Ursa Majoris Posted December 25, 2011 Share Posted December 25, 2011 It's disgraceful how state employees can collect a salary and a pension at the same time by gaming the system. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bpwallace49 Posted December 25, 2011 Share Posted December 25, 2011 Oops. I can't wait to see what the Tea-zealots have In response to that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pope Flick Posted December 25, 2011 Share Posted December 25, 2011 Well, in fairness theyve already bailed on him by and large. Just another nail. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbpfan1231 Posted December 25, 2011 Share Posted December 25, 2011 Oops. I can't wait to see what the Tea-zealots have In response to that. It's bullAthena - they should change the policy - he is a hypocrite. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Holy Roller Posted December 25, 2011 Share Posted December 25, 2011 Is there not ONE honest politician? Anyone? Anyone? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted December 25, 2011 Author Share Posted December 25, 2011 Is there not ONE honest politician? Anyone? Anyone? No. Well, yes, I suppose there is, somewhere. Paul Wellstone was completely honest, in that he took amazingly unpopular positions based on his conscience. I think there are more, both right and left, though no-one really leaps to mind. Unfortunately, most (almost all) are in thrall to their donors / base so they are not honest. I sometimes wonder if we would not be better off led by someone so uber-rich they could not be bought and could bury any overbearing "donor". Gates, Buffett, one of the Waltons, etc. Regardless of their political donations, I wonder how they would behave if they were the leader rather than one of the funders of the leaders? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hooper Posted December 26, 2011 Share Posted December 26, 2011 Is there not ONE honest politician? Anyone? Anyone? My last state senator Dale Brandland was an honest man. He promised to not stay in office more than two terms. When the two terms were up he left office. He was up in years (former local county sheriff for many years). I haven't voted for a lot of Republicans, but I would have voted for him again given the opportunity. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hooper Posted December 26, 2011 Share Posted December 26, 2011 We have many teachers in WA state that are collecting their retirement while also teaching. WA state allows retired teachers to reapply for their old jobs after retiring. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimmy Neutron Posted December 26, 2011 Share Posted December 26, 2011 I'm sure he prayed about it, so it's all good. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SEC=UGA Posted December 27, 2011 Share Posted December 27, 2011 Is there not ONE honest politician? Anyone? Anyone? Zell Miller. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
muck Posted December 27, 2011 Share Posted December 27, 2011 (edited) Unfortunately, most (almost all) are in thrall to their donors / base so they are not honest. I sometimes wonder if we would not be better off led by someone so uber-rich they could not be bought and could bury any overbearing "donor". Gates, Buffett, one of the Waltons, etc. Regardless of their political donations, I wonder how they would behave if they were the leader rather than one of the funders of the leaders? Could you imagine what would happen if these type guys suggested some sort of turn-it-on-its-head change to Medicare/Medicaid and SS that would have led to its solvency for the next 100yrs but required huge changes to be implemented over the next 15yrs that really negatively impacted the payouts to people who are currently over 60yrs of age? Say, something like, means testing? If you have a net worth of >$2.5 million, you get 0% of your previously promised amount ... if you have a net worth of $1-2.5 million, you get 50% of your previously promised amount ... and if your net worth is less than $1 million, you get your full payout. Or, maybe something like prioritization? Like, if you have a 401(k) or IRA, you're requred to deplete it to less than $100,000 prior to receiving any SS? This would have the double affect of delaying the time people would start receiving SS and increasing the actual amounts paid out when you finally started gettting SS (assuming you lived that long). ...I really have wondered what some sort of government where the members of Congress, the POTUS and members of the Supreme Court were in the wealthiest 5% of the citizenry by some mechanism other than inheritance (i.e., they earned it)...like Buffett, Gates, Dell, Schwartzman, etc... Edited December 27, 2011 by muck Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted December 27, 2011 Author Share Posted December 27, 2011 Could you imagine what would happen if these type guys suggested some sort of turn-it-on-its-head change to Medicare/Medicaid and SS that would have led to its solvency for the next 