| Page 2 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
Atta boy Rahm!
On Fri, 1 Sep 2017 06:33:36 -0700 (PDT), Tim
wrote: Keyser Soze On 9/1/17 7:26 AM, wrote: - show quoted text - Nothing like the public sector unions and even then the PBGC is supposed to be regulating that.. They may have some "promises" that might not be kept but the core benefit has to be funded. What sort of mishmash are you trying to sell here? The problems of unfunded municipal pension liabilities are due to the municipalities, states, et cetera, not properly funding those liabilities, a problem that goes back decades. The unions, such as they are, negotiate decent pension and healthcare programs because typically* the salaries cities and state governments pay don't begin to compare with private sector salaries. * Yes, I know, there are some exceptions...*some* municipal employees get decent pay. .... What do you consider "decent" pay? https://www.forbes.com/sites/adamand.../#224503461141 I doubt Harry could really find any public service union member that makes less than a comparable job in the private sector, whether that is a teacher, an office worker or a garbage man. |
Atta boy Rahm!
wrote:
On Fri, 1 Sep 2017 09:12:50 -0400, Keyser Soze wrote: On 9/1/17 9:06 AM, wrote: On Fri, 1 Sep 2017 08:33:48 -0400, Keyser Soze wrote: On 9/1/17 7:26 AM, wrote: On 31 Aug 2017 17:45:54 GMT, Keyser Soze wrote: wrote: On Thu, 31 Aug 2017 10:55:05 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote: Tim wrote: Bleed 'em some more! Bloodsuckers... https://www.dnainfo.com/chicago/2017...reck-rahm-says Unfunded pension liabilities are a bitch. That is why my local union doesn’t allow them. It is one of the major problems with government unions. Without the need to demonstrate funding they can demand unreasonable benefits and they have the political power to make it happen. Lots of private sector pension funds have unfunded liabilities... Nothing like the public sector unions and even then the PBGC is supposed to be regulating that.. They may have some "promises" that might not be kept but the core benefit has to be funded. What sort of mishmash are you trying to sell here? You don't know what PBGC is ? The problems of unfunded municipal pension liabilities are due to the municipalities, states, et cetera, not properly funding those liabilities, a problem that goes back decades. The unions, such as they are, negotiate decent pension and healthcare programs because typically* the salaries cities and state governments pay don't begin to compare with private sector salaries. Bull****, in the cities with the biggest problems the employees make a lot of money. The fact that we have allowed these cities to *not* fund the overly generous pension programs is simply a failure of government to be responsible. Politicians understand that when their failed policies explode in their constituants faces, they will be long gone. * Yes, I know, there are some exceptions...*some* municipal employees get decent pay. Which ones don't compared to the same job in the private sector (including benefits)? Please define an "overly generous program" benefit by a percentage of gross pay for a mid-level municipal worker who retires after 20 or 25 years of service. 50% as in the military? 75%, which might be enough to live on? If you are saying retiring after 25 years at 50% pay is not excessive I am done here. At it's best the IBM plan paid about 40% of your base pay, not overtime, at age 65 assuming you worked there 30 years or more. That was typical. I admit I got the close out special in the Bill Clinton era push to make the 90 day bottom line look better but if your were not gone at the end of 96 the pension plan as we knew it was gone. All they did was drop the age requirement, you only needed the 30 years and I got out early because I started at age 19. BTW the idea that you need 75% of your salary to live only points out your failure to do any life planning. When I was 45, I owned 2 homes, 3 cars and a boat along with significant savings and I did not owe anyone a dime. I have been banking my social security for 7 years only spending some for toys or trips. I guess I live cheaper than you because I don't need to call a union, licensed tradesman every time I change a light bulb or "build a tiki bar" (that seems to be a generic term for doing anything constructive) I am not retired. I work part time because I like the work and the clients and the fees are pretty good. -- Posted with my iPhone 7+. |
Atta boy Rahm!
