold on Congress. Last week, AFSCME dug deeper, taking out a $2 million loan to fund its push. The group is spending money on television advertisements, phone calls, campaign mailings and other political efforts, helped by a Supreme Court decision that loosened restrictions on campaign spending.

"We're the big dog," said Larry Scanlon, the head of AFSCME's political operations. "But we don't like to brag."

The 2010 election could be pivotal for public-sector unions, whose clout helped shield members from the worst of the economic downturn. In the 2009 stimulus and other legislation, Democratic lawmakers sent more than $160 billion in federal cash to states, aimed in large part at preventing public-sector layoffs.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by scottw

States Warned of $2 Trillion Pensions Shortfall
Published: Tuesday, 18 Jan 2011 | 4:51 AM ET Text Size By: Nicole Bullock, Financial Times
Twitter LinkedInMore Share
US public pensions face a shortfall of $2,500 billion that will force state and local governments to sell assets and make deep cuts to services, according to the former chairman of New Jersey’s pension fund.

[/B].

$2.5 trillion in pension shortfall. There are 300 million people living in this country, so that works out to $8,333 for every person living here.

Are there really a lot of people here who feel that asking for another $8,333 per person, on top of the taxes you currently pay, is reasonable? And bear in mind this is just the PENSION shortfall. In CT at least, the healthcare benefit shortfall is higher than the pension shortfall, so you can bet that what you owe is significantly more than $8,333 per person. These are contractual obligations that are unfunded, so these union members are expecting that money. which is guaranteed by contract (until municipalities declare bankruptcy, which gives them the legal right to re-negotiate.

And faced with this crisis, voters in CT went even heavier in favor of Democrats. Unbelievable.

And the federal unfunded obligations for social security and medicare? Those are in the tens of trillions. According to Likwid, if you take issue with any of this, you are a crybaby who can't make his own way in life.

[likwid]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

"We'll say joe bob's property taxes were 1500, and in 6 years went up to 3000.
If he can't afford that, there's something wrong with him. Not the town."

Likwid, if Joebob isn't as fortunate as me, he might work for a company that is freezing raises. On top of that, everyone's medical insurance costs more. So if Joebob is forced to live with less, why do unionized employees always, always get more.

Poor joe,he should be worrying about himself, not what unions are doing. Maybe joe should have started looking for a new job! But hey, if joe just wants to sit in the same place, complain and whine about how horrible the world is to him, whatever, his problem, not anyone else's.

As I said likwid, I am fortunate enough to be able to pay whatever they want to tax me, my kids are still fine. But please re-read the question at the title of this thread. If teachers, cops, etc switched to 401(k)'s, property taxes could be reduced significantly. Instead of calling me a crybaby, how about answering the first question I asked...why can't teachers and cops live with 401(k)'s like the rest of us? What is the reason? Anyone?

Why should they?

In my town, the first education proposed budget for this year called for a 4% increase in spending over last year, and the teachers union is talking about all the sacrifices they made to keep the increase at 4% (still keeping their pensions, naturally).

Please itemize the 4% here for us. Thanks.

The amount teachers receive ought to be proportional to the amount that the public has available to give them. And collectively, we don't have 4% more than last year, we have less. But their budgets never, ever, ever decrease.

How many kids did the school's population increase by?

Finally likwid, how come you never address my repeated point about current debt levels. If what we pay these parasites isn't excessive, why are so many municipalities in so much debt, that their bond ratings are being downgraded? If CT takes in enormous tax ravenue, plus gazillions from the casinos, and we still have the highest debt (per citizen) in the country, doesn't that necessarily mean we spent recklessly?

We all know CT is screwed, has been screwed, will always be screwed. For the amount of time you spend complaining about it, maybe its time to move to somewhere better? I've done it. You can too!

You like to make fun of Joebob, Likwid. But he knows something that you (and certainly teachers unions) have not figured out yet...whatever you have, you need to spend less.

Joebob was never made fun of, just his own hypocrisy pointed out. Maybe he should stop complaining, stand up, and do something for himself for once instead of complaining about others?

And I believe, I have a leg up on Joebob, I live within my means.

I'd be really careful how much you complain about unions around here, a large portion of the members are union.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by likwid

Why should they?

You know what Likwid? That's a fair question. And unlike what you do to my posts, I will respond directly to this fair question. (whereas you dodge and insult, and ask other questions)

Likwid asks, why should teachers and cops switch to 401(k)'s.

20 years ago, the entire private sector (which, unlike teachers, must make people WANT to buy their services) realized that pensions were not sustainable. There was no way that private businesses could ask their customers to absorb those costs (by the way, that's one o fthe reasons GM couldn't compete with the Japanese car companies; something liek $3,000 was added to the cost of every American car because of union demands). So the private sector switched to 401(k)s.

