Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

A $76,000 Monthly Pension: Why States and Cities Are Short on Cash

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 277 posts

Re: A $76,000 Monthly Pension: Why States and Cities Are Short on Cash

#191

Post by [deleted] »

cma wrote: post #183
mythrwy wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because unless you can figure out how to get the government to count tax twice that's where the money is going to come from... disposable income now going to tax. Otherwise now the government now has less money to spend. Aka the "no fuel for trucks" you mention.

>Because unless you can figure out how to get the government to count tax twice that's where the money is going to come from... disposable income now going to tax. State tax is deductible from federal taxes up to $10,000. So you can pay that $300 without it all coming out of after tax income. Most people may not go over standard deduction, but dollar wise state tax is probably paid by high earners who will, since the…

[deleted]

Re: A $76,000 Monthly Pension: Why States and Cities Are Short on Cash

#192

Post by ebbv »

ams6110 wrote: post #67
narag wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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.

Pensions are not a pyramid scheme any more than any other form of retirement fund is. Give me a break.

Re: A $76,000 Monthly Pension: Why States and Cities Are Short on Cash

#193

Post by humanrebar »

danmaz74 wrote: post #165
DoreenMichele wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not aware of one and your question touches on some of the hidden forms of compensation that can be hard to measure (and can vary over time for the same person -- for example, we were sometimes in housing on base and sometimes not). The below examples are off the top of my head from memory as a military spouse and may be very out of date. The military will cover 75% of tuition for active duty members. Most states…

> military spouses have high unemployment rates because locals don't want to hire them May I ask why? Because they know you're going to move soon, or any other reasons?

Anecdotally, some people just don't like the people in the armed services.

Lots of military spouses have resumes that look a lot like ones for homemakers: gaps in employment, changing jobs regularly, involvement in multi-level marketing, etc. Many of those things are red flags in their own right.

Re: A $76,000 Monthly Pension: Why States and Cities Are Short on Cash

#194

Post by ebbv »

bartart wrote: post #44
jinfiesto wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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/... The many tens of billions of dollars spent on pensions annually in California alone dwarf any tax breaks gi…

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.

Re: A $76,000 Monthly Pension: Why States and Cities Are Short on Cash

#195

Post by humanrebar »

LoSboccacc wrote: post #147
fludlight wrote: post #121

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…

They just get thrown in the unemployed pool and their income average drops dramatically with severe ripercussion on the final pension calculations I know because in europe we have an unrealistic retirement age and my father like many other lost his job in the 2008-2012 crisis. Been unemployed ever since. What happens is that in the 50-65 braket you’re a huge liability with severe productivity drops and companies trie…

It is illegal to discriminate against anyone for being over 40 years old. That goes for hiring, firing, or promotion decisions. But, yes, it's hard to prove. Enforcement tends to be through civil lawsuits, too, which can be hard to fund and win.

Re: A $76,000 Monthly Pension: Why States and Cities Are Short on Cash

#196

Post by humanrebar »

FranzFerdiNaN wrote: post #155
opo wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>...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…

I agree, private sector workers should also get free healthcare.

I don't know how long that will take to actually pass. We can at least stop tying insurance to particular employers. Even in public sector jobs, it can be risky to switch jobs to live in a better neighborhood or work for a better boss (maybe one that doesn't discriminate based on age, for example).

Re: A $76,000 Monthly Pension: Why States and Cities Are Short on Cash

#197

Post by humanrebar »

seanp2k2 wrote: post #89
Someone1234 wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The way most pensions work Most pensions historically . People entering the job market today (or even most of the millennial generation) were never offered these final salary pensions. Instead we get defined contribution plans, 401Ks, or nothing at all. The key difference being that defined contribution plans (and 401Ks) are always only worth what was contributed (and investment performance profits). Things like yo…

>It is a better system from a larger society perspective (nothing is "loaned") but may result in few actually being able to afford retirement. We'll see how this plays out with baby boomers retiring to give some indication as to what the younger generations may be up against.

Arguably, historical birth rates affect a larger affect on the budget than retirement account shenanigans.

Re: A $76,000 Monthly Pension: Why States and Cities Are Short on Cash

#198

Post by RhysU »

jakelarkin wrote: post #122
skookumchuck wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't get this entitlement to retire at 55 or even 50. The retirement age should be 65.

the argument is that police work is more physically demanding and stressful, there's not too many desk jobs. that said the benefits in some states are ludicrous, cops spike their payout the last few years and retire with $200k pensions and healthcare for life at 50, then move on to your 2nd careers. In the private sector even if you max out your 401k you'd never come close to that sort of retirement.

> In the private sector even if you max out your 401k you'd never come close to that sort of retirement.

Folks that could and would provide for their future selves like this via 401k programs cannot, as you point out, on account of contribution limits. Saving outside tax-advantaged accounts is certainly doable but hardly seems fair vs the pensioner's tax treatment mentioned in the article.

Re: A $76,000 Monthly Pension: Why States and Cities Are Short on Cash

#199

Post by humanrebar »

cma wrote: post #181
mythrwy wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the average person makes 50K a year then the average person in Oregon takes home about 35K per year. So you say it's "only" 300 extra dollars a year they have to pay. In other words, this person now owes nearly 1% of their disposable income for life to cover _currently_ unfunded pensions with no corresponding increase in goods or service levels. To put it another way, this person will work ~1/3 of a year out of th…

Why would you look at their after tax income when this comes out of their taxes? (But I can't remember the deductibility rules under the new tax code, maybe they can't deduct state tax payments from federal now). (Also, I made a mistake, that number was household income)

> Why would you look at their after tax income when this comes out of their taxes?

Every new expense comes out of your savings rate (or your rate in paying off principal if you're in debt). To understand "kitchen table economics", you're always better looking at the wealth growth rates (or lack thereof) when trying to weigh how much of a burden something is.

Re: A $76,000 Monthly Pension: Why States and Cities Are Short on Cash

#200

Post by humanrebar »

mgleason_3 wrote: post #133
rayiner wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For the most part, government work does not pay poorly.[1] For example federal employees without advanced degrees earn a lot more in government than in the private sector: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/... [1] I’m willing to entertain the idea our economic system as a whole undercompensates secretaries and overcompensates executives. That’s a different issue.

In California many/most public employees earn over 6-figures in total compensation. This includes government employees, teachers, police, Fire, etc. Yea, it’s insane. Don’t believe me? Look it up - https://transparentcalifornia.com/salaries/2017

Police and fire fighters are doing very hazardous work. Teachers tend to have postgraduate degrees. All can be living in high cost-of-living areas where $100k doesn't go as far as people think.

"Government employees" could be running departments or administering budgets that would be director-level positions in a private corporation.

But, yeah, it seems like too much to pay $600k per year for checking that applicants correctly filled in the phone number on their 124-J forms. But I'm not sure it's always that clear cut.

Post reply on HN