The Wisdom of Beck: The "Pension Pyramid"

[Renae]

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.

No, there is no hypocrisy! On one hand, people are working their asses off and earning pay, on the other, the system is an unsustainable pyramid that pays out far more then the person put in.

Do you see where the crux of the issue is? We don't CARE about the AMOUNT, it's the source, and the amount of effort put in to get it. If you put in.. say 10k over 20 years and got back 100K that's not paid for by smart investment by your employer but rather by tax payer funds. THAT is a serious problem!

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

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.

Nah, I'm WAY underpaid. Perhaps we need to increase taxes so I'm appropriately compensated.

I am aware that you understand the difference between private and public pensions. I never said you didn't. The issue for me is how it seems that you are attacking folks who make too much money in on place, but do not do the same in others. Guess what? Public sector people work hard, too. They also provide a service that benefits society. This is the hypocrisy that I am pointing out.

And just so you know, I support higher taxes to compensate public service employees. I Also support a flat tax rate and a redesign of the tax code to close loopholes for EVERYONE. I do not think either group should be attacked. That is not something you can say.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

No, there is no hypocrisy! On one hand, people are working their asses off and earning pay, on the other, the system is an unsustainable pyramid that pays out far more then the person put in.

In both cases people are working their asses of and earning pay.

Do you see where the crux of the issue is? We don't CARE about the AMOUNT, it's the source, and the amount of effort put in to get it. If you put in.. say 10k over 20 years and got back 100K that's not paid for by smart investment by your employer but rather by tax payer funds. THAT is a serious problem!

Things work pretty similarly in the private sector. I don't know about you, but any company that has a pension fund that I know of, does some sort of matching. Further, as a taxpayer, you are paying for services... which go to the salary's of those who provide the service.

 

[MaggieD]

Nah, I'm WAY underpaid. Perhaps we need to increase taxes so I'm appropriately compensated.

I am aware that you understand the difference between private and public pensions. I never said you didn't. The issue for me is how it seems that you are attacking folks who make too much money in on place, but do not do the same in others. Guess what? Public sector people work hard, too. They also provide a service that benefits society. This is the hypocrisy that I am pointing out.

And just so you know, I support higher taxes to compensate public service employees. I Also support a flat tax rate and a redesign of the tax code to close loopholes for EVERYONE. I do not think either group should be attacked. That is not something you can say.

Ha! Brat! ;-) But I'm NOT attacking the people making the pensions. I'm attacking a SYSTEM that's allowed it to happen. The politicians. The school boards. Those are my tax dollars funding those outrageous pensions that the SYSTEM has seen fit to bestow--and bestow on ITSELF in many instances as my Bellwood, IL link proves out. Honestly! Public pensions are going to be the next shoe that drops. And it ain't gunna be pretty.

To your last paragraph, I am not attacking the people receiving these pensions. I'm attacking a system that was incompetent or dishonest enough to let them happen. And both of those adjectives definitely apply.

 

[Renae]

this:

not attacking the people receiving these pensions. I'm attacking a system that was incompetent or dishonest enough to let them happen. And both of those adjectives definitely apply.

 

[MaggieD]

Things work pretty similarly in the private sector. I don't know about you, but any company that has a pension fund that I know of, does some sort of matching. Further, as a taxpayer, you are paying for services... which go to the salary's of those who provide the service.

If Public Sector pensions were "defined contribution plans," you'd hear nothing from me about them. But they aren't -- they're Defined BENEFIT plans. Regardless of earnings, regardless of contributions, regardless of ANYTHING that in a meaningful way controls these benefits, they are due and payable at taxpayer's expense. Private industry doesn't work that way -- or, let's say, in very few cases works that's way. When private industry DOES work that way, it's not out of the taxpayer's pocket.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

Ha! Brat! ;-) But I'm NOT attacking the people making the pensions. I'm attacking a SYSTEM that's allowed it to happen. The politicians. The school boards. Those are my tax dollars funding those outrageous pensions that the SYSTEM has seen fit to bestow--and bestow on ITSELF in many instances as my Bellwood, IL link proves out. Honestly! Public pensions are going to be the next shoe that drops. And it ain't gunna be pretty.

