Posted: Fri Aug 27, 2010 8:11 pm
Ad hominems are not permitted here. Kiss and make up.
Or we will delete this whole thread.
Or we will delete this whole thread.
AP wrote:The security guards at the headquarters of New Jersey's pension fund have never seen anything like it before: lines of public employees extending out the door and into the street.
Day after day, workers come in droves to apply for retirement. They often line up before dawn.
The rush has been set off in part by Republican Gov. Chris Christie's campaign in this cash-strapped state to make government employment — and retirement — less lucrative.
Since 2008, New Jersey and at least 19 other states from Wyoming to Rhode Island have rolled back pension benefits or seriously considered doing do — and not just for new hires, but for current employees and people already retired.
After telegraphing his intentions for months, Christie spelled out the details of his proposal Tuesday. They include: repealing an increase in benefits approved years ago; eliminating automatic cost-of-living adjustments; raising the retirement age to 65 from 60 in many cases; reducing pension payouts for many future retirees; and requiring some employees to contribute more to their pensions.
"We must reverse the damage caused by fairy-tale promises that have fattened benefits and pensions to unsustainable levels," the governor said.
Yes, because 20 states is most all.........joeglow wrote:States cutting benefits for public-sector retirees
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/art ... gD9I87UJO0
AP wrote:Since 2008, New Jersey and at least 19 other states from Wyoming to Rhode Island have rolled back pension benefits or seriously considered doing do — and not just for new hires, but for current employees and people already retired....
Most all states are starting to realize the unsustainability of current pensions packages and are rolling them back. Hopefully, Omaha wises up soon.
Also sounds like some of the problem is states skipping payments. I wonder if I can skip my bill payments._ In Wyoming, as of Sept. 1, employees will have to start paying 1.4 percent of their salaries into a pension fund — the first time in a decade the workers have had to contribute anything.
Wow! Â THAT is what you choose to comment on??? Â Thanks for the insight... Â If I change it to 40%, could you offer something worthwhile?icejammer wrote:Yes, because 20 states is most all.........joeglow wrote:States cutting benefits for public-sector retirees
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/art ... gD9I87UJO0
AP wrote:Since 2008, New Jersey and at least 19 other states from Wyoming to Rhode Island have rolled back pension benefits or seriously considered doing do — and not just for new hires, but for current employees and people already retired....
Most all states are starting to realize the unsustainability of current pensions packages and are rolling them back. Hopefully, Omaha wises up soon.
So.....they have rolled back benefits - i.e. they are requiring employees to contribute a larger percentage. Â According to your logic, if a company makes you pay more for benefits, it is akin to skipping bill payments? Â Odd logic.Uffda wrote:according to the article Wyoming didn't roll back benefits
Also sounds like some of the problem is states skipping payments. I wonder if I can skip my bill payments._ In Wyoming, as of Sept. 1, employees will have to start paying 1.4 percent of their salaries into a pension fund — the first time in a decade the workers have had to contribute anything.
No, if you actually read the article you would see that some States have not been putting in their share of contributions, which aggravates the shortages in these pension funds.joeglow wrote:So.....they have rolled back benefits - i.e. they are requiring employees to contribute a larger percentage. According to your logic, if a company makes you pay more for benefits, it is akin to skipping bill payments? Odd logic.Uffda wrote:according to the article Wyoming didn't roll back benefits
Also sounds like some of the problem is states skipping payments. I wonder if I can skip my bill payments._ In Wyoming, as of Sept. 1, employees will have to start paying 1.4 percent of their salaries into a pension fund — the first time in a decade the workers have had to contribute anything.
To me it's the principle of the thing. Â The guys who are constantly pushing for more benefits, higher pay, richer pensions, etc. - are not only the ones who are directly benefiting from them, but are choosing to live in place where they don't have to pay the increased property taxes. ÂSeth wrote:Residency requirements wouldn't make a difference in this case. What percent of the city population are the police and fire department employees? Even if they all did pay the same taxes, they would still be better off voting for higher pay and benefits, because they'd only have to pay a very small percent of it back in higher taxes.
