7 ms·

I'm not sure why this is so heavily down-voted. Pensions are surely a problem, but they are clearly a drop in the bucket compared to the revenue that states mis

I'm not sure why this is so heavily down-voted. Pensions are surely a problem, but they are clearly a drop in the bucket compared to the revenue that states miss out on when they let corporations pit them against each other in race to the bottom behavior.

bannedaccount 9y ago
Because this is a conservative site where dissenting opinions are not tolerated.
DoreenMichele 9y ago
HN tends to react negatively to inflammatory language, such as What a pathetic ploy. I sometimes have mixed feelings about that, but generally agree that inflammatory language does not foster reasoned, meaty discussion.
narag 9y ago
Not sure why it was downvoted, but my bet is this that you insist in: Pensions are surely a problem, but they are clearly a drop in the bucket Pensions are NOT a drop in the bucket by any measure. Maybe for the USA they're less important. But for the rest, safety net is most of a country expenses. Then you add that population in the first world tends to shrink and the model in most countries where current workers pay for retired ones... and you have a very serious problem.
- ams6110 9y ago
  That was my fault as well. Pensions are almost a form of a Ponzi scheme. They all will eventually collapse. Corruption in pension administration is also rampant.
  - vkou 9y ago
    If pensions are a ponzi scheme, so is the expectation that our economy will, on average, grow YoY. Yet, every single part of our society, from pensions, to investments, to government planning, to retirement advice for people working in the private sector is based on the insane notion that 3% GDP growth is perpetually sustainable.
  - ebbv 9y ago
    Pensions are not a pyramid scheme any more than any other form of retirement fund is. Give me a break.
    - someguydave 8y ago
      There is one retirement fund that isn’t a pyramid scheme: the kind where the retiree saves in his own account and faces investment risks like everyone else. Forcing taxpayers to shelter you from risk is slimy, even if you have a “negotiated agreement” signed by some politician.
      - ebbv 8y ago
        You realize 401k programs at most companies are treated as a pool just like pension funds right? The difference is politicians had domain over the pension funds and decided to "borrow" from them and make them insolvent. The workers are not the ones to blame, the politicians who thought using the pension funds as a piggy bank are. Stop blaming the workers. They didn't cause this problem, and they paid into those retirement funds. The politicians who caused the problem are the ones who want you to blame the workers, stop being their patsy.
        someguydave 8y ago
        >You realize 401k programs at most companies are treated as a pool just like pension funds right? That's false. One of the requirements of a qualified plan under section 401 is that the employee has a nonforfeitable right to plan benefits: https://www.irs.gov/retirement-plans/plan-sponsor/401k-plan-qualification-requirements https://www.irs.gov/retirement-plans/plan-sponsor/401k-plan-... The corporations who tell workers that the corporation can take money out of employer 401k plans without authorization are trying to scare the workers, stop being their patsy. >The politicians who caused the problem are the ones who want you to blame the workers, stop being their patsy. The workers should have known that future promises to pay which would drive the government into insolvency were promises made in bad faith. This doesn't absolve the politicians of their sins, but the workers are not innocent lambs either.
bartart 9y ago
Calstrs, which is only for teachers, has over 900,000 members, with a bit less than half currently working. The average pension payout is $50,000 and the average retired person under Calstrs worked for under 25 years. And this is only for teachers. https://siepr.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/publications/17-023_1.pdf https://siepr.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/publications/... The many tens of billions of dollars spent on pensions annually in California alone dwarf any tax breaks given to companies. And California is very stingy with those anyway. For comparison California's annual budget is just about $270bn according to Ballotpedia.
- ebbv 9y ago
  I don’t even know where to begin your comment is so full of deliberate half truths. The people work under 25 years because you only need to work 20 to qualify. Why’s that? Because you only need to work that long to have paid enough into the pension fund to earn that retirement. Oh yeah that’s the detail everybody loves to skip over; these workers PAID into their pensions. They earned that money. Again, if the pensions aren’t solvent it’s because of corrupt politicians and nothing else. Stop trying to blame workers for receiving a benefit they worked for and deserve. And as far as the pension eclipsing tax breaks; another red herring. The pensions should be getting paid out of a relevant fund. AND while any one tax break may not match the payout of the overall fund there are many many corporate tax breaks written into the laws that collectively cut state budgets to shreds.
charleslmunger 9y ago
How much money would you consider to be a reasonable pension? LA's payment of pension obligations is 31% of their city budget. Many other cities see significantly more, and it's going to keep getting worse as more workers retire. https://calmatters.org/articles/commentary-surging-pension-costs-push-california-cities-toward-bankruptcy/ https://calmatters.org/articles/commentary-surging-pension-c...
shkkmo 9y ago
My guess is that the opening line is pure political rhetoric: "What a pathetic ploy to divide the working class against each other." While I agree with the overall point of the comment. I down voted it because of the tone with which it was made and it's lack of attempt to brings any facts or references to bear in reinforcing its claims. A prime example of states spending their money poorly to the benefit of big businesses is another HN topic. The headline is about eminent domain, but the article talks about the 3 billion "investment" that was given to Foxconn that seems unlikely to pay for itself even in an optimistically estimated 25 years. Edit: Also, several of the "factual" claims made were... hard to believe without any numbers to back them up.
- bannedaccount 9y ago
  There's such a double standard, but no one is ever called to back up a claim like "small government is better for the economy" which I believe is just empirically false. You can plainly see states/countries that spend more on pensions and social safety nets have wildly better outcomes for their citizens. Yet don't see conservative making any reasonable arguments just well wore platitudes about "fiscal responsibly," but they never are forced to elaborate on what they mean by that or flagged or down-voted because this is a highly conservative that serves to reinforce the beliefs as opposed to challenge them.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
ams6110 9y ago
A state that lets a potentially large employer go elsewhere also misses out on the revenue. So there's no reason not to compete for them, since most states will get income tax revenue from the employees if nothing else, along with general economic benefits of lower unemployment.
- cc439 9y ago
  That and practically every economist agrees that taxes on businesses are pointless. Tax the people working for said business and then you won't have the cost of taxation merely passed on to the consumer. You'd also likely be able to pass par higher tax rates on the highest levels of executives that way.