To your last paragraph, I am not attacking the people receiving these pensions. I'm attacking a system that was incompetent or dishonest enough to let them happen. And both of those adjectives definitely apply.

If you attack the system, who ends up paying for these attacks? Those that receive the pensions. So, you tell me... what changes would you make to the system that will, along with the things that you are saying you would like to see, would also allow the employees... who you are saying you are not attacking, to receive pension compensation?

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

this:

I'll ask you the same question. If you attack the system, who ends up paying for these attacks?

Hint... those receiving the pensions. So, how would you fix the system so those receiving the pensions do not get attacked?

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

If Public Sector pensions were "defined contribution plans," you'd hear nothing from me about them. But they aren't -- they're Defined BENEFIT plans. Regardless of earnings, regardless of contributions, regardless of ANYTHING that in a meaningful way controls these benefits, they are due and payable at taxpayer's expense. Private industry doesn't work that way -- or, let's say, in very few cases works that's way. When private industry DOES work that way, it's not out of the taxpayer's pocket.

And I'm OK with that as these people provide a service to the public sector... the taxpayers. So, I see no reason that it shouldn't be the taxpayers that compensate them.

 

[Renae]

I'll ask you the same question. If you attack the system, who ends up paying for these attacks?

Hint... those receiving the pensions. So, how would you fix the system so those receiving the pensions do not get attacked?

IF the system isnt' reformed, it collapses. People WILL get hurt. Those recieving, and those to receive will get less. OR you raise taxes and hurt everyone, that drives away people... look at NJ, perfect example.

 

[MaggieD]

If you attack the system, who ends up paying for these attacks? Those that receive the pensions. So, you tell me... what changes would you make to the system that will, along with the things that you are saying you would like to see, would also allow the employees... who you are saying you are not attacking, to receive pension compensation?

Captain, it's just like the unions. Construction workers in the Chicago area make $45-$63/hour per a Chicago Tribune Watchdog article I'm not going to look up. That pay includes all of their benefits. The reason they did the expose was because the union struck looking for a 5%/year increase over three years -- that, in an economy where a greater majority of the people make farrr less and feel lucky to even be WORKING. I don't blame the unions. I blame management. Who in their right mind is going to say, "Oh, don't ask for that for me....that's not fair." If I were a flag-holder on the Eisenhower expressway making $45/hour, you sure wouldn't hear that from me. But that's ANOTHER thread.

A different model that I'd support in a heartbeat is a defined contribution plan. Everybody puts "X" % into the pot -- the public employee and the taxpayer -- and the retirement amount is then based on those contributions as compared to actuarial tables. That's what private industry does. That's what 401K's are.

Teachers/other public servants are exempt from Social Security. They pay into their own plan. We can't do that, can we? The average jamoke puts, what 6-7% into Social Security? The highest benefit anyone can collect in Social Security in 2010 is $28,000 a year. That is IF, big IF, they have paid on maximum earnings for EVERY YEAR after age 21. And that benefit is PAYABLE at age 66. The maximum Social Security retirement benefit.. (Teachers in Illinois put, I believe, 8% into THEIR retirement plan.)

 

[MaggieD]

And I'm OK with that as these people provide a service to the public sector... the taxpayers. So, I see no reason that it shouldn't be the taxpayers that compensate them.

Perhaps you ARE okay with that, Captain. But I'm not. Your way is bankruptcy. We're just about there.

From my post 33:

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

Just one example. Refer to the post for substantiation. Tell me what kind of sense that makes to a taxpayer?

 

[imagep]

Captain, it's just like the unions. Construction workers in the Chicago area make $45-$63/hour per a Chicago Tribune Watchdog article I'm not going to look up. That pay includes all of their benefits. The reason they did the expose was because the union struck looking for a 5%/year increase over three years -- that, in an economy where a greater majority of the people make farrr less and feel lucky to even be WORKING. I don't blame the unions. I blame management. Who in their right mind is going to say, "Oh, don't ask for that for me....that's not fair." If I were a flag-holder on the Eisenhower expressway making $45/hour, you sure wouldn't hear that from me. But that's ANOTHER thread.

