Please log in to view images

« prev   random   next »

6
2

Trump should go to war against public employee pensions

By socal2 follow socal2   2020 Feb 24, 2:07pm 386 views   31 comments   watch   nsfw   quote   share    


*These gold-plated plans not only are bankrupting towns, cities, counties and states. They’re also forcing punishing taxes upon tens of millions of hardworking Americans who derive nothing from these plans, usually pushed and enforced by unions. In California, approximately 80 cents of every tax dollar must be set aside to pay for the underfunded public employee pension and benefit plans.

Simply cancel all public employee pensions, forever, for new hires and reduce or stop the benefits being paid out from plans that are bankrupt. Naturally, the public employee unions will scream, “But our employees paid into this pension system and have earned that pension.”

The truth is — as the union representatives and employees themselves know — they paid pennies on the dollar for these generous plans. That being the case, figure out exactly how much each public employee paid into his or her plan over the years and then pay them exactly that amount in retirement and health care benefits and not one penny more.*
https://thehill.com/opinion/finance/484143-trump-should-go-to-war-against-public-employee-pensions
1   FuckTheMainstreamMedia   ignore (7)   2020 Feb 24, 2:36pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

It’s not quite as good as people think(it’s good though).

The place I work was 2% a year and you can retire at 55 if you have 30 years. Way better than most private, but a young person could get there via 401 k or similar by contributing the same overall amount(I don’t want to get into it, but the actual amount you wind up contributing is about double what the stated contribution). They’ve now gone to minimum 65 years old and capped retirement at 75%. That’s probably close to self sustainable.

I’m going at 30 years because I’m retiring out of state, and because my projected income is going to be more than I need to live on. If not, I’d probably work about 35 years. The people I work with who put in 38-40 years are more are moron unless they were like 20 when they started. At around 35 years you take more in retirement than you do working.

The cops and firemen have pensions that are beyond belief. I frankly don’t even understand why they need so much money...so many work second jobs or other side hustles. At 30 years in most places in CA they get 90% of a very high salary. Usually at 50-55 years old.
2   HEYYOU   ignore (48)   2020 Feb 24, 5:47pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Get RepCons off all socialist programs.
How many of the RepCon scum are in unions?
3   WookieMan   ignore (4)   2020 Feb 24, 6:44pm     ↓ dislike (1)   quote   flag        

HEYYOU says
Get RepCons off all socialist programs.
How many of the RepCon scum are in unions?

Do you ever want to have a serious dialog here? I don't honestly care as I would have ignored you if I did, but just asking a legitimate question. What is the purpose of posting what you post? Trying to get into the mind of HEYYOU.
4   APOCALYPSEFUCKisShostakovitch   ignore (52)   2020 Feb 24, 7:43pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Head shots for every last public sector pensioner. Let Eric and Don, Jr fuck the exit wounds.
5   ForcedTQ   ignore (0)   2020 Feb 25, 12:02am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

This should not be something we clamor for the federal government to make states and local governments do. The fed gov has ZERO authority granted by the Constitution to tell the states what to do regarding this matter. All voters in all of the states need to stand up to the bullshit pensions that they feel have been mismanaged. The worst are for sure those that allow the 3%@50 formula to “public safety” employees. The money doesn’t have a chance in hell of building nor is there any fucking way the principal will last for the average duration of pensioner longevity.
6   ForcedTQ   ignore (0)   2020 Feb 25, 12:04am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

In general the tax payers need to take a stand against unreasonable gov employee compensation and fleecing by inefficient organizations with too many managers.
7   APOCALYPSEFUCKisShostakovitch   ignore (52)   2020 Feb 25, 12:16am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

MACHINE GUNNING LIBRARIANS IS GOD'S WORK!
8   SunnyvaleCA   ignore (1)   2020 Feb 25, 12:24am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

ForcedTQ says
In general the tax payers need to take a stand against unreasonable gov employee compensation and fleecing by inefficient organizations with too many managers.
If only there were a 75% state tax on pension payments over $75k per year. Problem solved.