100yrs but required huge changes to be implemented over the next 15yrs that really negatively impacted the payouts to people who are currently over 60yrs of age? Say, something like, means testing? If you have a net worth of >$2.5 million, you get 0% of your previously promised amount ... if you have a net worth of $1-2.5 million, you get 50% of your previously promised amount ... and if your net worth is less than $1 million, you get your full payout. Or, maybe something like prioritization? Like, if you have a 401(k) or IRA, you're requred to deplete it to less than $100,000 prior to receiving any SS? This would have the double affect of delaying the time people would start receiving SS and increasing the actual amounts paid out when you finally started gettting SS (assuming you lived that long). ...I really have wondered what some sort of government where the members of Congress, the POTUS and members of the Supreme Court were in the wealthiest 5% of the citizenry by some mechanism other than inheritance (i.e., they earned it)...like Buffett, Gates, Dell, Schwartzman, etc... I have long advocated similar policies for both SS and Medicare. However, I am not uber-wealthy so will have to forgo my POTUS run. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbpfan1231 Posted December 27, 2011 Share Posted December 27, 2011 Could you imagine what would happen if these type guys suggested some sort of turn-it-on-its-head change to Medicare/Medicaid and SS that would have led to its solvency for the next 100yrs but required huge changes to be implemented over the next 15yrs that really negatively impacted the payouts to people who are currently over 60yrs of age? Say, something like, means testing? If you have a net worth of >$2.5 million, you get 0% of your previously promised amount ... if you have a net worth of $1-2.5 million, you get 50% of your previously promised amount ... and if your net worth is less than $1 million, you get your full payout. Or, maybe something like prioritization? Like, if you have a 401(k) or IRA, you're requred to deplete it to less than $100,000 prior to receiving any SS? This would have the double affect of delaying the time people would start receiving SS and increasing the actual amounts paid out when you finally started gettting SS (assuming you lived that long). ...I really have wondered what some sort of government where the members of Congress, the POTUS and members of the Supreme Court were in the wealthiest 5% of the citizenry by some mechanism other than inheritance (i.e., they earned it)...like Buffett, Gates, Dell, Schwartzman, etc... Are you not "punishing" the rich and/or the people that have been smart and put money into IRA's and 401k's? If you are going to make drastic changes then just say hey everyone gets 55% or whatever across the board - why treat someone different if they were smart and put money into a 401k compared to someone who did not? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cliaz Posted December 27, 2011 Share Posted December 27, 2011 We saw this a lot when my wife worked up in the Maryland school system. They called it Retire/Rehire. Teacher who retire can come back in and continue working while collecting their pension. Totally BS imo. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted December 27, 2011 Author Share Posted December 27, 2011 Are you not "punishing" the rich and/or the people that have been smart and put money into IRA's and 401k's? If you are going to make drastic changes then just say hey everyone gets 55% or whatever across the board - why treat someone different if they were smart and put money into a 401k compared to someone who did not? It is necessary to turn both systems into safety net insurance rather than universal entitlements. It will need to be done over time to minimize impact but will also ultimately result in less money being paid in FICA and Medicare taxes too, thus there is a benefit to all. I find it odd that the entitlement mentality ("I don't need this but I want it anyway and am willing to bankrupt the country to get it") is so pronounced on your side of the aisle. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushwacked Posted December 27, 2011 Share Posted December 27, 2011 Rick Perry says govt. officials need a pay cut, surprisingly it doesn't include him Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbpfan1231 Posted December 27, 2011 Share Posted December 27, 2011 (edited) It is necessary to turn both systems into safety net insurance rather than universal entitlements. It will need to be done over time to minimize impact but will also ultimately result in less money being paid in FICA and Medicare taxes too, thus there is a benefit to all. I find it odd that the entitlement mentality ("I don't need this but I want it anyway and am willing to bankrupt the country to get it") is so pronounced on your side of the aisle. Not my side of the aisle - that is where you are so wrong - I am totally fine taking it away from me - just take it away from you also in a fair way. I don't