In response to:

Public Pensions Fail Simple Math

dhellew3 Wrote: Jul 26, 2012 10:01 AM
While what you say might sound like a good idea, there are deeper underlying issues. First government employees cannot actually contribute to their retirement, hence the term UNFUNDED ENTITLEMENT, because government does not generate income, only expenses that must be paid by the working private sector and businesses. Second, government employees get more than one UNFUNDED ENTITLEMENT. Not only do they get their government retirement check they also get social security. Many government retirees also get second and sometimes third retirement check; called double and triple dippers. Third, government payroll deductions (starting in 1983) for social security are spent then the private sector is taxed again to pay the entitlement.
Roy323 Wrote: Jul 27, 2012 1:34 PM
shud say "virtually all that Career"
Roy323 Wrote: Jul 27, 2012 1:33 PM
dhellew3-I.m not sure you are correct in a couple of your assumptions. I am retired Military (53-78) and paid into SS virtually all hay Carer. I also resumed work as a Federal Civil Svc employee (78-2001) when I finally retired. Yep-I'm one of those abominable "Double Dippers" but, although I cannot give exact figures,significant parts of both retirements are, I think, substantially reduced! My Wife after working only 18 years or so draws as much SS as do I! Please KNOW, I'm quite happy with our situation; just don't think it's quite the "gravy train" some think it is! Some of the Welfare troopers should try it-they MIGHT even LIKE IT!
ThasicAlambra Wrote: Jul 26, 2012 11:52 AM
well, the gentleman was suggesting that the public sector GET RID OF the current system that is rapidly spinning out of control and adopt a NEW system that would be sustainable but require the public sector to contribute to the system, like the rest of us regular folks.

There is a dirty secret about state entitlements that liberals don’t want you to know. The collection of a state pension increases the chances that a pensioner will live in poverty. That’s because money put aside for state-guaranteed benefits can not be safely invested at rates that provide for more than a modest retirement unless the state subsidizes retirement benefits through taxes or if retirement savings are invested in riskier, higher yielding investments. Since governments are loath to raise taxes to subsidize a riskless retirement, benefits are eventually reduced. It works that way in London and Moscow as well as Madison...

Related Tags: Pensions Fail math