A different model that I'd support in a heartbeat is a defined contribution plan. Everybody puts "X" % into the pot -- the public employee and the taxpayer -- and the retirement amount is then based on those contributions as compared to actuarial tables. That's what private industry does. That's what 401K's are..)

I'm good with that.

Teachers/other public servants are exempt from Social Security. They pay into their own plan. We can't do that, can we? The average jamoke puts, what 6-7% into Social Security? The highest benefit anyone can collect in Social Security in 2010 is $28,000 a year. That is IF, big IF, they have paid on maximum earnings for EVERY YEAR after age 21. And that benefit is PAYABLE at age 66. The maximum Social Security retirement benefit.. (Teachers in Illinois put, I believe, 8% into THEIR retirement plan.)

The average jamoke puts in DOUBLE what is taken from his paycheck because his employer has to match that amount. The employer takes this expense into account when determining salaries and reduces the salary to compensate for this expense. It's a very significant investment.

 

[MaggieD]

I'm good with that.



The average jamoke puts in DOUBLE what is taken from his paycheck because his employer has to match that amount. The employer takes this expense into account when determining salaries and reduces the salary to compensate for this expense. It's a very significant investment.

Yes, the employer matches. As is true in school districts. The SD matches the teachers' portion, just like SS. But boy!!! What a difference, yes? SS Maximum $28,000 at age 66. Public pension illustration (which is right on target): $138,000 at age 56. I'm lovin' it. Ha!

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

IF the system isnt' reformed, it collapses. People WILL get hurt. Those recieving, and those to receive will get less. OR you raise taxes and hurt everyone, that drives away people... look at NJ, perfect example.

I live in NJ. My issue with what is going on in NJ is how Christie is glutting the school systems and cutting services, SIGNIFICANTLY. I recognize that reform needs to happen. Tenure needs to be majorly lightened, at the very least, so that bad teachers can be fired more easily. Far more streamlining and efficiency needs to occur. However, the cuts that Christie has done are, in a lot of cases, absurd. The LAST thing that should be cut are school programs. Make them more efficient. Find cuts elsehwere. I do a lot of work with schools and many of the things that I am hearing are going to cause major problems in the education of our youth. Reform the system, but don't break it. And no, it's not broken, already.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

Perhaps you ARE okay with that, Captain. But I'm not. Your way is bankruptcy. We're just about there.

From my post 33:



Just one example. Refer to the post for substantiation. Tell me what kind of sense that makes to a taxpayer?

I saw this. I saw it on the other thread... where you were proven wrong about your accusations. This is one example, Maggie.

And I am not saying that things need to remain the same. However, you seem to be offering an all or nothing solution. That's a false dichotomy.

 

[MaggieD]

I saw this. I saw it on the other thread... where you were proven wrong about your accusations. This is one example, Maggie.

And I am not saying that things need to remain the same. However, you seem to be offering an all or nothing solution. That's a false dichotomy.

I was not proven wrong on that thread, Captain. I did make one final post there just a few days ago from a Tribune article. You may want to check it out. Just because you called bull**** on a credible link you didn't agree with does NOT make it so. I assumed you walked away having learned something. Apparently that is not the case. I am NOT going to debate that all over again until someone else posts a new thread about it. And then I'm on it like flies on roadkill.

What all or nothing? Why isn't the public sector covered by the exact same program as everybody else in the private sector? Social Security and a 401K based on a pre-set percentage contribution from both sides. What's all or nothing about that?

I got to thinking while I was getting a basting sauce ready for some grilled steaks that perhaps YOUR passion comes from you are receiving a public pension. I hope you don't take my posts personally. I am absolutely passionate about this subject (and a few others) from the 180-degree position -- the taxpayer. I hold absolutely NOTHING against those who receive these generous pensions. I hold EVERYTHING against the politicians and beaurocrats that made them possible.

