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)

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.

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+.

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/

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.

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.

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.