All I'm saying is just because 40% of States are choosing to do so, doesn't mean that Omaha should follow their lead. Â Omaha should do what it needs to do regardless of what other governmental entities are doing, not because others are doing it. Â Thanks for the math lesson though, I really couldn't come up with that 40% on my own, and now that I know you consider 40% to be "most all", remind me not to use your accounting services.joeglow wrote:Wow! THAT is what you choose to comment on??? Thanks for the insight... If I change it to 40%, could you offer something worthwhile?icejammer wrote:Yes, because 20 states is most all.........joeglow wrote:States cutting benefits for public-sector retirees
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/art ... gD9I87UJO0
AP wrote:Since 2008, New Jersey and at least 19 other states from Wyoming to Rhode Island have rolled back pension benefits or seriously considered doing do — and not just for new hires, but for current employees and people already retired....
Most all states are starting to realize the unsustainability of current pensions packages and are rolling them back. Hopefully, Omaha wises up soon.
Sometimes I feel like I am pissing in the wind. Â Speaking of math, it flat out DOES NOT WORK. Â Much like social security, when the plans were established, there were MUCH different criteria at work - growing population bases, shortened life spans, more nationalized economies.icejammer wrote:All I'm saying is just because 40% of States are choosing to do so, doesn't mean that Omaha should follow their lead. Omaha should do what it needs to do regardless of what other governmental entities are doing, not because others are doing it. Thanks for the math lesson though, I really couldn't come up with that 40% on my own, and now that I know you consider 40% to be "most all", remind me not to use your accounting services.joeglow wrote:Wow! THAT is what you choose to comment on??? Thanks for the insight... If I change it to 40%, could you offer something worthwhile?icejammer wrote:Yes, because 20 states is most all.........joeglow wrote:States cutting benefits for public-sector retirees
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/art ... gD9I87UJO0
AP wrote:Since 2008, New Jersey and at least 19 other states from Wyoming to Rhode Island have rolled back pension benefits or seriously considered doing do — and not just for new hires, but for current employees and people already retired....
Most all states are starting to realize the unsustainability of current pensions packages and are rolling them back. Hopefully, Omaha wises up soon.
And, for the 100th time, you're wrong. There are plenty of completely solvent private sector pensions out there. My mother draws one. Her dad drew one until he died. A family friend is 2 years away from drawing his.joeglow wrote:For the 100th time, there is a reason why private companies got away from them and those that didn't flat out went bankrupt (i.e. GM). Sadly, greedy, ignorant taxpayers figure governments have an unlimited supply of money. Thus, since bankruptcy is never a concern (per se, as they can always tax more), they would rather stick their heads in the sand, pretend like nothing is wrong, turn it into a political or class warfare argument and ignore the facts.
And those that are succeeding have cut their benefits from what was offered. Â You no longer see successful plans that offer free healthcare. Â You no longer see successful plans that give you 50 years of payments for 20-25 years of service. Â Those that succeed require you to work to 65 and pay a chunk of your healthcare and it is usually only offered until you qualify for medicare. Â So, NO you do not see plans like governments have that succeed.Bosco55David wrote:And, for the 100th time, you're wrong. There are plenty of completely solvent private sector pensions out there. My mother draws one. Her dad drew one until he died. A family friend is 2 years away from drawing his.joeglow wrote:For the 100th time, there is a reason why private companies got away from them and those that didn't flat out went bankrupt (i.e. GM). Sadly, greedy, ignorant taxpayers figure governments have an unlimited supply of money. Thus, since bankruptcy is never a concern (per se, as they can always tax more), they would rather stick their heads in the sand, pretend like nothing is wrong, turn it into a political or class warfare argument and ignore the facts.
The private sector isn't getting out of the pension game because they have to, they're during it because the decline of unionization is letting them. It's no surprise that when the labor get rid of the stick that gives them a fair share of the pie, the bosses are going to take more of that share for themselves.
Oh yeah? I guess you better tell that to my mom. That nice pension for 30 years of service and nearly free healthcare must be a figment of her imagination.joeglow wrote:And those that are succeeding have cut their benefits from what was offered. You no longer see successful plans that offer free healthcare. You no longer see successful plans that give you 50 years of payments for 20-25 years of service. Those that succeed require you to work to 65 and pay a chunk of your healthcare and it is usually only offered until you qualify for medicare. So, NO you do not see plans like governments have that succeed.