Keyser Söze Wrote in message:
wrote: On Fri, 1 Sep 2017 09:12:50 -0400, Keyser Soze wrote: On 9/1/17 9:06 AM, wrote: On Fri, 1 Sep 2017 08:33:48 -0400, Keyser Soze wrote: On 9/1/17 7:26 AM, wrote: On 31 Aug 2017 17:45:54 GMT, Keyser Soze wrote: wrote: On Thu, 31 Aug 2017 10:55:05 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote: Tim wrote: Bleed 'em some more! Bloodsuckers... https://www.dnainfo.com/chicago/2017...reck-rahm-says Unfunded pension liabilities are a bitch. That is why my local union doesnt allow them. It is one of the major problems with government unions. Without the need to demonstrate funding they can demand unreasonable benefits and they have the political power to make it happen. Lots of private sector pension funds have unfunded liabilities... Nothing like the public sector unions and even then the PBGC is supposed to be regulating that.. They may have some "promises" that might not be kept but the core benefit has to be funded. What sort of mishmash are you trying to sell here? You don't know what PBGC is ? The problems of unfunded municipal pension liabilities are due to the municipalities, states, et cetera, not properly funding those liabilities, a problem that goes back decades. The unions, such as they are, negotiate decent pension and healthcare programs because typically* the salaries cities and state governments pay don't begin to compare with private sector salaries. Bull****, in the cities with the biggest problems the employees make a lot of money. The fact that we have allowed these cities to *not* fund the overly generous pension programs is simply a failure of government to be responsible. Politicians understand that when their failed policies explode in their constituants faces, they will be long gone. * Yes, I know, there are some exceptions...*some* municipal employees get decent pay. Which ones don't compared to the same job in the private sector (including benefits)? Please define an "overly generous program" benefit by a percentage of gross pay for a mid-level municipal worker who retires after 20 or 25 years of service. 50% as in the military? 75%, which might be enough to live on? If you are saying retiring after 25 years at 50% pay is not excessive I am done here. At it's best the IBM plan paid about 40% of your base pay, not overtime, at age 65 assuming you worked there 30 years or more. That was typical. I admit I got the close out special in the Bill Clinton era push to make the 90 day bottom line look better but if your were not gone at the end of 96 the pension plan as we knew it was gone. All they did was drop the age requirement, you only needed the 30 years and I got out early because I started at age 19. BTW the idea that you need 75% of your salary to live only points out your failure to do any life planning. When I was 45, I owned 2 homes, 3 cars and a boat along with significant savings and I did not owe anyone a dime. I have been banking my social security for 7 years only spending some for toys or trips. I guess I live cheaper than you because I don't need to call a union, licensed tradesman every time I change a light bulb or "build a tiki bar" (that seems to be a generic term for doing anything constructive) I am not retired. I work part time because I like the work and the clients and the fees are pretty good. -- Posted with my iPhone 7+. What is it you do for work? -- x ----Android NewsGroup Reader---- http://usenet.sinaapp.com/ |
Atta boy Rahm!
On Fri, 1 Sep 2017 15:21:23 -0000 (UTC), Bill
wrote: California you get 3% per year of your last years income. So if you retire in California after 33 years on the job you get 100% of your pay, even if you do not play the overtime, sick leave and vacation game. No wonder you guys are broke. |
Atta boy Rahm!
