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

241–250 of 277 posts

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

#241

Post by CryptoPunk »

jadedhacker wrote: post #120
Eridrus wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, this is an absolutely backwards way to pay people. When times are tough we end up tightening our belts on a whole host of services, but cannot adjust pensions because we have promised them. We should just pay people market rates and avoid saddling ourselves with a bunch of debt when times are good.

When is the government ever not tightening its belt? It's ridiculous that we can pay for bombs but not pensions. Just tax the rich some more. The debt never matters when it comes to killing but always matters when it comes to salving.

>>Just tax the rich some more.

The rich can leave. You can't, especially at the state level.

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

#242

Post by scarface74 »

DoreenMichele wrote: post #226
scarface74 wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My problem is that the pensions give the government a way of paying employees low and kicking the can down the road where later taxpayers bare the brunt of obligations that they had no say in. Just pay government employees more so taxpayers, the government, and potential employees can all go in knowing the trade offs and let the employees manage their own retirement like everyone else. Of course I don't have a proble…

I don't think you understand why military benefits are the way they are. And I am not up for writing an opus on it in comments here. Suffice it to say that raising your right hand and swearing to give your life for your country is a little different from your standard job.

I never said that we shouldn't give the military the benefits they get. All of the benefits except for pensions are benefits accounted for now and part of the current budget - they are not based on bad math.

I said you should pay government emmployees more now and let them save for their own retirements. You should want that instead of being forced to stay in for 20 years to get any retirement benefits.

And being in the military is statistically not the most dangerous job.

https://www.fool.com/investing/general/2014/03/15/dying-for-...

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

#243

Post by DoreenMichele »

scarface74 wrote: post #242
DoreenMichele wrote: post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think you understand why military benefits are the way they are. And I am not up for writing an opus on it in comments here. Suffice it to say that raising your right hand and swearing to give your life for your country is a little different from your standard job.

I never said that we shouldn't give the military the benefits they get. All of the benefits except for pensions are benefits accounted for now and part of the current budget - they are not based on bad math. I said you should pay government emmployees more now and let them save for their own retirements. You should want that instead of being forced to stay in for 20 years to get any retirement benefits. And being in…

Yeah, we are talking past each other.

It isn't the danger per se. I'm aware other jobs can maim or kill you. But uniquely the military can ask you to die for the cause. There is a difference there.

One of the reasons the military takes care of family is so military members can focus on the mission and not be distracted by worrying about such things.

The military medical system needs to exist to support the mission. In times of war, soldiers need medical care. Owning the facilities and having military medical personnel is essential to be able to trust that treatment.

So one of the reasons military families have access to free medical is because if you rest, you rust. Having doctors sitting around doing nothing waiting for war does not prepare them to handle the medical needs of a war time army.

Treating the families of the military members gives them a means to practice medicine so they stay sharp.

It's a very complex and elegant logic behind the decisions that have built the system we have currently. It is unlike just working for a paycheck. This is why words like duty and honor get used so much.

Maybe I will blog about it sometime. This probably just scratched the surface. And I don't think you get where I am coming from at all.

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

#244

Post by scarface74 »

DoreenMichele wrote: post #243
scarface74 wrote: post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I never said that we shouldn't give the military the benefits they get. All of the benefits except for pensions are benefits accounted for now and part of the current budget - they are not based on bad math. I said you should pay government emmployees more now and let them save for their own retirements. You should want that instead of being forced to stay in for 20 years to get any retirement benefits. And being in…

Yeah, we are talking past each other. It isn't the danger per se. I'm aware other jobs can maim or kill you. But uniquely the military can ask you to die for the cause. There is a difference there. One of the reasons the military takes care of family is so military members can focus on the mission and not be distracted by worrying about such things. The military medical system needs to exist to support the mission. I…

I'm not arguing with you about any of the benefits that the military gives families in the present. Just that instead of pensions - pay more.