Pensions are basically doomed to failure. It's s form of government debt. Borrow now for benefits in the present while signing the next generation into debt slavery. It would be one thing if the governments were investing in 500-year infrastructure.
9   Misc   ignore (0)   2020 Feb 25, 12:27am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

So you want a multi-billionaire to tell a civil servant that they get too much money?
10   RC2006   ignore (2)   2020 Feb 25, 6:28am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Flavius says
How about going after Golden Parachutes - a much more lucrative target but then that would not be helping the donor base.


How about both.
11   socal2   ignore (1)   2020 Feb 25, 8:56am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Misc says
So you want a multi-billionaire to tell a civil servant that they get too much money?


Ideally - millions of middle class and poor people stuck in shitty cities in California and Illinois with high crime and high taxes will tell their government and civil servants that they need to do better and to stop raising our taxes to pay for their ludicrously lavish pensions.

But right now we are handcuffed with the "California Rule" that basically says even if a city goes bankrupt, they can't cut pensions. All they can do is:

- Raise taxes
- Reduce services
- Shaft bondholders

How come civil servants don't have any skin in the game? Why does everyone else have to suffer except government employees?

The California Supreme Court is hearing a series of cases this year that will hopefully overturn the California Rule which will free up hundreds of cities to be able to negotiate with their unions and get their finances in order.
12   rd6B   ignore (1)   2020 Feb 25, 11:04am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Flavius says
Flavius


The approach we’ve discussed above is known as Human-In-The-Loop(HITL) learning. HITL leverages both human and machine intelligence to create machine learning models. People are constantly involved in the training, tuning and testing of these bots. Haptik’s system is meant to empower these individuals, by giving them the tools to do their job better. Our unique chatbot analytics tool is built for that very purpose.

Our Active Learning system prompts our bot trainers to verify messages that have a low confidence score and validate those judgements before feeding them back into the model.

So, as you can see, there’s a lot that goes into preparing a Haptik bot to successfully cater to the needs of any enterprise, and their customers.

We’d love to hear more from other bot developers out there as to how they approach maintaining and training their bots. Please share your experiences and learnings in the comments below!
13   NoCoupForYou   ignore (3)   2020 Feb 25, 11:58am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

What's needed is a cap: 66% of Average Salary (not highest). Ridiculous that a retiree should make $100k/year instead of $66/k.

Also, to put skin in the game, have a penalty for not retiring in the state that paid you. That way the retirees have a vested interest in making sure their pension is sustainable vis-a-vis taxation.

In other words, California retirees would lose say 15%-20% of their pension unless their primary residence was maintained in California, so they have all the joys of the tax burden, decaying infrastructure, etc. to maintain their pensions. So if some wizenheimer says "Fuck it, I'm out to Arizona/Texas/Florida", they only get $50k instead of $65k. Or they get $65k in California with all the income, property tax, and potholes, needles, and poop in the street caused by bad policy/fiscal pressure from paying their pension.
14   WookieMan   ignore (4)   2020 Feb 25, 12:05pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

NoCoupForYou says
What's needed is a cap: 66% of Average Salary (not highest). Ridiculous that a retiree should make $100k/year instead of $66/k.

Not sure how this works in other states, but in IL they don't pay into SS if you are part of a government pension system. Make them pay in SS with no pay raise like the rest of us AND still contribute the same or more to their pensions. Maybe you'd reach 20% contribution then as say a teacher or fire fighter. That's what it takes to sustain.

When I pay close to 30% of income to actually be able to retire at a reasonable time, I don't want to hear shit about ONLY contributing 9% of your income towards a pension (not paying any SS either) and being able to retire at 55. Don't expect me to foot that bill when it comes due. Moving to another state is an option.
15   NoCoupForYou   ignore (3)   2020 Feb 25, 12:08pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

WookieMan says
. Moving to another state is an option.


My plan sustains pensions: either way they're paying for the maintenance of their pension: Either staying in their state that has a crushing burden and collapsing standard of living to maintain their pensions, or by getting an automatic 15-20% cut when they flee to Arizona and think they pulled a fast one.
16   socal2   ignore (1)   2020 Feb 25, 12:28pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

I definitely like the idea of cutting pensions for those who leave the State. But even that very modest reform will be fought tooth and nail by the unions.

One of the reasons it is so expensive to live in California is because we have big and bloated government that is very expensive and inefficient.

