• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The Wisdom of Beck: The "Pension Pyramid"

Actually, I am not quite sure that it is completely different with a private sector company. Either way, promises are being made that may or may not be kept. Either way, the tax payers or the shareholders future well being it being put at risk. Either way, individuals are disincentivised to save and to take care of themselves by the promise of pensions.

The difference is, a private sector company passes the cost of those pensions onto the consumer (you and I), relocates to another country to cut costs (causing layoffs), or simply closes their doors (also causing layoffs)... While a public sector pension is funded exclusively by the taxpayer.

No matter how you slice it, union pensions end up being our responsibility to pay for.
 
The difference is, a private sector company passes the cost of those pensions onto the consumer (you and I), relocates to another country to cut costs (causing layoffs), or simply closes their doors (also causing layoffs)... While a public sector pension is funded exclusively by the taxpayer.

No matter how you slice it, union pensions end up being our responsibility to pay for.

SO...just like the rest of their benefit package.
 
another beckerhead video exposing his - and their - ignorance of what has actually caused this looming problem

he - and they - want to pin the blame on the unions. those unions which negotiated pension plans with management and signed a contract with management where management agreed to fund these pension plans*
management failed to adequately allocate funds to these defined pension plans - the ones they agreed to pay for - and beck and the beckerheads now want to point to the union members who have earned the pension their union negotiated with management as the problem. notably, they ignore the responsible parties - the managers - and in the public sector, the politicians who failed to monitor the mangers who are expected to maintain solvency of their organizations

also excluded from this discussion is the large number of pension programs of corporate America which are now covered by the federal Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation. in many instances the major corporations - US Air for example - filed bankruptcy and terminated their pension program, transferring the liability for the now reduced pension expectation to the taxpayer, courtesy of the federal PBGC. think of this as Fannie Mae without any potential for profitability - it is entirely a liability transferred by those corporate managers to the American wage earner/taxpayer

*the unions in the federal sector cannot negotiate for salary or pension. under the provisions of civil service law.
the old CSRS (Civil Service Retirement System, under which i am a retiree, now receiving compensation - for purposes of full disclosure) was found to be unsustainable, as the employees were not required to contribute to their retirement pool. two decades ago, that was changed over to FERS (Federal Employment Retirement System), which is not nearly as generous as CSRS. civil servants under FERS must work longer to attain their retirement eligibility and their retirement compensation is primarily based on how much they choose to contribute with a federal match, during their working years. so, this program is effectively solvent and is/was not subject to union influence ... which is certain to be news to beck and the beckerheads. i look forward to seeing his crying jag once he learns of his error
 
Oh noz, it's the holier than thou, if you don't agree with me, you are stupid argument. I feel so bad for making fun of an idiot like Beck now. Shame on me, I am just a bad person....

OMG!!!! I've finally been accepted as a newbie!!!! I can't thank you ENUF!!! I can't look back now, but if you are one of the posters I addressed, I'm surprised. You must be receiving a public pension. ;-)

Yeah. and you can lead a regressive to reality but you can't make 'em think. I don't watch assclown videos. This particial assclown, clearly has zero knowledge of the world of pensions. My wife has a Master's Degree in it. That assclown has a degree in Advanced BS.

Assclown videos my lily white. You have nooooooo idea about PUBLIC pensions. Zero.

Ooo!!!! Redress, hit me again! Hahahahaha!!!
 
Assclown videos my lily white. You have nooooooo idea about PUBLIC pensions. Zero.

Yes, assclown videos, made by an assclown, to manipulate easily duped marks. Period.
 
Tell me then... Who are the "shareholders" for the police department, fire department, public school teachers and the 100's of thousands of other unionized city, state and federal government employees? I'll give you a hint.... Where does the money from Social Security Security come from?

It comes from taxpayers who were not paying attention

Just like shareholder who should hold corporate management responsible for labour contracts they sign, voters should hold their elected officials responsible for allowing these overly generous pensions and employement contracts to be signed.

