destruction of unions

[Downwind]

Agree,

Left or Right, we as middle class have been reduced to looking at our peers and saying "We don't have pensions, why should those who I pay taxes for have them?" But what we should be asking why we don't all have pensions. The cycle will not be complete until the rich have all the money. I understand the frustration of paying taxes and seeing them wasted.

Well said comrade!

 

[livin'thesim]

Argue all you like, the change is coming, and the taxpayer is declaring his independence from the greed and bullying of PUBLIC unions.

 

[Smarta$$]

Argue all you like, the change is coming, and the taxpayer is declaring his independence from the greed and bullying of PUBLIC unions.

But giving Republican politicians including Scott Walker a tax funded pension is just fine....

 

[dragontamer]

Agree,

But what we should be asking why we don't all have pensions.

Because it is unsustainable. We are living longer. You cannot pay people large amounts of money to sit around and produce nothing for decades. Folks need to plan their own retirement through investments & 401K's rather than extorting more and more money out of taxpayers--many who are robbing their own retirement accounts to pay the taxes so government workers can have a cushy check of the month.

 

[SIG600]

Because it is unsustainable. We are living longer. You cannot pay people large amounts of money to sit around and produce nothing for decades. Folks need to plan their own retirement through investments & 401K's rather than extorting more and more money out of taxpayers--many who are robbing their own retirement accounts to pay the taxes so government workers can have a cushy check of the month.

Pensions are a ponzi scheme.

The last thing that anyone whose been paying attention the last 12 years should want, is a pension. Why, when you retire, do you still want to be tied to your employers success or failure? Retirement should be freedom, if you didn't plan for it on your own and expect to be taken care of, you have no one to blame but yourself.

 

[igneousy2]

Pensions are a ponzi scheme.

The last thing that anyone whose been paying attention the last 12 years should want, is a pension. Why, when you retire, do you still want to be tied to your employers success or failure? Retirement should be freedom, if you didn't plan for it on your own and expect to be taken care of, you have no one to blame but yourself.

I am probably one of the more hard core Liberterians you could ever talk to, and I agree with your final conclusion that we should all look to ourselves to take care of our retirements, however, the statement that Pensions are ponzi schemes is just plain wrong.

The reason these pensions aren't working is because they are not being adequately funded. Companies/municipalities are allowed to make unreasonable assumptions about the returns on investment that they will make. Look at the other thread concerning Delta's...I think 8% assumption...please. A reasonable assumption in today's market for a pension is probably in the neighborhood of 3%.

Companies/municipalities do not want to make the payments that are required...if companies/municipalties were made to put aside an appopiate amount of monies, pensions would be doing just fine.

What has really compounded the problem for pensions is this ultra-low interest rate environment. Pensions count on making more money in their investments then they pay out, when you are lucky to get 2-3% in safe investments appropriate for pension funds in a 2-3% inflation world you cannot make any money. This is a problem whether you are an individual investor or a pension fund and making individuals save for their own retirement merely pushes the problem onto someone else.

 

[SIG600]

Long list of valid points.

One of the of the fundamental problems though is also the fact that you need to assume the work force at a minimum maintains the status quo. If your work force continues to downsize due to efficiencies or cutbacks, then you start going the wrong way with contributions. Then your 8% growth becomes even more important, you need 10 or 12% just to keep up. As a side note pensions shouldn't be in a companies asset column to begin with, that money isn't theirs.

It's just like social security. 30 years ago we had 16 workers for every 1 person drawing SS. Now it's 4, and quickly declining.

Again, the only person in this world that's going to look out for you, is you, I think we already agree on that. Personally I'd much rather have a DC plan than a DB plan. The day I retire I can shake hands with everyone, say thanks, and hit the links never needing to worry if they're still going to be afloat in 10 years.

 

[pilotyip]

They had to assume the higher rate of return because if they did not they would have to raise taxes around 50% to keep up with pension funding. Unless it was an ultra rich community, you have the problem of people moving away from higher taxes, thereby depressing the property values, which results in lower tax income because it is based on property value. There is only so much the tax paying public will bear to allow public workers to retire at XX years with xx% of their pay. Bck to Walker, 67% of the people voting for him identified themselves as Blue Collar. BTW The city of Detroit is a classic example of this.

 

[flythere]

That's because a few minutes is all normal people can take of that narcissistic grape ape banging coke head.

Amen brother!!!!

 

[densoo]

Public or private, unions are under attack. The court ruled not just on the issue in front of them, but unnecessarily went beyond the issue to further restrict the ability to organize. There will be no sympathy in our current system as we go down the path to a job action. Unity will be paramount. 100% participation and 100% "yes" votes to authorize a strike.

NYT, June 23.

"The Supreme Court’s ruling this week in Knox v. Service Employees International Union is one of the most brazen of the Roberts court. It shows how defiantly the five justices act in advancing the aggressive conservatism of their majority on the court.

The court’s moderate liberals were rightly dismayed by the majority’s willingness to breach court rules in pursuit of its agenda. In this labor union case, there is no getting around that the legal approach is indistinguishable from politics."

http://nyti.ms/MD9icX