We could solve alot of California's problems by getting unions out of government and reforming pension systems. Cities would be flush with cash almost overnight and would be able to build lower cost housing and infrastructure that doesn't require prevailing union wages.
17   WookieMan   ignore (4)   2020 Feb 25, 12:28pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

I don't disagree with your idea. I just think contributions need to increase substantially for public employees. The common line is to save 10% of your income minimum and that's for private sector. That person is likely paying their 6.2% share of SS, plus employer 6.2% share as well. So now it's more like 16.2% or 24.2% accounting for the employer cut of SS for private sector.

I don't know if I've come across a government employee that contributes double digits percentage wise to their fund. Most of these systems aren't sustainable out of the gate. A private sector employee if dedicated to retirement is saving at LEAST 24.2% if they personally throw in 10% into a 401k and account for SS.

You have to throw in 20-30% into a 401k to retire at the age and annual payout of most public sector employees. The annual retirement payout even going from $100k/yr to $66k/yr is still underfunded is my point I guess.
18   socal2   ignore (1)   2020 Feb 25, 12:44pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Here is the contribution breakout for CALPERS which is one of the biggest pension funds in the world.

- 58 cents comes from investment earnings
- 29 cents from employer contributions
- 13 cents from employee contributions
https://www.calpers.ca.gov/page/about/organization/facts-at-a-glance/pension-buck

So public workers only have to chip in 13% and they get a GUARANTEED pension for life because the taxpayers chip in the rest when investment earnings don't meet projections.

Why do public sector workers get a GUARANTEED return (for life) when it is invested in the same market as my 401K?

Don't get me started on their generous healthcare plans......
19   WookieMan   ignore (4)   2020 Feb 25, 12:56pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

socal2 says
So public workers only have to chip in 13% and they get a GUARANTEED pension for life because the taxpayers chip in the rest when investment earnings don't meet projections.

Chicago Teachers put in 9%.... On the surface just think about SS. It's baked into your income as a private sector worker 6.2% from employer and 6.2% from employee. It's basically 12.4%. $3,790 is the max SS payout for someone 70 years old. $45k/yr. AND that system is not funding itself. 13% ain't enough for CA and 9% ain't enough for Chicago teachers. Contributions need to go up, plain and simple for public sector or income/retirement payouts need to be slashed and burned. Not just cut.
20   OccasionalCortex   ignore (5)   2020 Feb 25, 12:56pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

These are state and local pension programs, not federal. So what should Trump do to 'go to war' with them?

Congress could tax the hell out of the funds, I suppose. But that's it.
21   socal2   ignore (1)   2020 Feb 25, 1:00pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

OccasionalCortex says
These are state and local pension programs, not federal. So what should Trump do to 'go to war' with them?

Congress could tax the hell out of the funds, I suppose. But that's it.


Well - Trump has already done some good on this with the tax bill that prevents expensive blue states from deducting their state income tax. Some people in California are waking up to the fact that we have incredibly expensive government now that we can't deduct it from our Federal Income.

Secondly - Trump simply needs to make clear there will be no bail out for these States and Cities facing bankruptcy.
22   socal2   ignore (1)   2020 Feb 25, 1:01pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

WookieMan says
Chicago Teachers put in 9%.... On the surface just think about SS. It's baked into your income as a private sector worker 6.2% from employer and 6.2% from employee. It's basically 12.4%. $3,790 is the max SS payout for someone 70 years old. $45k/yr. AND that system is not funding itself. 13% ain't enough for CA and 9% ain't enough for Chicago teachers.


Very good point!
23   zzyzzx   ignore (2)   2020 Feb 25, 1:07pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

socal2 says
Ideally - millions of middle class and poor people stuck in shitty cities in California and Illinois with high crime and high taxes will tell their government and civil servants that they need to do better and to stop raising our taxes to pay for their ludicrously lavish pensions.

But right now we are handcuffed with the "California Rule" that basically says even if a city goes bankrupt, they can't cut pensions. All they can do is:

- Raise taxes
- Reduce services
- Shaft bondholders

How come civil servants don't have any skin in the game? Why does everyone else have to suffer except government employees?