get why you think it is OK to take it away from someone who was smart and did what was right by say putting money into a 401k but someone who did not then gets "rewarded" by still getting something when the other does not - that is a great way to motivate people to do the right thing. Edit: were you not one of the people sayi9ng it was all fine and dandy when the Wisconsin teachers were double dipping the salary and pension thing - now that Perry is doing it it is wrong? Edited December 27, 2011 by gbpfan1231 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riffraff Posted December 27, 2011 Share Posted December 27, 2011 If someone was able to retire from their profession and continue in a comparable/same field, good for them. If a football player retires and becomes a studio analyst or coach. Good for them. If a military member retires and gets a federal job or contractor position, good for them. If a government doctor retires and comes in the next day as a civilian doctor, good for them. If a cop retires and becomes a PI, good for them. While they may not be the exact same job, lots of them are close. I guess I only have an issue if it's these "2 years and you get bennis for life" situations. If they've done their 20 or so years to get a pension, good for them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted December 27, 2011 Author Share Posted December 27, 2011 Not my side of the aisle - that is where you are so wrong - I am totally fine taking it away from me - just take it away from you also in a fair way. I don't get why you think it is OK to take it away from someone who was smart and did what was right by say putting money into a 401k but someone who did not then gets "rewarded" by still getting something when the other does not - that is a great way to motivate people to do the right thing. This would have to assume that needing SS is a good thing. It is not. Why wouldn't anyone still want to fund their own retirement so that it could be comfortable as opposed to close to hardscrabble, which is what you have if SS is your sole income? If SS is a last resort only, will you give up funding your 401k entirely? It just seems silly. Also, be aware that it isn't being "taken away". It is still there. But, as with any insurance, it would only be there for cause. After all, just because you've never claimed on your house insurance doesn't mean you get an automatic refund of it. Again, there are real benefits to changing the way SS works so that the overall payout is greatly reduced. It would mean FICA dropping to only e.g. 3% instead of 6.2% and this could be the case on the employer side too. Tax cuts all round. Combine that "new income" with new 401k rules reducing the income tax due to only be counted against tax deferred deposits and the profits being subject to capital gains rates only and you have an even better reason to save. (This has always irritated me - why are all 401k withdrawals subject to income tax rates when profits should be capital gains?) The bottom line is that SS does need to be fixed and it's fairly simple to do so. I'm kinda interested in the future of this system and the economic health of the nation and I really don't accept that notions of "fairness" trump national solvency. I'm interested to hear your fix. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted December 27, 2011 Author Share Posted December 27, 2011 (edited) Edit: were you not one of the people sayi9ng it was all fine and dandy when the Wisconsin teachers were double dipping the salary and pension thing - now that Perry is doing it it is wrong? No. However, as Riffraff points out above, earning a pension and salary at the same time is perfectly acceptable. Many of us already do. IMO, it should not be for or in the exact same job though. As for Perry, I am not sure I have an issue with him drawing a salary and pension simultaneously as long as the condition above stands but I don't think it does. I do have an issue with his rank hypocrisy though, because he stirs up animosity towards government workers while being an extremely well paid one himself. Edited December 27, 2011 by Ursa Majoris Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbpfan1231 Posted December 27, 2011 Share Posted December 27, 2011 No. However, as Riffraff points out above, earning a pension and salary at the same time is perfectly acceptable. Many of us already do. IMO, it should not be for or in the exact same job though. As for Perry, I am not sure I have an issue with him drawing a salary and pension simultaneously as long as the condition above stands but I don't think it does. I do have an issue with his rank hypocrisy though, because he stirs up animosity towards government workers while being an extremely well paid one himself. I am ok with a pension and retirement at the same time as long as they are the same or basically the same jobs. What was happening in WI was basically rehiring the same people for the same jobs - that in my opinion is wrong. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yukon Cornelius Posted December 27, 2011 Share Posted December 27, 2011 Rick Perry says govt. officials need a pay cut, surprisingly it doesn't include him sounds a lot like fitzwalker to me Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