They are not a pyramid scheme, the Defined Pension plan has been a mainstay of US labour contracts for decades. Corporate or public, the defined pension plan was the most popular form of retirement planning. Only recently has the directed pension plan become quite popular with companies, not yet with most governments.

So if you dont like the Defined pension plan the various governments have signed, get rid of the politicians who allowed those contracts to be signed
 
Actually, I am not quite sure that it is completely different with a private sector company. Either way, promises are being made that may or may not be kept. Either way, the tax payers or the shareholders future well being it being put at risk. Either way, individuals are disincentivised to save and to take care of themselves by the promise of pensions.

A pension plan is part of a persons plan to take care of them selves. It is a form of saving, that people count on to fund their retirement. Without which people would demand higher salaries to fund their retirement (however many would just spend it)
 
Pensions in the public sector are far different from the private sector. While most private sector pensions are "defined contribution," the public sector uses "defined benefit." Ask your wife the difference. She'll know.

As an example, a teacher's retirement in Illinois is figured at 75% of the average of their last four year's salaries, after 33 years' service, at least age 55. The Chicago Tribune just did a Watchdog piece on teacher salaries/retirement benefits. Here's one glaring pension example:

The Chicago Tribune just did a Watchdog story on Illinois teachers. Here's their most glaring example:

A now-retired physical education teacher and longtime football coach at Addison Trail High School in DuPage County earned more than $184,000 in 2008-09 — the highest teacher salary in the Tribune's analysis. He had 35 years of teaching experience and a master's degree, all factors that boosted his salary.
Illinois teacher salaries: Some educators in suburban Chicago earning more than $100,000 - chicagotribune.com

Here he is identified:

Name Deleted -- You'll find it here: Illinois Pension Database :: Latest News :: PIONEER PRESS ::
School District--DuPage HSD 88
Salary at Retirement--$186,464.86
Retirement Date--7/1/2003
Age at Retirement--56
Early Retirement Incentive? No
Annual Pension--$138,871.68

What job in the private sector pays a pension like this? Members can retire at age 60 with 10 years of service and receive benefits that the member has earned. For example, ten years of service multiplied by 2.2% equals 22% of the final average salary. Senate Bill 1946 Teachers contribute 2% more of their salaries into their retirement program than Social Security recipients.

Teacher pension funds are under water throughout the country -- seriously underwater -- because of the onerously generous benefits guaranteed to them under state law. Our politicians sold us out. To meet the ridiculous promises made to these public sector employees made by politicians, state pension funds are investing in ever-more risky investment vehicles. A risky investment strategy is defined as investment in other than fixed income or cash. The top 25 riskiest public pension funds hold over 75% of their assets in these vehicles. Risky Business: Pension Funds With Less Than Conservative Asset Allocations : NPR Don't take my word for it. Google around for your own state. You'll see it.

Just plain old municipal pensions?
Municipal pensions in Illinois: http://media1.pioneerlocal.com/multimedia/pppensions061010g3.pdf_20100608_14_48_12_75.imageContent

Retirement age -- 50 with 20 years of service
Retirement formula -- 2.5% of final salary for each year of service
Maximum annuity -- 75% of final average salary -- after 30 years of service
Salary used to calculate pension -- Salary on last day of service
Annual cost of living increase -- 3% compounded
Employee contributions -- Police -- 9.91% of salary; Fire -- 9.45% of salary
Source: Illinois Commission on Government Forecasting and Accountability

These pensions have the average working man drooling in envy. All at taxpayer expense. And each and every one of them are unsustainable. Add the deflation risk to the mix, and, well, hold onto your hat.

Ask your wife.
 
Pensions in the public sector are far different from the private sector.


While most private sector pensions are "defined contribution," the public sector uses "defined benefit." Ask your wife the difference. She'll know.


Ask your wife.

I did "ask my wife," lady, she says neither you or Beckerhead have the first clue as to what of you speak. Before you make even more foolish statements, you may want to find out what the REQUIREMENTS are to achieve a MBA in HR Benefits. Glenn Beck is an assclown that fools the completely gullible.
 