Teachers/coppers/firemen/public works employees/admins ... they are no more valuable to society than anyone else. Their pay AND their pensions are held to be sacrosanct. And the public isn't even AWARE of the excess. It's a very closely guarded secret. Try to find out what YOUR coppers retire on . . . YOUR FD . . . YOUR public officials . . . YOUR teachers. Or, as I suspect, you already have a pretty good idea, because you are one of them. And no harm/foul if you are.

You have posted zero links that Glenn Beck is incorrect. You are posting strictly from emotion. Maybe others will read this thread and actually "get it." I sure hope so. 'Cause we're running out of time.

 

[MaggieD]

I live in NJ. My issue with what is going on in NJ is how Christie is glutting the school systems and cutting services, SIGNIFICANTLY. I recognize that reform needs to happen. Tenure needs to be majorly lightened, at the very least, so that bad teachers can be fired more easily. Far more streamlining and efficiency needs to occur. However, the cuts that Christie has done are, in a lot of cases, absurd. The LAST thing that should be cut are school programs. Make them more efficient. Find cuts elsehwere. I do a lot of work with schools and many of the things that I am hearing are going to cause major problems in the education of our youth. Reform the system, but don't break it. And no, it's not broken, already.

They're going to start doing this alllll over the country. Or they are going to have a taxpayer revolt on their hands. Tenure needs to be majority lightened?? Start a thread on that and consider it roadkill.

 

[The Giant Noodle]

Although Beck is a HUGE acting ass-clown, I agree with the facts that were given to him here. There should be ZERO pensions for police, fire fighters or anyone else in "public service".

 

[MaggieD]

Although Beck is a HUGE acting ass-clown, I agree with the facts that were given to him here. There should be ZERO pensions for police, fire fighters or anyone else in "public service".

Ya' had me 'til your last sentence. Everyone in public service is entitled to a pension. I can't imagine how you could come to that conclusion. Just can't imagine.

 

[justabubba]

Although Beck is a HUGE acting ass-clown, I agree with the facts that were given to him here. There should be ZERO pensions for police, fire fighters or anyone else in "public service".

why?
.........

 

[dontworrybehappy]

What's the difference between a pension and 401k? I think I know but I'd like someone more knowledgable than me to
clarify it for me.

Thanks.

 

[pragmatic]

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.

Here in Illinois the problem doesn't seem to be in someone's imagination. It's real. Would love to hear you (or your wife) explain how we got in this mess (you sound pretty confident that Beck and Maggie are offbase). And then would love to hear how you (or your wife) think we can correct the disaster we are facing.

(btw...anybody else is free to jump in with ideas. We are open to any suggestions/explanations :sinking: )


"Report: Illinois' Unfunded Pension Liability Nation's Largest

The Pew Center on the States released a report today that reveals Illinois has the largest unfunded pension liability in the nation. Through FY 2008, the state's five pension funds are $54.4 billion short and the state has set aside barely half -- 54 percent -- of the amount required to pay benefits owed to workers statewide."

Blogs | Crain's Chicago Business


.

 

[MaggieD]

What's the difference between a pension and 401k? I think I know but I'd like someone more knowledgable than me to
clarify it for me.

Thanks.

Hi, DWBH -- A 401K, found in the private sector only, allows an employee to contribute a 'certain percentage" to their 401K retirement plan -- along with, usually (but not always) a matching contribution by the employer.) It is a "defined contribution" pension plan. So are IRAs. Both IRAs and 401Ks are pension plans. A SEP is another kind of pension plan. Here's more information: What Are Defined Benefit and Defined Contribution Pension Plans -- What they receive at retirement is based upon the value of their separate accounts at retirement.

Public Sector pensions are structured entirely differently. They are called "defined BENEFIT plans." I think you can get the idea by reading the last few pages/posts.

 

[pragmatic]

What's the difference between a pension and 401k? I think I know but I'd like someone more knowledgable than me to
clarify it for me.

Thanks.

Both typically associate to retirement. But otherwise not really related.

The 401K is just a way for you to put your savings in a tax deferred account. (edit: Sometimes your employer contributes to it also) To be withdrawn at a future more tax friendly period in your life, hopefully.

Pension is continued compensation from your employer after you reach a certain age. (assuming you have fulfilled the requirements to be eligible)



.