On Fri, 1 Sep 2017 15:58:12 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote:
wrote: On Fri, 1 Sep 2017 09:12:50 -0400, Keyser Soze wrote: On 9/1/17 9:06 AM, wrote: On Fri, 1 Sep 2017 08:33:48 -0400, Keyser Soze wrote: On 9/1/17 7:26 AM, wrote: On 31 Aug 2017 17:45:54 GMT, Keyser Soze wrote: wrote: On Thu, 31 Aug 2017 10:55:05 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote: Tim wrote: Bleed 'em some more! Bloodsuckers... https://www.dnainfo.com/chicago/2017...reck-rahm-says Unfunded pension liabilities are a bitch. That is why my local union doesn’t allow them. It is one of the major problems with government unions. Without the need to demonstrate funding they can demand unreasonable benefits and they have the political power to make it happen. Lots of private sector pension funds have unfunded liabilities... Nothing like the public sector unions and even then the PBGC is supposed to be regulating that.. They may have some "promises" that might not be kept but the core benefit has to be funded. What sort of mishmash are you trying to sell here? You don't know what PBGC is ? The problems of unfunded municipal pension liabilities are due to the municipalities, states, et cetera, not properly funding those liabilities, a problem that goes back decades. The unions, such as they are, negotiate decent pension and healthcare programs because typically* the salaries cities and state governments pay don't begin to compare with private sector salaries. Bull****, in the cities with the biggest problems the employees make a lot of money. The fact that we have allowed these cities to *not* fund the overly generous pension programs is simply a failure of government to be responsible. Politicians understand that when their failed policies explode in their constituants faces, they will be long gone. * Yes, I know, there are some exceptions...*some* municipal employees get decent pay. Which ones don't compared to the same job in the private sector (including benefits)? Please define an "overly generous program" benefit by a percentage of gross pay for a mid-level municipal worker who retires after 20 or 25 years of service. 50% as in the military? 75%, which might be enough to live on? If you are saying retiring after 25 years at 50% pay is not excessive I am done here. At it's best the IBM plan paid about 40% of your base pay, not overtime, at age 65 assuming you worked there 30 years or more. That was typical. I admit I got the close out special in the Bill Clinton era push to make the 90 day bottom line look better but if your were not gone at the end of 96 the pension plan as we knew it was gone. All they did was drop the age requirement, you only needed the 30 years and I got out early because I started at age 19. BTW the idea that you need 75% of your salary to live only points out your failure to do any life planning. When I was 45, I owned 2 homes, 3 cars and a boat along with significant savings and I did not owe anyone a dime. I have been banking my social security for 7 years only spending some for toys or trips. I guess I live cheaper than you because I don't need to call a union, licensed tradesman every time I change a light bulb or "build a tiki bar" (that seems to be a generic term for doing anything constructive) I am not retired. I work part time because I like the work and the clients and the fees are pretty good. We all know. I didn't actually retire right away either., I was the state electrical inspector for 4 counties and a back up for 4 more. I started at $40 an hour and on my next contract extension that went up to $58.50 portal to portal, plus extra administrative time and travel expenses. It was a pretty good gig. I got to see a lot of things most people never do and I still wasn't working that hard. Some of the stuff I got to see might only be interesting to technical geeks like what really goes into a toll booth and the details of wiring a commercial kitchen (fire suppression etc) Something you might have enjoyed was behind the scenes at the Ringling museum in Sarasota. I got to spend some time with the infamous Katherine Harris too since that renovation project was her baby and it was funded through the florida department of state. She is actually a pretty engaging person. |
Atta boy Rahm!
wrote:
On Fri, 1 Sep 2017 15:21:23 -0000 (UTC), Bill wrote: California you get 3% per year of your last years income. So if you retire in California after 33 years on the job you get 100% of your pay, even if you do not play the overtime, sick leave and vacation game. No wonder you guys are broke. 30 years maximum. But some are double and Triple dipping. Used to be 2% except for public safety. Then during the dot com boom, Calpers convinced the state they could afford to,raise everyone to 3% with no additional cost to the government. BUT! When the bust came, they still had to pay the 3% as the state constitution says you can not reduce a pension payment. So now the taxpayers have to,kick in a bunch of extra money yearly. And callers did lower their projected rate of return from 8% or so to 7% something. But they have not made their projected rate of return for at least 20 years. Should be prosecuted for fraud. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:49 PM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com