I did "ask my wife," lady, she says neither you or Beckerhead have the first clue as to what of you speak. Before you make even more foolish statements, you may want to find out what the REQUIREMENTS are to achieve a MBA in HR Benefits. Glenn Beck is an assclown that fools the completely gullible.

Then your wife is misinformed. Ohhh, wait. All those links I posted must be wrong. Yeah, THAT'S it.

Public pensions are completely and utterly unsustainable except by massive taxpayer bailouts by every resource available. Unless YOU can find a few credible links that say otherwise.

The crux of the problem is the gap between assets and liabilities affecting the fifty-nine pension funds that cover most public school teachers in America. Some of these are general state-employee pension funds, while others cover only teachers. Among the findings of our study of these funds:

All fifty-nine pension funds studied face shortfalls.
California, the most populous state, has the largest unfunded teacher pension liability: almost $100 billion.
The worst-funded plan in our sample is West Virginia’s, which we estimate to be only 31 percent funded.
Five plans are 75 percent funded or better: teacher-dedicated plans in the District of Columbia, New York State and Washington State and state employee retirement systems in North Carolina and Tennessee that include teachers. According to our more conservative calculations these plans’ unfunded liabilities total about $933 billion. Civic Report 61 | UNDERFUNDED TEACHER PENSION PLANS: It’s Worse Than You Think

So what question did you ask your wife? As to what is required to get an MBA in HR Benefits, I think I can safely say a D-minus would do it.

I've provided a multitude of credible links showing this massive under-funding problem -- and the massive pensions themselves. What CHU got?

"Because my wife says so," doesn't cut it on DP. BTW, do you get a public pension?
 
Last edited:
MaggieD, why are you so jealous of other peoples pensions? This class warfare against those who have succeeded in life is just shameful.
 
Then your wife is misinformed. Ohhh, wait. All those links I posted must be wrong. Yeah, THAT'S it.

Public pensions are completely and utterly unsustainable except by massive taxpayer bailouts by every resource available. Unless YOU can find a few credible links that say otherwise.



So what question did you ask your wife? As to what is required to get an MBA in HR Benefits, I think I can safely say a D-minus would do it.

I've provided a multitude of credible links showing this massive under-funding problem -- and the massive pensions themselves. What CHU got?

"Because my wife says so," doesn't cut it on DP. BTW, do you get a public pension?

Get back to me when you've actually achieved a Masters Degree, 'cuz after reading your latest steaming pile, it's pretty damn clear you know absolutely nothing about it. D minus, indeed. That's perhaps the most misinformed statement I yet to see on these boards. We're not talking about the Beckerhead's GED here, lady.

FYI, she carried a 3.85 GPA while working full time at the same time. Let me know when you or Beck can do the same.
 
MaggieD, why are you so jealous of other peoples pensions? This class warfare against those who have succeeded in life is just shameful.

I'm not, Redress. Honest. I'm flummoxed as to how our government could have put taxpayers in this mess. I'm furious that my tax dollars are being used to fund ridiculously high public pensions while the private sector enjoys nowhere NEAR those benefits. I'm livid that politicians within municipalities regularly pat each other on the back and award themselves outRAGEOUS end-of-career salaries to influence their pension benefits.

For running a blue-collar western suburb, taxpayers paid Roy McCampbell $472,255 last year -- the highest total compensation of any suburban municipal executive -- and village officials now say they're not sure why. McCampbell, known as one of the first suburban officials to push red-light cameras, said he did the work of 10 people for Bellwood -- comptroller, administrator, public safety CEO, finance director, budget director, human resources director, mayoral assistant, corporation counsel, property commission director and development corporation officer -- and was paid like it. "I didn't hold a gun to anybody's head to get this," he said of his pay. "I'm not trying to do anything bad." Village officials gave him two six-figure salaries, McCampbell said, and he stockpiled unused sick and vacation days, some of which he legally cashed out last year to pad his paycheck -- a move that also boosted his pension.
Bellwood has a population of 20,000. You'll see by the link that he started working for the village in 2001.

