151–160 of 277 posts
1. Progressively lower pensions. Skim off the top earners.
2. Create projects for the community and declare that the saved money will be used for those projects for better optics.
This won't lower trust in government pensions by that much because this is just correcting what is seen as "unfairly high" pensions.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In California "More than 200,000 civil servants became eligible to retire at 55 — and in many cases collect more than half their highest salary for life. California Highway Patrol officers could retire at 50 and receive as much as 90% of their peak pay for as long as they lived." http://www.latimes.com/projects/la-me-pension-crisis-davis-d... This seems like a pretty big budget item, especially since most CA governme…
How is it possible that they can retire on 90% of their peak pay? It seems that it's based off of years of service instead of quality of service... Since the longer you work I assume the higher you get paid.
Because the pension formula is an age-based benefit factor times years of service; for the “2% at 55” plan, the benefit factor ranges from 1.426% at age 50 to 2% at 55 (hence the name) to 2.418% at 63+.
So someone retiring at 63+ with 37¼ years of service will get just over 90%.
But that's a plan that is common to run of the mill civil service. Public safety pensions tend to have higher benefit factors at the same age (but top out, in benefit factor terms, sooner), so that level can be reached earlier.
> It seems that it's based off of years of service instead of quality of service...
Job type will effect which plan you are in.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In California "More than 200,000 civil servants became eligible to retire at 55 — and in many cases collect more than half their highest salary for life. California Highway Patrol officers could retire at 50 and receive as much as 90% of their peak pay for as long as they lived." http://www.latimes.com/projects/la-me-pension-crisis-davis-d... This seems like a pretty big budget item, especially since most CA governme…
It should be plain unconstitutional to raise a tax on someone to pay a benefit to another. Whatever the court rules on the state not defaulting on its debts, pending that cost to someone that does not get, or want, the same benefit, should be equally pernicious for the law.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In California "More than 200,000 civil servants became eligible to retire at 55 — and in many cases collect more than half their highest salary for life. California Highway Patrol officers could retire at 50 and receive as much as 90% of their peak pay for as long as they lived." http://www.latimes.com/projects/la-me-pension-crisis-davis-d... This seems like a pretty big budget item, especially since most CA governme…
I don't get this entitlement to retire at 55 or even 50. The retirement age should be 65.
Our 'productivity' has gone up by at least 2% per year. If you understand compounding you realize how significant that impact is. We're in front of a next generation work automation tsunami. The notion that 'working longer' is 'needed' as a consequence of anything besides a completely failed and derailed socio-economic model is absurd.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You can't do most blue collar jobs at 50, much less 65. Shoveling asphalt, laying track, climbing on top or under heavy machinery, or chasing criminals is backbreaking work. The bodies of these people are permanently worn out by the time they hit 55. Some are promoted into management, but most org charts are naturally pyramids, so there aren't enough of those jobs for everyone. So what to do with someone who is now t…
>...You can't do most blue collar jobs at 50, much less 65. The vast majority of blue collar jobs are in the private sector and they don't get pensions with COLA and free medical when they turn 50 or 55. It doesn't seem fair that government workers are treated differently. If someone is disabled there are government programs to help them, but I see little evidence that the many of those government workers retiring at…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The numbers I found: Oregon population: 4,000,000 Pension deficit 2017: $25,000,000,000 Per-capita share: $6,250 Assuming a large portion of the pensions will get spent on goods, services, and donations in state, it doesn't seem like a huge disaster, depending on how it grows.
A dollar can only change hands so many times before it's worthless unless it's going towards actual value-adding goods/services. Considering how deprived the general population is for funds to spend on value-added goods, I don't think taking $6,250 from every person in the state just to support a tiny, tiny fraction of the population is doing much good. That and a large portion of pensioners flee to states without an…
The government paying its debts and not committing wage theft is a public good. It's a pivotal decision point in whether we are a functioning civilization with a rule of law or a third-world regime on its way down. It may be convenient in this one isolated instance to renege, but the knock-on effects of the message it sends - that public servants will be paid only when convenient - will be huge. Although that may be just as well, if you hope to minimize the role of government going forward.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't get this entitlement to retire at 55 or even 50. The retirement age should be 65.
I don't get how in a world where about 10% of the work goes into actually producing nescessities, and all the rest goes into 'make work' or even worse producing things that are health hazards or nearly straight to landfill junk, we still think we need to 'work more/longer/harder'! Our 'productivity' has gone up by at least 2% per year. If you understand compounding you realize how significant that impact is. We're in…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't get this entitlement to retire at 55 or even 50. The retirement age should be 65.
You can't do most blue collar jobs at 50, much less 65. Shoveling asphalt, laying track, climbing on top or under heavy machinery, or chasing criminals is backbreaking work. The bodies of these people are permanently worn out by the time they hit 55. Some are promoted into management, but most org charts are naturally pyramids, so there aren't enough of those jobs for everyone. So what to do with someone who is now t…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't get this entitlement to retire at 55 or even 50. The retirement age should be 65.
You can't do most blue collar jobs at 50, much less 65. Shoveling asphalt, laying track, climbing on top or under heavy machinery, or chasing criminals is backbreaking work. The bodies of these people are permanently worn out by the time they hit 55. Some are promoted into management, but most org charts are naturally pyramids, so there aren't enough of those jobs for everyone. So what to do with someone who is now t…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't get this entitlement to retire at 55 or even 50. The retirement age should be 65.
You can't do most blue collar jobs at 50, much less 65. Shoveling asphalt, laying track, climbing on top or under heavy machinery, or chasing criminals is backbreaking work. The bodies of these people are permanently worn out by the time they hit 55. Some are promoted into management, but most org charts are naturally pyramids, so there aren't enough of those jobs for everyone. So what to do with someone who is now t…