muck Posted December 27, 2011 Share Posted December 27, 2011 (edited) To clarify a previously made point ... as you spend down your retirement, your SS (etc.) benefits go up ... so that as you cross through various threshholds (related to current year income, total assets or whatever), the size of your government check goes up. And, yes, Bill Gates should never draw a penny of SS, Medicare or Medicaid. Neither should Rush Limbaugh, Howard Stern, Al Gore, George W. Bush or Bill Clinton ... they're all bajillionaires. Now, Mr. Self-Employed, who retired with $4 million in the bank, 401(k), IRA, savings and investments doesn't get any SS or Medicare or Medicaid until his net worth is less than $XXX, in which case he gets "some" ... and then ... when it's below $YYY he gets more. What those levels are are definately up for discussion, but we should absolutely means-test SS/Medicare/Medicaid. I'm absolutely fine if part of the means testing involves "how many years did you pay in" (iow, if you were able bodied (but lazy), were you a working person, or a leach, during your most productive years)? Oh, and we should absolutely raise the age at which you can start receiving benefits. People live longer. They are productive longer. Starting at 65yrs old is INSANE. IMVHO. Another thing I'd also do away with ... if an older Widow would like to marry an older Widower ... currently (as I understand it), each one would lose the benefits they're currently getting with their deceased spouse, and if they married, they'd lose that benefit ... so ... if I'm right, my change would be that if they married, they could keep the highest two benefits (but would lose the lower two benefits) of the four benefits they were receiving collectively. Even if it's small, this would be a net savings to SS/MM. Edited December 27, 2011 by muck Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted December 27, 2011 Author Share Posted December 27, 2011 To clarify a previously made point ... as you spend down your retirement, your SS (etc.) benefits go up ... so that as you cross through various threshholds (related to current year income, total assets or whatever), the size of your government check goes up. And, yes, Bill Gates should never draw a penny of SS, Medicare or Medicaid. Neither should Rush Limbaugh, Howard Stern, Al Gore, George W. Bush or Bill Clinton ... they're all bajillionaires. Now, Mr. Self-Employed, who retired with $4 million in the bank, 401(k), IRA, savings and investments doesn't get any SS or Medicare or Medicaid until his net worth is less than $XXX, in which case he gets "some" ... and then ... when it's below $YYY he gets more. What those levels are are definately up for discussion, but we should absolutely means-test SS/Medicare/Medicaid. I'm absolutely fine if part of the means testing involves "how many years did you pay in" (iow, if you were able bodied (but lazy), were you a working person, or a leach, during your most productive years)? Oh, and we should absolutely raise the age at which you can start receiving benefits. People live longer. They are productive longer. Starting at 65yrs old is INSANE. IMVHO. Another thing I'd also do away with ... if an older Widow would like to marry an older Widower ... currently (as I understand it), each one would lose the benefits they're currently getting with their deceased spouse, and if they married, they'd lose that benefit ... so ... if I'm right, my change would be that if they married, they could keep the highest two benefits (but would lose the lower two benefits) of the four benefits they were receiving collectively. Even if it's small, this would be a net savings to SS/MM. Very nicely stated. This is almost completely what I have had in mind. FWIW, I would exempt primary residence from the "net worth" calculation. No reason to render people homeless before SS kicks in. FYI, SS can start at 62, not 65. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
muck Posted December 27, 2011 Share Posted December 27, 2011 (edited) Very nicely stated. This is almost completely what I have had in mind. FWIW, I would exempt primary residence from the "net worth" calculation. No reason to render people homeless before SS kicks in. Yes, exempt the first residence ... but, up to (say) $1 million or so ... maybe even adjust it regionally and/or base it on changes in Case-Shiller, CPI, or somesuch measurement --- $1 million in San Francisco is quite different than $1 million in Yankton, SD. We don't need people selling their stocks and bonds a year before retiring so they can buy some sort of monstrosity so they'd qualify for the maximum distribution from SS/MM. FYI, SS can start at 62, not 65. I guess you are soooooo much closer to retirement age than I am... Edited December 27, 2011 by muck Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.