McCampbell's exact pension payments could not be obtained from the Illinois Municipal Retirement Fund as of Tuesday. But general IMRF guidelines indicate his monthly pension checks could be about $22,000, or $264,000 year. The pension system is funded largely by local taxpayer dollars, and Bellwood picked up McCampbell's own mandated 4.5 percent annual contribution. Tribune Watchdog: Bellwood boss' big salary questioned - Chicago Breaking News

To fund that $264,000/yearly pension, there have to be assets in the background to pay for them. Well, there aren't. At least not near enough. Yet these pensions are guaranteed.

Just an example of many, Redress.

The average taxpayer has absolutely NO idea what public pensions amount to -- and they SHOULD because they're paying for them.

I'm frightened, too. My real estate taxes are $4,000 a year for an 1100 sq. ft. home in suburban Chicago. My taxes aren't unfair compared to neighbors -- working stiffs that also have modest homes. But $4,000 is just the beginning.

I've succeeded in life, Redress. But the American taxpayer isn't on the hook for my success. Jealousy isn't it. Not at all. It's OUTRAGE.
 
Last edited:
Ah, so it's only class warfare when some one else does it, not when you do it. Thank you for clearing that nice double standard up.
 
Get back to me when you've actually achieved a Masters Degree, 'cuz after reading your latest steaming pile, it's pretty damn clear you know absolutely nothing about it. D minus, indeed. That's perhaps the most misinformed statement I yet to see on these boards. We're not talking about the Beckerhead's GED here, lady.

FYI, she carried a 3.85 GPA while working full time at the same time. Let me know when you or Beck can do the same.

FYI, I don't care. As I said, "Because my wife says so," doesn't cut it on DP. Links!!
 
Ah, so it's only class warfare when some one else does it, not when you do it. Thank you for clearing that nice double standard up.

What are you talking about?
 
MaggieD, why are you so jealous of other peoples pensions? This class warfare against those who have succeeded in life is just shameful.

Or is it that it is the people who have "succeeded in life" who are practicing class warefare?

I actually think that all classes practice class warefare. The rich are against things that they percieve as harming themselves and they are for things that they percieve as allowing them to become richer, the middleclass are against things that they percieve harming them, etc. It's a normal state of being.

Of course the rich tend to win at this game because wealth leads to power and power leads to victory. Thats why they are rich!
 
Or is it that it is the people who have "succeeded in life" who are practicing class warefare?

I actually think that all classes practice class warefare. The rich are against things that they percieve as harming themselves and they are for things that they percieve as allowing them to become richer, the middleclass are against things that they percieve harming them, etc. It's a normal state of being.

Of course the rich tend to win at this game because wealth leads to power and power leads to victory. Thats why they are rich!

MaggieD has refereed to taxing the wealthy as class warfare and envy. She then turns around and does basically the same thing when it's some one she doesn't like(union members in this case). All I am doing is pointing out the inconsistency and hypocrisy.
 
MaggieD has refereed to taxing the wealthy as class warfare and envy. She then turns around and does basically the same thing when it's some one she doesn't like(union members in this case). All I am doing is pointing out the inconsistency and hypocrisy.

That was in a completely different thread and completely different context, Redress. I'm not going to look for it to see the context around it -- but I was astonished at the vehemence that posters in the thread exhibited toward people making more than $250K a year.

This thread has nothing to do with that AT all. And is simply a cheap shot to throw off the subject of this thread. Why don't you post something that actually applies to my comments about public pensions v private ones. Oh, and, of course, CC would agree. Ha! Hi, CC. ;-)
 
That was in a completely different thread and completely different context, Redress. I'm not going to look for it to see the context around it -- but I was astonished at the vehemence that posters in the thread exhibited toward people making more than $250K a year.