bannedaccount 9y ago

Because this is a conservative site where dissenting opinions are not tolerated.

DoreenMichele 9y ago

HN tends to react negatively to inflammatory language, such as What a pathetic ploy. I sometimes have mixed feelings about that, but generally agree that inflammatory language does not foster reasoned, meaty discussion.

narag 9y ago

Not sure why it was downvoted, but my bet is this that you insist in: Pensions are surely a problem, but they are clearly a drop in the bucket Pensions are NOT a drop in the bucket by any measure. Maybe for the USA they're less important. But for the rest, safety net is most of a country expenses. Then you add that population in the first world tends to shrink and the model in most countries where current workers pay for retired ones... and you have a very serious problem.

ams6110 9y ago
That was my fault as well. Pensions are almost a form of a Ponzi scheme. They all will eventually collapse. Corruption in pension administration is also rampant.
- vkou 9y ago
  If pensions are a ponzi scheme, so is the expectation that our economy will, on average, grow YoY. Yet, every single part of our society, from pensions, to investments, to government planning, to retirement advice for people working in the private sector is based on the insane notion that 3% GDP growth is perpetually sustainable.
- ebbv 9y ago
  Pensions are not a pyramid scheme any more than any other form of retirement fund is. Give me a break.
  - someguydave 8y ago
    There is one retirement fund that isn’t a pyramid scheme: the kind where the retiree saves in his own account and faces investment risks like everyone else. Forcing taxpayers to shelter you from risk is slimy, even if you have a “negotiated agreement” signed by some politician.
    - ebbv 8y ago
      You realize 401k programs at most companies are treated as a pool just like pension funds right? The difference is politicians had domain over the pension funds and decided to "borrow" from them and make them insolvent. The workers are not the ones to blame, the politicians who thought using the pension funds as a piggy bank are. Stop blaming the workers. They didn't cause this problem, and they paid into those retirement funds. The politicians who caused the problem are the ones who want you to blame the workers, stop being their patsy.
      - someguydave 8y ago
        >You realize 401k programs at most companies are treated as a pool just like pension funds right? That's false. One of the requirements of a qualified plan under section 401 is that the employee has a nonforfeitable right to plan benefits: https://www.irs.gov/retirement-plans/plan-sponsor/401k-plan-qualification-requirements https://www.irs.gov/retirement-plans/plan-sponsor/401k-plan-... The corporations who tell workers that the corporation can take money out of employer 401k plans without authorization are trying to scare the workers, stop being their patsy. >The politicians who caused the problem are the ones who want you to blame the workers, stop being their patsy. The workers should have known that future promises to pay which would drive the government into insolvency were promises made in bad faith. This doesn't absolve the politicians of their sins, but the workers are not innocent lambs either.

