|
|
Post by wvhsparent on May 5, 2011 20:19:10 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by wvhsparent on May 5, 2011 20:20:24 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by asmodeus on May 6, 2011 8:02:33 GMT -5
Public union employees "don't qualify" for SS because they don't pay into SS.
Public union employees should be on the same system as everyone else -- SS and 401k. Period.
If someone can provide a SINGLE reason why they should be treated differently, I'd love to hear it.
|
|
|
|
Post by wvhsparent on May 6, 2011 9:51:55 GMT -5
Public union employees "don't qualify" for SS because they don't pay into SS. Public union employees should be on the same system as everyone else -- SS and 401k. Period. If someone can provide a SINGLE reason why they should be treated differently, I'd love to hear it. Asmo - The point being made here is that some people get their shorts in a bunch thinking that most public employees (Not only union members) get gobs of cash thru their pension. Not necessarily true. You are right, some don't get SS as they did not pay into it. Honestly I think everyone should pay into SS. I (as one of these evil public employees) pay into BOTH my IMRF pension and SS. I also pay into a Deferred Comp (similar to a 401k). IMRF is over 90% funded BTW. My pension is earned by me putting funds into it along with my employer matching (No State money involved). Have there been abuses to even IMRF? Yes, but they have been dealt with. The bigger issue IMO is that the State has too much access/control over pensions, which has led to the position the State is in now. So should they be able to change my pension, or others with my same years of service, from what was promised to me, and that I physically paid into? Well they can't, due to a IL constitutional clause, which has since been changed for anyone hired after 1992 (I might be off a year or so on this date). Others may lament (doc) the private sector took away their pensions. I have a good buddy who works for UAL who is in the same boat. However I discussed this with him and asked how much of his "Lost" pension did he pay into (get taxed on)...........his answer - none. I would surmise that doc's was similar. Now my buddy also was in a 401k that was matched. I asked how much of that did he have....he has all of that, including the match. Maybe going the 401k route would be best. Whatever way is chosen going forward should be a way that the State is far removed from the purse strings..... |
|
|
|
Post by asmodeus on May 6, 2011 10:16:22 GMT -5
The problem with the "this was promised to me, I paid into it" argument is the same reason people who invest in Ponzi schemes don't get to keep their money. The system is inherently unsustainable. If politicians had been legally forced to fund these pensions in full based on good actuarial assumptions (i.e., not 8%+ investment returns), we would have had to raise income taxes through the roof -- and they knew the public would never have gone along with it.
The biggest gripes I have against the current system are:
1. Early retirement. Pensions should not be available until after 67, just like SS.
2. End-of-career pension inflators. The salary bumps and use of sick days to goose pensions are just unconscionable.
|
|
|
|
Post by macrockett on May 6, 2011 11:44:11 GMT -5
If you want some real info on pensions I have posted about 25 pages on blue. Q WVHS: What is the average annual return for the last decade on the 5 public pension plans in Illinois? Compare the figure with the actuarial assumption. Bottom line, public employees pay into their pensions, they just don't pay enough based on actual returns that have been achieved over the last decade. |
|
|
|
Post by macrockett on May 6, 2011 11:47:22 GMT -5
Public union employees "don't qualify" for SS because they don't pay into SS. Public union employees should be on the same system as everyone else -- SS and 401k. Period. If someone can provide a SINGLE reason why they should be treated differently, I'd love to hear it. Asmo - The point being made here is that some people get their shorts in a bunch thinking that most public employees (Not only union members) get gobs of cash thru their pension. Not necessarily true. You are right, some don't get SS as they did not pay into it. Honestly I think everyone should pay into SS. I (as one of these evil public employees) pay into BOTH my IMRF pension and SS. I also pay into a Deferred Comp (similar to a 401k). IMRF is over 90% funded BTW. My pension is earned by me putting funds into it along with my employer matching (No State money involved). Have there been abuses to even IMRF? Yes, but they have been dealt with. The bigger issue IMO is that the State has too much access/control over pensions, which has led to the position the State is in now. So should they be able to change my pension, or others with my same years of service, from what was promised to me, and that I physically paid into? Well they can't, due to a IL constitutional clause, which has since been changed for anyone hired after 1992 (I might be off a year or so on this date). Others may lament (doc) the private sector took away their pensions. I have a good buddy who works for UAL who is in the same boat. However I discussed this with him and asked how much of his "Lost" pension did he pay into (get taxed on)...........his answer - none. I would surmise that doc's was similar. Now my buddy also was in a 401k that was matched. I asked how much of that did he have....he has all of that, including the match. Maybe going the 401k route would be best. Whatever way is chosen going forward should be a way that the State is far removed from the purse strings..... "Whatever way is chosen going forward should be a way that the State is far removed from the purse strings." Agree with you 100% there. |
|
|
|
Post by wvhsparent on May 6, 2011 11:59:06 GMT -5
The problem with the "this was promised to me, I paid into it" argument is the same reason people who invest in Ponzi schemes don't get to keep their money. The system is inherently unsustainable. If politicians had been legally forced to fund these pensions in full based on good actuarial assumptions (i.e., not 8%+ investment returns), we would have had to raise income taxes through the roof -- and they knew the public would never have gone along with it. The biggest gripes I have against the current system are: 1. Early retirement. Pensions should not be available until after 67, just like SS. 2. End-of-career pension inflators. The salary bumps and use of sick days to goose pensions are just unconscionable. you want a 66 year old police officer or fire fighter protecting you? |
|
|
|
Post by asmodeus on May 6, 2011 13:32:28 GMT -5
