|
joether -> RE: Democrats vs Republican voters (4/6/2011 12:29:52 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: lockedaway
No...what I said is that it is unfair to pay 95% of the pensions and health care of public servants because the private sector does not get that luxury at all. It is a form of unequal treatment, i.e. treating people who are similarly situated differently.
Last I checked, in business, when it turns a net profit, it sometimes gives a yearly bonus to employees. Its more likely with small businesses then large, multi-national corporations. The owner/boss usually knows the low rung employee on a first name basis, and knows how well he/she worked during that year. Now, goverment employees dont get that benefit, why? Because that would imply a SURPLUS on taxes. Since you have this silly notion that goverment employees should have to be treated the same as their private sector peers, it stands to reason they should get the benefits TOO. That means, they would be more inclined in voting for people that will raise taxes, rather then balance the budget (that would just be lopical). There are 'pros' and 'cons' to work in both the private and public sectors.
quote:
ORIGINAL: lockedaway
You want to make an exception for the military? I'm fine with that. For every other government employee, State or Federal, they should have to pony up 50% for pension and health benefits.
Sorry, but we dont make exceptions. If we treat one group of employees in the goverment one way, we treat the rest of them the same way. Perhaps you should study alittle more on goverment economics, before typing garbage. Gov. Scott Walker of Wisconsin and fellow Republicans tried exactly what you are stating should happen. Even now, quite a few of those Republicans are in re-call battles to remove them from power. Likewise, Mr. Walker maybe in a similar position in the not so distant future. You fuck with someone's livelyhood, dont be surprised if they do something to screw with yours. Perhaps you should look up the feud between the Palestinians and the Israelis. One one group attacks the other, the other simply retailates back with equal measure. In the end, both sides are simply burying family and friends. You sure you want to go down that road with your fellow Americans?
quote:
ORIGINAL: lockedaway
I know this is WHY THE FUCK OVER YOUR HEAD but there should be no more pensions in the public service sector. What there should be is 100% matching 401k's up to 1,000.00 per month. An employee who puts in 1k per month for 25 years $264,000.00 of the taxpayer's contribution, $264,000.00 of the government's contribution and whatever the interest is. The person that pensions out at 60% of a $100,000.00 per year job that lives another 30 years after retirement gets 1.8 million.
The amusing part is, you should really read this last paragraph back to yourself. It doesn't make any rational sense. It completely ignores reality, history, economics, and even future events (both good and bad). You believe, you have it all figured out, and to even the casual observer, you really haven't thought long term. Goverment workers have pensions as part of their benefits package; either when they were hired, or after they were hired. This is a matter of contract law; perhaps you should study Business Law 101 from your local community college.
How many companies operating in the USA, have a GDP equal to that of the USA? Not even the largest corporation can aquire the massive funding the USA does each and every year. Likewise, the scale of economies work in the favor of the USA when compared to even the top five, largest coprorations in the USA. You do know what 'scale of economies' is right? Since all this is 'over my head', I'm assuming you know it, and can provide a proper defination to all of us (please, try not to plagerize).
Your example of a pension, that is mutually funded into by the employer up to a limit, is completely unrealistic. You are not taking into account for interest, with your dollar figure. Nor, if that dollar amount the employer pays is increased to match at the very least, inflation. You do know what inflation is, right?
quote:
ORIGINAL: lockedaway
An employee who puts in 1k per month for 25 years $264,000.00 of the taxpayer's contribution, $264,000.00 of the government's contribution and whatever the interest is.
So, per your concept of $1,000 investment, per month for 25 years, nets someone: $300,000 (assuming no interest is added each year, nor interest added from other sources). If I get $300K, and you have $264K, one of us is not doing this calcution correctly. 25(1000*12) = 300,000. You do understand simple algebra, right? They teach that in 6th grade at most schools.
Also, one important detail that seems to escape your simplistic and tiny mind: Once that money is handed to the employee, its *THEIR* money, *NOT* the taxpayers. I know that is a hard concept, but that really is the fact of the matter. Once you give $20 to pay for gas at the pump, place the gas in your car, that $20 is now the gas station owner's money. Do you have any control over what that gas station owner does with that $20?
|
|
|
|