bartart 9y ago

Calstrs, which is only for teachers, has over 900,000 members, with a bit less than half currently working. The average pension payout is $50,000 and the average retired person under Calstrs worked for under 25 years. And this is only for teachers. https://siepr.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/publications/17-023_1.pdf https://siepr.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/publications/... The many tens of billions of dollars spent on pensions annually in California alone dwarf any tax breaks given to companies. And California is very stingy with those anyway. For comparison California's annual budget is just about $270bn according to Ballotpedia.

ebbv 9y ago
I don’t even know where to begin your comment is so full of deliberate half truths. The people work under 25 years because you only need to work 20 to qualify. Why’s that? Because you only need to work that long to have paid enough into the pension fund to earn that retirement. Oh yeah that’s the detail everybody loves to skip over; these workers PAID into their pensions. They earned that money. Again, if the pensions aren’t solvent it’s because of corrupt politicians and nothing else. Stop trying to blame workers for receiving a benefit they worked for and deserve. And as far as the pension eclipsing tax breaks; another red herring. The pensions should be getting paid out of a relevant fund. AND while any one tax break may not match the payout of the overall fund there are many many corporate tax breaks written into the laws that collectively cut state budgets to shreds.

charleslmunger 9y ago

How much money would you consider to be a reasonable pension? LA's payment of pension obligations is 31% of their city budget. Many other cities see significantly more, and it's going to keep getting worse as more workers retire. https://calmatters.org/articles/commentary-surging-pension-costs-push-california-cities-toward-bankruptcy/ https://calmatters.org/articles/commentary-surging-pension-c...

shkkmo 9y ago

My guess is that the opening line is pure political rhetoric: "What a pathetic ploy to divide the working class against each other." While I agree with the overall point of the comment. I down voted it because of the tone with which it was made and it's lack of attempt to brings any facts or references to bear in reinforcing its claims. A prime example of states spending their money poorly to the benefit of big businesses is another HN topic. The headline is about eminent domain, but the article talks about the 3 billion "investment" that was given to Foxconn that seems unlikely to pay for itself even in an optimistically estimated 25 years. Edit: Also, several of the "factual" claims made were... hard to believe without any numbers to back them up.

bannedaccount 9y ago
There's such a double standard, but no one is ever called to back up a claim like "small government is better for the economy" which I believe is just empirically false. You can plainly see states/countries that spend more on pensions and social safety nets have wildly better outcomes for their citizens. Yet don't see conservative making any reasonable arguments just well wore platitudes about "fiscal responsibly," but they never are forced to elaborate on what they mean by that or flagged or down-voted because this is a highly conservative that serves to reinforce the beliefs as opposed to challenge them.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]

ams6110 9y ago

A state that lets a potentially large employer go elsewhere also misses out on the revenue. So there's no reason not to compete for them, since most states will get income tax revenue from the employees if nothing else, along with general economic benefits of lower unemployment.

cc439 9y ago
That and practically every economist agrees that taxes on businesses are pointless. Tax the people working for said business and then you won't have the cost of taxation merely passed on to the consumer. You'd also likely be able to pass par higher tax rates on the highest levels of executives that way.