The California Supreme Court is hearing a series of cases this year that will hopefully overturn the California Rule which will free up hundreds of cities to be able to negotiate with their unions and get their finances in order.


While I agree 100% above, how the fuck do shitty cities like these even have bonds?
Who the fuck is stupid enough to buy bonds in places like this (ref Puerto Rico as an example)?
If NOBODY loaned these municipalities money, they might be more fiscally responsible.
24   socal2   ignore (1)   2020 Feb 25, 1:27pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

zzyzzx says
While I agree 100% above, how the fuck do shitty cities like these even have bonds?
Who the fuck is stupid enough to buy bonds in places like this (ref Puerto Rico as an example)?
If NOBODY loaned these municipalities money, they might be more fiscally responsible.


I've been asking that question for a while now.

I really don't feel sorry for the bond holders getting shafted going forward. It is insane to invest in Cities run top to bottom by Democrats and their union slave-masters.
25   WookieMan   ignore (4)   2020 Feb 25, 1:35pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

socal2 says
I really don't feel sorry for the bond holders getting shafted going forward. It is insane to invest in Cities run top to bottom by Democrats and their union slave-masters.

It's definitely enabling the behavior of poor city management. But if you've loaned the money 10 times and gotten paid back and each time the interest % keeps going up, you'll likely keep going. People are greedy. Promises and I'm sure kickbacks to get the money are happening all the time.
26   socal2   ignore (1)   2020 Feb 25, 1:43pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

WookieMan says
It's definitely enabling the behavior of poor city management. But if you've loaned the money 10 times and gotten paid back and each time the interest % keeps going up, you'll likely keep going. People are greedy. Promises and I'm sure kickbacks to get the money are happening all the time.


Without a doubt. I can't fault the bond holders from 10+ years ago.

But we are in a different world now thanks to Gray Davis and the unions fucking up California's pension system nearly 20 years ago.

Looking at this graph - will the Democrats and Unions claim that Californians aren't paying high enough taxes to fund their retirement?


27   VINCENT   ignore (0)   2020 Feb 25, 9:07pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

socal2 says

Well - Trump has already done some good on this with the tax bill that prevents expensive blue states from deducting their state income tax. Some people in California are waking up to the fact that we have incredibly expensive government now that we can't deduct it from our Federal Income.


That has nothing to do with state pensions.

socal2 says
Secondly - Trump simply needs to make clear there will be no bail out for these States and Cities facing bankruptcy.


So what? The Fed could step in despite that. Or Congress can pass a bailout with enough votes to override a veto.

And the Senate will not support a bill that doesn't exempt Red states from a pension bailout. Yes, there are Red states in trouble with this too.
28   NoCoupForYou   ignore (3)   2020 Feb 25, 9:08pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

The new Republican House could pass a bill banning Federal Bailouts of pensions that don't conform to standards.

Now a future House could override that, but at least it would be a speed bump.
29   VINCENT   ignore (0)   2020 Feb 25, 9:10pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

NoCoupForYou says
The new Republican House could pass a bill banning Federal Bailouts of pensions that don't conform to standards.


Senate won't. Again: there are a lot of Red states in the unfunded pension shit too.
30   WookieMan   ignore (4)   2020 Feb 25, 11:21pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

VINCENT says
socal2 says

Well - Trump has already done some good on this with the tax bill that prevents expensive blue states from deducting their state income tax. Some people in California are waking up to the fact that we have incredibly expensive government now that we can't deduct it from our Federal Income.


That has nothing to do with state pensions.

It kind of does though. In a high income tax state like CA, people can and will start questioning where their tax dollars are going. It's not going to be a direct influence on state pensions necessarily, just will get people putting a magnifying glass on something they likely haven't in the past.

Either way 0% of private sector worker's tax money should be going towards public sector pensions in ANY state. The workers should be contributing a higher percentage or taking cuts. My income taxes here in IL shouldn't be going towards someone not working and contributing after already being paid to work by me. Same in CA. You already paid these people, they should have set more aside. Not my/our/your problem. Unfortunately it is.
31   APOCALYPSEFUCKisShostakovitch   ignore (52)   2020 Feb 25, 11:57pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Bayoneting crossing guards is what AMERICA! is all about!

about   best comments   contact   one year ago   suggestions