That anecdotal example proves NOTHING. Â There was a 22 year police officer on the news tonight retiring with a guaranteed salary of $72,000 a year for life. Â Using your logic, since he is getting a check tomorrow (theoretically), the system is 100% perfect. ÂBosco55David wrote:Oh yeah? I guess you better tell that to my mom. That nice pension for 30 years of service and nearly free healthcare must be a figment of her imagination.joeglow wrote:And those that are succeeding have cut their benefits from what was offered. You no longer see successful plans that offer free healthcare. You no longer see successful plans that give you 50 years of payments for 20-25 years of service. Those that succeed require you to work to 65 and pay a chunk of your healthcare and it is usually only offered until you qualify for medicare. So, NO you do not see plans like governments have that succeed.
So.....they have rolled back benefits - i.e. they are requiring employees to contribute a larger percentage. Â According to your logic, if a company makes you pay more for benefits, it is akin to skipping bill payments? Â Odd logic.
No, if you actually read the article you would see that some States have not been putting in their share of contributions, which aggravates the shortages in these pension funds.
joeglow wrote:That anecdotal example proves NOTHING. There was a 22 year police officer on the news tonight retiring with a guaranteed salary of $72,000 a year for life. Using your logic, since he is getting a check tomorrow (theoretically), the system is 100% perfect.
Some of us are able to see where the road is going BEFORE we drive off the cliff.
Naw, I agree with your assessment that the house was U-G-L-Y. Â :PDeWalt wrote:By the way, your deam "fixer upper" on Cuming Street sold. Bummer, huhh? :)
I'm sure it's well on its way to becoming Section 8 Housing.Bosco55David wrote:Naw, I agree with your assessment that the house was U-G-L-Y. :PDeWalt wrote:By the way, your deam "fixer upper" on Cuming Street sold. Bummer, huhh? :)
Are you talking about the 2 1/2 story between 34th and 35th? Â My wife and I actually went to look at it. Â It was a real gem; I don't think it had any upkeep in the past 50 years besides many layers of 5-dollar-a-gallon paint. Â The wolf mural on the garage almost sold us, though, haha!DeWalt wrote:By the way, your dream "fixer upper" on Cuming Street sold. Bummer, huhh? :)
That's the one.Seth wrote:Are you talking about the 2 1/2 story between 34th and 35th? My wife and I actually went to look at it. It was a real gem; I don't think it had any upkeep in the past 50 years besides many layers of 5-dollar-a-gallon paint. The wolf mural on the garage almost sold us, though, haha!DeWalt wrote:By the way, your dream "fixer upper" on Cuming Street sold. Bummer, huhh? :)
They'll always ditch the newbies first. They're not going to start cutting people who have significant time built up in their pensions. That's needed to protect the employee.Stargazer wrote:http://www.omaha.com/article/20101107/NEWS01/101109766
Wouldn't it make more sense to cut those officers closest to qualifying for their full pensions? ... and retain rookies in their place? Of course it would... but then I'm sure the union has us legally bound to retain those highest tenured officers.
It's not about evaluation as that's a separate matter in itself. This is a protection put in place so the guys who have 10 or 20 years on the job don't lose their accrued retirement time because limp |expletive| accountants like yourself want to save some money.joeglow wrote:Because apparently hospitals and police officers are incapable of doing what EVER OTHER PROFESSION can do: evaluate who the best are (i.e. not just be lazy and adopt a "last hire, first fired" mentality). Oh, and teacher's unions as well.
Ahhh. Â Personal attacks are the sign that someone feels confident in their argument. Â However, I am glad to see you have your copy of the police union play book. Â Oddly enough, it is the same as the fire fighters and teacher union's (or any government union for that matter).Bosco55David wrote:It's not about evaluation as that's a separate matter in itself. This is a protection put in place so the guys who have 10 or 20 years on the job don't lose their accrued retirement time because limp |expletive| accountants like yourself want to save some money.joeglow wrote:Because apparently hospitals and police officers are incapable of doing what EVER OTHER PROFESSION can do: evaluate who the best are (i.e. not just be lazy and adopt a "last hire, first fired" mentality). Oh, and teacher's unions as well.