This thread has nothing to do with that AT all. And is simply a cheap shot to throw off the subject of this thread. Why don't you post something that actually applies to my comments about public pensions v private ones. Oh, and, of course, CC would agree. Ha! Hi, CC. ;-)

Of course I would agree. I am the master of ceremonies for DP's favorite game, Hypocrisy Check!. If I don't actually run the game, I always thank someone who points something out that fits the premise of the game. Redress is right. In the past you have complained about taking money away from the wealthy, but here you are OK with taking money away from others. And btw, you do know that in many situations in the private sector, pensions, at least part of them, are are created by compensation from the company itself... not only the employee. Further, of course public sector pensions come out of tax payer money. So do their salaries. They are providing services that are societal in nature, not private.
 
MaggieD has refereed to taxing the wealthy as class warfare and envy. She then turns around and does basically the same thing when it's some one she doesn't like(union members in this case). All I am doing is pointing out the inconsistency and hypocrisy.

Decided to go looking.

Let's turn everything into "class warfare."

Why would any sane group of people vote to raise taxes during the worst recession we've seen since 1929? Anybody know? Don't bother telling me it's not a tax increase, because it is.

If the inheritance tax (part of the issue) were based on 55% of anything over $500 instead of $1,000,000 as proposed, people would be goin' crazy. Confiscation of wealth. Nothing more.

I wish more people would "get it." It's not all about your freakin' ox -- it's everybody's ox.

Give me a break.
 
Of course I would agree. I am the master of ceremonies for DP's favorite game, Hypocrisy Check!. If I don't actually run the game, I always thank someone who points something out that fits the premise of the game. Redress is right. In the past you have complained about taking money away from the wealthy, but here you are OK with taking money away from others. And btw, you do know that in many situations in the private sector, pensions, at least part of them, are are created by compensation from the company itself... not only the employee. Further, of course public sector pensions come out of tax payer money. So do their salaries. They are providing services that are societal in nature, not private.

If you're the MC, you're overpaid. This thread is about public pensions. I'm a taxpayer. I have every right (and, in fact, RESPONSIBILITY) to critique public pensions. I pay for them. This whole thread is about PUBLIC pensions, not private ones. Why would you assume I don't know the difference? Our politicians sold us out. But I'm willing to say that it may not have been from malice, but incompetence. The difference to the taxpayer is neglible.
 
Of course I would agree. I am the master of ceremonies for DP's favorite game, Hypocrisy Check!. If I don't actually run the game, I always thank someone who points something out that fits the premise of the game. Redress is right. In the past you have complained about taking money away from the wealthy, but here you are OK with taking money away from others. And btw, you do know that in many situations in the private sector, pensions, at least part of them, are are created by compensation from the company itself... not only the employee. Further, of course public sector pensions come out of tax payer money. So do their salaries. They are providing services that are societal in nature, not private.


Funny how it's only Hypocricy you see when it's a Progressive Pillar that is under assault.

Public Pensions are unfunded liabilities that are breaking cities and states and yet you have the audacity to try and claim someone that is against higher taxes for the "rich" are Hypocrites because they believe these pension plans are unsustainable?

Simply astonishing, or would be if we didn't know you better.
 
Funny how it's only Hypocricy you see when it's a Progressive Pillar that is under assault.

Public Pensions are unfunded liabilities that are breaking cities and states and yet you have the audacity to try and claim someone that is against higher taxes for the "rich" are Hypocrites because they believe these pension plans are unsustainable?

Simply astonishing, or would be if we didn't know you better.

You missed the point... which is not astonishing at all. The hypocrisy is complaining about one and not the other from a class standpoint. The taxation issue is separate.
 
You missed the point... which is not astonishing at all. The hypocrisy is complaining about one and not the other from a class standpoint. The taxation issue is separate.

This post makes absolutely no sense at all. What do my postings on this thread have to do with class warfare? You have stepped in, offering NOTHING to the continuity of this thread in order to give me a cheap shot. Speak to the topic.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom