What municipality's pension plan allows you to retire at 37?

OK, I'll bite... is there a reason why subby didn't link straight to the WSJ article?

No subby...... the garbageman and most other government workers paid into their pension with every paycheck they earned. Instead of having money taken out for social security, which they don't get, the money was placed into a pension fund for their retirement.....

Well..... it was supposed to go into a pension fund..... however a lot of cities and state governments thought they could use that money for other things and so they paid the funds with IOUs, which are now coming due as workers start to retire. The workers did nothing wrong and they deserve to get their full pensions

Arthur Jumbles: Instead of having money taken out for social security, which they don't get, the money was placed into a pension fund for their retirement.....

What do you mean "Instead" I am fairly sure that they do pay SS and will get it in time.

Lillith: Arthur Jumbles: Instead of having money taken out for social security, which they don't get, the money was placed into a pension fund for their retirement.....

What do you mean "Instead" I am fairly sure that they do pay SS and will get it in time.

In the city I worked for, they didn't pay SS

/it was some thing Congress had approved that allowed them to opt out, I think

Arthur Jumbles: The workers did nothing wrong and they deserve to get their full pensions

Indeed. They put a measure on the ballot here that will end pensions for all new city employees and it'll probably pass.

/and they're saying that we have a surplus this year, too
//so why do we need to do that again?

Sounds like Subby's volunteering to become a garbage man, yes?

MaudlinMutantMollusk: OK, I'll bite... is there a reason why subby didn't link straight to the WSJ article?

Yes; the WSJ website sucks.

Holy jumpin' Jesus! Things are all farked up! Bad kitty!!
Can't verify that link: Throwing away unfetchable URL http://online.wsj.com/article/ SB10001424052702303592404577361891800868180.html: Sorry, but the Wall Street Journal puts up an intermittent paywall after we link it. Please find a different source. (note: blogs.wsj.com is OK): 403 Not allowed

/not subby

so...I have a question. why is it bad when a union employee gets a cushy pension plan, but when a CEO rapes his company and investors to get an offensively large retirement package, nobody so much as blinks?

if we're going to say that retirement plans are out of control, then logic would suggest that we need to evaluate ALL pension plans and retirement payouts against some sort of objective standard. In that case, then we have to weigh the value of every employee in both public AND private sectors and determine what their work was worth and how much they should be permitted to have for retirement.

I mean I guess you could say it's different for public union employees vs anyone who retires from corporate america...but honestly, even private sector employees get f*cked over in retirement while CEO types can (and do and have) run entire multi-billion dollar operations into the ground at Mach 5, then retired on a payout of several million dollars. So even taking public sector retirees out of the picture, you STILL have wage slaves getting boned while CEOs walk away will millions and...nobody says anything about it? except of course if/when some lowly scrub son of a biatch gets one over on a company and makes it out of corporate america with something slightly better than the guy three cubes over managed to do. THAT's when we get outraged.

seriously...WTF man?

Lillith: Arthur Jumbles: Instead of having money taken out for social security, which they don't get, the money was placed into a pension fund for their retirement.....

What do you mean "Instead" I am fairly sure that they do pay SS and will get it in time.

Dead wrong. When initially enacted in 1935, the Social Security Act (Act) did not include public employees as eligible for Social Security because of the constitutional question regarding the power of the federal government to tax state and local governments.

Since 1950, state and local employers have been able to offer Social Security coverage to their employees but many don't do so. Here in Illinois teachers don't get SS but pay 9.4 percent of their salary into their pension. Of course, the government of Illinois has not actually been funding the pension fund with their money, which is where the current problem is coming from. But it's not the teachers' fault, they paid.

But I ask you: is he fullfilled as a human being?

You know what Subby, if the guy was farkin' garbage man for 20 years, he showed up to work and picked up shiat five days a week for 20 frakin' years...he deserves every dime he gets. Jesus, people saying mind boggling stupid shiat like this really make we want to cockpunch every Republican I meet, which mean I would have to cockpunch my Dad and I am pretty sure he can still kick my ass.

Arthur Jumbles: Lillith: Arthur Jumbles: Instead of having money taken out for social security, which they don't get, the money was placed into a pension fund for their retirement.....

What do you mean "Instead" I am fairly sure that they do pay SS and will get it in time.

Dead wrong. When initially enacted in 1935, the Social Security Act (Act) did not include public employees as eligible for Social Security because of the constitutional question regarding the power of the federal government to tax state and local governments.

Since 1950, state and local employers have been able to offer Social Security coverage to their employees but many don't do so. Here in Illinois teachers don't get SS but pay 9.4 percent of their salary into their pension. Of course, the government of Illinois has not actually been funding the pension fund with their money, which is where the current problem is coming from. But it's not the teachers' fault, they paid.

Same here in Ohio. As a public sector worker, I don't pay into Social Security. Instead, I pay 10% of my gross wage into the state's pension fund. Note, I pay more into the state pension fund than a private sector worker pays into the Social Security fund (10% vs 4.2%).

Twenty and out.

BritneysSpeculum: What municipality's pension plan allows you to retire at 37?

In a row?

Lillith: Arthur Jumbles: Instead of having money taken out for social security, which they don't get, the money was placed into a pension fund for their retirement.....

What do you mean "Instead" I am fairly sure that they do pay SS and will get it in time.

I work for a school district. No SS for me either.

I have never heard of this "not paying into SS" business. How widespread is this?

Weaver95: if we're going to say that retirement plans are out of control, then logic would suggest that we need to evaluate ALL pension plans and retirement payouts against some sort of objective standard. In that case, then we have to weigh the value of every employee in both public AND private sectors and determine what their work was worth and how much they should be permitted to have for retirement.