Bosco55David wrote:They'll always ditch the newbies first. They're not going to start cutting people who have significant time built up in their pensions. That's needed to protect the employee.Stargazer wrote:http://www.omaha.com/article/20101107/NEWS01/101109766
Wouldn't it make more sense to cut those officers closest to qualifying for their full pensions? ... and retain rookies in their place? Of course it would... but then I'm sure the union has us legally bound to retain those highest tenured officers.
Another thing to consider is that OPD is a pretty young department. Chief Hayes has made it pretty clear he wants to retain as many experienced officers as possible.
mrdwhsr wrote:A little off the pension discussion but aren't there a couple of guys posting in this forum that want to join the Omaha Police Department someday? With OPD cutting the newbies that doesn't bode well for those who could be hired in the near future.
And for those who think these cut-backs aren't a big deal because you don't want a job with OPD, a reduced force means fewer patrols and slower response times.
As much as it sucks for "the guy who might lose half of his accrued pension time so the bean counters can save money", it sucks a lot less than it does for the taxpayer taking the a$$ pounding from the police and fire unions.Bosco55David wrote:As much as it sucks for us that this is going to delay our goals, it sucks alot less than it would for the guy who might lose half of his accrued pension time so the bean counters can save money.
Of course you'd feel that way. You're blatantly hostile to any unionized profession, radically conservative and would have no problem destroying someone's livelihood to save a buck or two on your property taxes. You're entitled to feel that way of course, but once again you'll never get your way thanks to unions that have bonded together and put a stop to that way of thinking.joeglow wrote:As much as it sucks for "the guy who might lose half of his accrued pension time so the bean counters can save money", it sucks a lot less than it does for the taxpayer taking the a$$ pounding from the police and fire unions.
You clearly have not read what I have posted. Â I come from a union family and strongly support unions when they stand up for workers rights. Â I oppose unions when they try to swing the pendulum too far the other way. Â Unfortunately, with government unions it is too easy to do just that.Bosco55David wrote:Of course you'd feel that way. You're blatantly hostile to any unionized profession, radically conservative and would have no problem destroying someone's livelihood to save a buck or two on your property taxes. You're entitled to feel that way of course, but once again you'll never get your way thanks to unions that have bonded together and put a stop to that way of thinking.joeglow wrote:As much as it sucks for "the guy who might lose half of his accrued pension time so the bean counters can save money", it sucks a lot less than it does for the taxpayer taking the a$$ pounding from the police and fire unions.
In that case you're basically clueless (no shocker there) as every union I've ever known has clauses in the contract ensuring that in the event of layoffs those with the lowest seniority go first, yet you're making this a government union issue.joeglow wrote:You clearly have not read what I have posted. I come from a union family and strongly support unions when they stand up for workers rights. I oppose unions when they try to swing the pendulum too far the other way. Unfortunately, with government unions it is too easy to do just that.
Bosco55David wrote:In that case you're basically clueless (no shocker there) as every union I've ever known has clauses in the contract ensuring that in the event of layoffs those with the lowest seniority go first, yet you're making this a government union issue.joeglow wrote:You clearly have not read what I have posted. I come from a union family and strongly support unions when they stand up for workers rights. I oppose unions when they try to swing the pendulum too far the other way. Unfortunately, with government unions it is too easy to do just that.
I don't think anyone in a union gives a damn.joeglow wrote:And that is an instance where I oppose all unions.
Honestly, I don't care if they give a damn and, frankly, leave it between the parties involved and the private company. Â However, when it comes to government unions, while they may not give a damn, I will exercise my right to do what is right. Â And, in looking at the thug behavior the fire union has exercised when went after Jean Stothert, American Taxpayers for Freedom, Nabity, etc. it is clear they do give a damn about the masses cutting off their lotto pensions.Bosco55David wrote:I don't think anyone in a union gives a darn.joeglow wrote:And that is an instance where I oppose all unions.
Rant ad nauseum about something that you'll never have any impact on?joeglow wrote:I will exercise my right to do what is right.