3 ms·

> Because both are paid for with tax dollars, while private sector pensions and 401(k) accounts are not. Moreover, the public can't be forced to raise taxes to

> Because both are paid for with tax dollars, while private sector pensions and 401(k) accounts are not. Moreover, the public can't be forced to raise taxes to bail out underfunded private sector pensions, while courts are doing just that with public pensions. Both private sector and public sector employees receive Social Security benefits. It makes no sense to pretend that Social Security benefits are exclusive to private sector employees. The article makes it seem as though only public sector employees can retire at 59 and expect to get anything, while hardworking private sector employees must wait until 67. This is certainly not the case. Private sector employees are (sometimes) offered pensions and (almost always) offered 401(k)s, both of which allow for early retirement. > I'm outraged because I'm paying for it with tax dollars. I love paying my taxes, but now that we're at the point where a dollar that goes to pensioners is a dollar that doesn't go to schools and infrastructure, it's definitely legitimate to question how comfortable a living we want to provide to public employees at taxpayer expense. We should pay them every dollar we owe them. It isn't their problem if they paid in every year and the government did not meet its obligations. If you must, cut off pensions for new employees. Don't change the rules on the old ones. As for 'taxpayer expense', you may be interested in this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pension_Benefit_Guaranty_Corporation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pension_Benefit_Guaranty_Corpo... If too many private pensions start failing, taxpayers may still be on the hook.

timsally 11y ago
> We should pay them every dollar we owe them. It isn't their problem if they paid in every year and the government did not meet its obligations. It's a lot more complicated than that. School districts can unilaterally give raises to teachers, which increases the tax-payer's burden via additional pension obligations when that teacher retires. The most egregious form this takes are large raises in the few years before someone retires to "supercharge" their pension. Should the tax-payers be on the hook for obligations that were unilaterally created by local school districts? If a school board creates a new assistant/associate/full superintendent/principal position and elevates an existing teacher to that position, they've just added hundreds of thousands of dollars to the tax-payer's bill in the form of additional pension obligations with no approval whatsoever. People on public pension systems are owed a fair deal that gives them a secure retirement. Obviously at a minimum they should receive what they paid in, compounded yearly at 6.7% (adjusted for inflation). But they're also going to have to bit the bullet for the greater good, just as I'm going to have to do when I lose at least 25% of social security when I retire. We've got a fixed pie of blood and treasure and we owe it to all people to spend that pie wisely, even if it means adjusting pensions.

timsally 11y ago

> We should pay them every dollar we owe them. It isn't their problem if they paid in every year and the government did not meet its obligations. It's a lot more complicated than that. School districts can unilaterally give raises to teachers, which increases the tax-payer's burden via additional pension obligations when that teacher retires. The most egregious form this takes are large raises in the few years before someone retires to "supercharge" their pension. Should the tax-payers be on the hook for obligations that were unilaterally created by local school districts? If a school board creates a new assistant/associate/full superintendent/principal position and elevates an existing teacher to that position, they've just added hundreds of thousands of dollars to the tax-payer's bill in the form of additional pension obligations with no approval whatsoever. People on public pension systems are owed a fair deal that gives them a secure retirement. Obviously at a minimum they should receive what they paid in, compounded yearly at 6.7% (adjusted for inflation). But they're also going to have to bit the bullet for the greater good, just as I'm going to have to do when I lose at least 25% of social security when I retire. We've got a fixed pie of blood and treasure and we owe it to all people to spend that pie wisely, even if it means adjusting pensions.