The problem with the "this was promised to me, I paid into it" argument is the same reason people who invest in Ponzi schemes don't get to keep their money. The system is inherently unsustainable. If politicians had been legally forced to fund these pensions in full based on good actuarial assumptions (i.e., not 8%+ investment returns), we would have had to raise income taxes through the roof -- and they knew the public would never have gone along with it. The biggest gripes I have against the current system are: 1. Early retirement. Pensions should not be available until after 67, just like SS. 2. End-of-career pension inflators. The salary bumps and use of sick days to goose pensions are just unconscionable. you want a 66 year old police officer or fire fighter protecting you? There are less physical jobs that the officers could be transitioned to. Football players have short careers and then some go into broadcasting or coaching. I don't see why we need to make public union jobs lifetime jobs that then transition at an early age into comfortable pensions. As for teachers, I see no reason why a person can't teach until he or she is 67. |
|
|
|
Post by wvhsparent on May 6, 2011 16:33:26 GMT -5
you want a 66 year old police officer or fire fighter protecting you? There are less physical jobs that the officers could be transitioned to. Football players have short careers and then some go into broadcasting or coaching. I don't see why we need to make public union jobs lifetime jobs that then transition at an early age into comfortable pensions. As for teachers, I see no reason why a person can't teach until he or she is 67. sure someone could teach til 67. Police and Fire - Not so much. Even our Detectives and CSI Detectives have demanding jobs.......we still have to arrest (chase) suspects etc. So we have to stay in shape......... I could see raising it to 55 for Police and Fire.....That's how long I plan on staying....... |
|
|
|
Post by wvhsparent on May 9, 2011 13:47:43 GMT -5
Op-Ed: Society’s Promise to Public Safety Workers goes Beyond Memorials
By Sean M. Smoot
ssmoot@pbpa.org
This week, perhaps unlike any other in recent history, has given us all cause to reflect on promises.
We have seen a nation fulfill its promise to bring justice to a terrorist. For many days, we will view images of the horrific attacks that occurred almost 10 years ago in New York, Washington, D.C., and Pennsylvania. And we will witness — again — promises kept by the brave police officers, firefighters and other public employees who can be seen running toward the explosions, smoke and destruction as others run away.
People who work in public safety take an oath — they make a promise — to serve and protect. This promise is universal. It is the same oath, the same promise made and kept every day in New York, L.A., Chicago, Springfield, Cairo and in the community where you live.
Whether it’s in response to a terrorist attack, a tornado, a felony or a flood, police officers, firefighters and other first responders run toward danger and often into disaster. Some of them are catastrophically injured keeping that promise. And some of them die.
Promises made and promises kept — that’s what makes everything else in America possible. We are free because others took an oath, promising to be there when we need them — to pull us from a burning car or out of the rubble, to pursue those who would steal or damage our property, to keep our streets safe and criminals incarcerated, to save our lives.
On Thursday in Springfield, the Illinois Police Memorial took place honoring the heroes who paid the ultimate price in keeping the promises they made. Next week, we will honor the fallen heroes of Illinois’ fire service. Promises made, promise kept.
In exchange for their devotion to all of us, we have promised to provide public safety workers — like all public employees — with fair pay and benefits. Benefits promised include security for those fortunate enough to retire and security for the families of those who don’t survive the perils of the job. The pension system that provides this security also prevents police officers and firefighters from getting Social Security benefits. Instead, they pay nearly 10 percent of their salary into their pension systems.
Further, nearly eight in 10 Illinois public employees are ineligible for Social Security. You read that right: Unlike every private sector worker in America, Illinois teachers, police and others don’t get Social Security. When they retire, their pension is all they have. It’s their life savings.
Their pensions are modest. At the end of a working life devoted to public service, an Illinois teacher, firefighter or librarian retires with an average pension of just $32,000 a year — and many receive much less.
They accrue that life savings, their pension, in part by paying for it themselves. In most cases, 8 percent or 9 percent of every public employee’s paycheck goes directly toward his or her retirement. It always has, faithfully and in full, even as the politicians time and again failed to make the contributions required by law.
Their employers, local governments and the state of Illinois, are supposed to pay their fair share, too. Cities, villages and the state do not pay any Social Security taxes for police and fire employees. Some have failed to keep that promise, running up a huge debt to our pension systems.
Now, instead of paying their share, politicians in Springfield propose to break that promise and cut the pensions of firefighters and police — along with teachers, nurses and every other public employee in the state.
What makes our country work is the value we place on public service. After all, isn’t the core responsibility of government to safeguard the lives and liberty of the people? The promises made and kept by police and firefighters are often venerated, especially in times of crisis or tragedy.
Our promise to public safety workers goes beyond memorial ceremonies.
Sadly, a number of state and local elected officials need to be reminded that for America to work and for our communities to thrive, promises made must be kept — all the time, not just in times of tragedy and disaster.
To our Springfield elected officials, who serve the people of the south suburbs, don’t cut the modest pensions these quiet heroes earn, pay into and depend on.
Sean Smoot is director of the Illinois Police Benevolent & Protective Association, which represents law enforcement on issues related to public safety and the impact of other policy and legislative action for its members. Reach him at ssmoot@pbpa.org.
|
|
|
|
Post by asmodeus on May 12, 2011 7:31:48 GMT -5
These employees are "prevented" from receiving SS? They are "ineligible" for SS? How about we change the wording to something just as accurate: they don't contribute a penny to SS.
|
|