The public sector SERVES THE PUBLIC. The public sector, by definition, does not create wealth, it takes wealth away from the public they serve. Therefore, it stands to reason that public sector benefits be somewhat in line (or slightly less than) private sector benefits.

In other words, if the private sector cannot get away with passing pension costs onto its customers, why should the public sector be able to FORCE those same costs on to us? By what logic are pensions less painful to pay for in the public sector, than the private sector?

Finally likwid, you ask why they should switch? Did you read Scott W's post above? Pensions are bankrupting most states. They should switch because, OBVIOUSLY, there isn't enough money to continue to fund pensions.

I think I've answered your question directly. For once, how about you return the courtesy? WHAT IS THE REASON WHY PUBLIC SECTOR FOLKS GET TO HANG ONTO ANTIQUATED BENEFITS THAT EVERYONE ELSE REALIZED, 20 YEARS AGO, WERE TOO EXPENSIVE TO BE SUSTAINABLE? Why is it reasonable for public unionized employees to force costs upon us, that no one would voluntarily pay for?

I await your reply sir.

[Chesapeake Bill]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

The public sector SERVES THE PUBLIC. The public sector, by definition, does not create wealth, it takes wealth away from the public they serve.

In what dictionary? Is there a special one for actuaries that the rest of us are not aware of? Define "creating wealth" and then explain why a stimulus package was necessary and what purpose the National Science Foundation or DARPA serves if not to create wealth through research?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Chesapeake Bill

In what dictionary? Is there a special one for actuaries that the rest of us are not aware of? Define "creating wealth" and then explain why a stimulus package was necessary and what purpose the National Science Foundation or DARPA serves if not to create wealth through research?

It's called economics 101. In the private sector, the transaction only takes place when both sides find it beneficial. Otherwise one patry or the other would walk away from the deal. If both parties are voluntarily taking part in the transaction, both must feel they are benefitting from it. Am I going too fast for you?

In the public sector, the teachers union makes its demand, and the cost gets forced upon homeowners. Homeowners can pay the cost, or have their house taken away in tax delinquency. There is no choice on the part of the homeowner. The homeowner can't say "the Catholic school only spends half as much per kid, and performs way better, so I'll give my property taxes to the Catholic school instead". If homeowners had that choice, which they should, public schools would be forced to shape up. Am I going too fast for you?

In one environment, the customer gets to freely choose whether or not to give his money to the person performing the service. In the other environment, the person providing the service forcibly takes the money away from the customer, without asking his permission. Those two things are different. Am I going too fast for you?

"explain why a stimulus package was necessary"

It wasn't necessary. Nor was it stimulative.

"National Science Foundation or DARPA serves if not to create wealth through research?"

If that research was obviously financially promising, someone in the private scetor would be funding it. If an idea needs government subsidy, that means the free market decided that the idea wouldn't be lucrative.

Obviously, some things are more important that creating wealth, like public safety. But in my opinion, those who receive public funds should not receive benefits that dwarf anything available to those who pay for those programs. I guess you disagree. In that case, will you pay my family's share of the shortfall? Because I do not recognize the right of teachers to reward themselves with these insane compensation levels.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Chesapeake Bill

Define "creating wealth" and then explain why a stimulus package was necessary and what purpose the National Science Foundation ?

right, I can see how funding a study on "stressed-out teens" can be construed as "wealth creation"

from the NSF website
Stressed Out: Teens and Adults Respond Differently

UCLA neuroscientist Adriana Galván studies the impact of normal, everyday stress and associated stress hormones on adolescents' brain function and decision making

Adriana Galván explores how daily stress and associated stress hormones impact decision making.
September 3, 2010

Stress can be compared with the pressure that a sculptor places on a piece of marble: the right pressure and it becomes a masterpiece, but too much pressure and the marble breaks into pieces.

The right amount of stress helps us to meet our goals and do good work. Too much stress can produce serious damage to the heart, the vascular system and the immune system, and it also causes changes in some areas of the brain.

With support from the National Science Foundation (NSF), Adriana Galván, a neuroscientist at the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA), is studying the effect of stress on brain function in adolescents and adults.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by likwid

I'd be really careful how much you complain about unions around here, a large portion of the members are union.

Of course. In this economy, they're the only ones who can afford boats, and the only ones with enough free time to use them.

Too bad if they don't like hearing the truth, they work for the rest of us. And the rule of "you can't spend what you don't have" applies to them too.

[likwid]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Of course. In this economy, they're the only ones who can afford boats, and the only ones with enough free time to use them.

No they're not.

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

That, or he is a member of a public union, or he is married to someone who is...or he's successful enough to not have to worry about these debt levels that will soon have a crushing impact on everyone who's not a millionaire.

Not a member of a union, nor is my better half.