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

#245

Post by DoreenMichele »

scarface74 wrote: post #244
DoreenMichele wrote: post #243

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, we are talking past each other. It isn't the danger per se. I'm aware other jobs can maim or kill you. But uniquely the military can ask you to die for the cause. There is a difference there. One of the reasons the military takes care of family is so military members can focus on the mission and not be distracted by worrying about such things. The military medical system needs to exist to support the mission. I…

I'm not arguing with you about any of the benefits that the military gives families in the present. Just that instead of pensions - pay more.

One of the reasons for the pensions is that service can chew you up and spit you out.

My father had shrapnel in his head. Because of it, he couldn't get new life insurance. It caused blind spells which caused him to quit at least one job that I know of. He was sometimes unemployed for months at a time after leaving the army.

There are lots of veterans who are disabled and never get their act together again. You see high rates of homelessness.

Anyway, I am going to stop here. I don't think you have really understood anything I have said and my comments are being downvoted.

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

#246

Post by refurb »

distances wrote: post #216
refurb wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Plus those 3-5 highest years include overtime. Bust your ass with overtime for 3 years and you can reap the benefit for the rest of your life. I also recall the NYCFD had a problem with that and with people claiming disability right before retirement. The rate was something like 90%. As a result a fireman who made a base of $100K per year (just a guess), might end up with a full pension at 50 that pays him/her $150k…

> As a result a fireman who made a base of $100K per year (just a guess) I know that was a guess, but sounds crazy high for a fireman. In my rather well-off Western European country a fireman makes about $45k per year before European taxes and deductions.

$50K is more typical in the US for small cities and more rural firefighters.

In big cities, $100k is actually pretty typical. I found a link from 2014 suggesting you reach $100k after 5 years.[1]

[1]https://www.villagevoice.com/2014/02/12/the-fdny-is-a-force-...

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

#247

Post by scarface74 »

derekp7 wrote: post #236
scarface74 wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My problem is that the pensions give the government a way of paying employees low and kicking the can down the road where later taxpayers bare the brunt of obligations that they had no say in. Just pay government employees more so taxpayers, the government, and potential employees can all go in knowing the trade offs and let the employees manage their own retirement like everyone else. Of course I don't have a proble…

Or pre-fund the pensions at the time the employee is working. I believe there are laws now requiring this, which is getting the US postal service upset because they suddenly have to pay a lot into pension funds now instead of later.

They do prefund pensions - they just prefund them using an unrealistic rate of return. Their Is nothing wrong with funding present level of liability based on the expected future value as long as it's not based on an unrealistic rate of return.

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

#248

Post by ebbv »

someguydave wrote: post #212
ebbv wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

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.

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.

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

#249

Post by toomuchtodo »

derekp7 wrote: post #236
scarface74 wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My problem is that the pensions give the government a way of paying employees low and kicking the can down the road where later taxpayers bare the brunt of obligations that they had no say in. Just pay government employees more so taxpayers, the government, and potential employees can all go in knowing the trade offs and let the employees manage their own retirement like everyone else. Of course I don't have a proble…

Or pre-fund the pensions at the time the employee is working. I believe there are laws now requiring this, which is getting the US postal service upset because they suddenly have to pay a lot into pension funds now instead of later.

The US postal service pension funding requirement was made purposely onerous by Congress, and is far more conservative than necessary (by design). I would recommend against using it as an example of proper pension governance.

https://www.uspsoig.gov/blog/be-careful-what-you-assume

https://www.govexec.com/pay-benefits/2016/12/obama-administr...

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

#250

Post by cma »

CryptoPunk wrote: post #238
cma wrote: post #183

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. 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…

Won't that require the federal government to raise the income tax rate to make up for the revenue lost from the deduction? I don't see how the extra expense won't ultimately result in additional taxes.

There would be some, but not the full amount because pensioners will pay federal tax on the pensions.
Post reply on HN