Weaver95, I sympathize with the general goal, but this sounds incredibly authoritarian as a method. It sets off my Jello Biafra alarm. Any government capable of doing this would be pretty scary to me.

Where I live a job as the garbage man does not really pay enough to live off of or raise a family. And even if you could "retire" at 37, there is no way you could live off the pension, you would have to double dip.

Somacandra: Weaver95: if we're going to say that retirement plans are out of control, then logic would suggest that we need to evaluate ALL pension plans and retirement payouts against some sort of objective standard. In that case, then we have to weigh the value of every employee in both public AND private sectors and determine what their work was worth and how much they should be permitted to have for retirement.

Weaver95, I sympathize with the general goal, but this sounds incredibly authoritarian as a method. It sets off my Jello Biafra alarm. Any government capable of doing this would be pretty scary to me.

we already HAVE a government capable of doing this. when PRIVATE companies accepted PUBLIC bailout money, they opened the door to government intrusion into the marketplace. well, specifically into how companies run their finances anyways. Putting that aside for the moment, the question still stands - how come people only get upset if/when a middle class or 'working man' gets away with a cushy pension and nobody blinks when a CEO implodes a company and walks away will millions for his troubles? if we were a logical and analytical society, we'd be equally outraged at both situations...but we are not. we give the rich guy a pass while vilifying the working guy for getting ahead.

abb3w: MaudlinMutantMollusk: OK, I'll bite... is there a reason why subby didn't link straight to the WSJ article?

Yes; the WSJ website sucks.

Holy jumpin' Jesus! Things are all farked up! Bad kitty!!
Can't verify that link: Throwing away unfetchable URL http://online.wsj.com/article/ SB10001424052702303592404577361891800868180.html: Sorry, but the Wall Street Journal puts up an intermittent paywall after we link it. Please find a different source. (note: blogs.wsj.com is OK): 403 Not allowed

/not subby

Ah... thank you

/nevermind

Weaver95: so...I have a question. why is it bad when a union employee gets a cushy pension plan, but when a CEO rapes his company and investors to get an offensively large retirement package, nobody so much as blinks?

if we're going to say that retirement plans are out of control, then logic would suggest that we need to evaluate ALL pension plans and retirement payouts against some sort of objective standard. In that case, then we have to weigh the value of every employee in both public AND private sectors and determine what their work was worth and how much they should be permitted to have for retirement.

I mean I guess you could say it's different for public union employees vs anyone who retires from corporate america...but honestly, even private sector employees get f*cked over in retirement while CEO types can (and do and have) run entire multi-billion dollar operations into the ground at Mach 5, then retired on a payout of several million dollars. So even taking public sector retirees out of the picture, you STILL have wage slaves getting boned while CEOs walk away will millions and...nobody says anything about it? except of course if/when some lowly scrub son of a biatch gets one over on a company and makes it out of corporate america with something slightly better than the guy three cubes over managed to do. THAT's when we get outraged.

seriously...WTF man?

Plenty of people blink and Scream WTF but they are shut down by those screaming "Free Market! and then point to the public employees and go "LOOK AT THEM STEALIN OUR TAX DOLLURS!
The sad thing is that those screaming this the loudest are the ones who get screwed the most when some Corporate titan Rapes his Company into insolvency for his Golden Parachute.

Of course, whatever the police unions want is a-okay, even though they're public employees too.

/yes I know their jobs are much higher risk than the average public sector job.

dustman81: Same here in Ohio. As a public sector worker, I don't pay into Social Security. Instead, I pay 10% of my gross wage into the state's pension fund. Note, I pay more into the state pension fund than a private sector worker pays into the Social Security fund (10% vs 4.2%).

I just looked that up. Boy, what a crock of shiat. I hope you at least get 100% of your rate of pay back.


link

BritneysSpeculum: What municipality's pension plan allows you to retire at 37?

Military folks can do it.

coco ebert: I have never heard of this "not paying into SS" business. How widespread is this?

It's very common for public employees because it's cheaper for city and state governments. In Illinois a teacher pays 9.4 percent of their paycheck to the pension and the district pays a lot less, 0.58 percent. However, under Social Security, a teacher would pay only 6.2 percent of their salary but the district would pay a heck of a lot more by matching the 6.2 percent.

/Of course, it's cheaper for districts only if they actually put the employee pension contributions into the pensions instead of raiding the till for their own little pet projects.

Yes, yes...fight amongst yourselves, little ones. Dance monkeys, dance!!

MWAHH-HA-HA-HA-HA!!!

Don't like that organized workers get a better deal than you? FARKING ORGANIZE AND GET A BETTER DEAL FOR YOURSELF.

NJ teachers and NY cops pay into both ss and pension funds and get to collect both.


If you pay in you should get it.

Giltric: NJ teachers and NY cops pay into both ss and pension funds and get to collect both.


If you pay in you should get it.

Agreed. And what's wrong with being a garbage man? I realize it's not glamorous but occupations of all kinds deserve respect.

Yes, I think that garbagemen should work until age 65.

cig-mkr: Is the military still doing the 20 and out?

Yup. I only did 4, but 20 doesn't sound so much compared to my dad's 30 he had to do at an iron ore mine. He's currently on his 36th year there.

insertsnarkyusername: What kind of society do we live in where it fine to declare unfunded wars and bail out private companies for crashing markets but we vilify a man who worked 20 years at a job most people wouldn't touch getting what he is owed?

obviously, the solution is more tax cuts for the rich.