[Patchman]

Originally Posted by mgentry

Just look at Social Security - congress and the senate have raided to fund so many times -and never paid any back - that they have forgotten. They want to look perplexed and act like they can't figure out why it is going broke.

Exactly.

Politicians raid the fund. Issue IOUs payable to the future. Then when the future arrives, the current politicians says "oh, that wasn't us. And we don't have the money anyway. Sorry."

IOUs for 10, 15, 20 years? All that principle lost. All that interest it would have earned lost.

Then blame the pensioners?. OMG!!!

That's like blaming gun owners for gun crimes

[certifiedfunds]

Originally Posted by Sharky7

Why do some people blame a public pension and not the mismanagement.

My gov pension is funded appropriately. There are even several fire agencies around me with 150%+ funded pensions.

Mismanagement is the cause. No doubt. The only blame toward the employees occurs when they turn to the taxpayers and say FU payup.

Pension shortfalls are in the trillions. That's what started the thread. Yet every public worker I've ever seen post on the subject says theirs is fine. Here's hoping that really is the case with yours.

[certifiedfunds]

Originally Posted by Patchman

Exactly.

Politicians raid the fund. Issue IOUs payable to the future. Then when the future arrives, the current politicians says "oh, that wasn't us. And we don't have the money anyway. Sorry."

IOUs for 10, 15, 20 years? All that principle lost. All that interest it would have earned lost.

Then blame the pensioners?. OMG!!!

That's like blaming gun owners for gun crimes

You get the blame when you want taxpayers to paper that over and make you whole.

[Patchman]

Originally Posted by certifiedfunds

You get the blame when you want taxpayers to paper that over and make you whole.

We get the blame for everything. Par for the course.

And why I demand every promise I got for taking this job.

[Patchman]

Originally Posted by Patchman

When your house catches on fire, or when someone is breaking into your house, or when someone is committing some crime against you, you NEVER have the obligation to call 9-1-1.

Can we understand that? Calling 9-1-1 is optional. You're all grown men. You all got guns. You all can take care of yourselves.

Originally Posted by certifiedfunds

Why? We have a sheriff with a large well equipped force. We tax ourselves to fund his department (on the ballot). They serve at the pleasure of the sheriff. No union.

Why should I not use the services I pay for?

Oh, by all means, if you feel the need, then call 9-1-1. After all, they're your paid for civil servants.

[certifiedfunds]

Originally Posted by Patchman

Oh, by all means, if you feel the need, then call 9-1-1. After all, they're your paid for civil servants.

They aren't civil servants.

Get it?

[certifiedfunds]

Originally Posted by Patchman

We get the blame for everything. Par for the course.

And why I demand every promise I got for taking this job. The job satisfaction is when crime victims get satisfaction and/or closure. The carp is when everyone else cries about costs of keeping a police. Until they're victim, that is.

I didn't break any promise to you.

[certifiedfunds]

Originally Posted by Patchman

We get the blame for everything. Par for the course.

And why I demand every promise I got for taking this job. The job satisfaction is when crime victims get satisfaction and/or closure. The carp is when everyone else cries about costs of keeping a police. Until they're victim, that is.

So you don't expect the taxpayers to ante up whatever it takes to pay the pension the politicians promised you?

[Sharky7]

Originally Posted by certifiedfunds

So you don't expect the taxpayers to ante up whatever it takes to pay the pension the politicians promised you?

There is a difference between being responsible for paying the pension and being responsible for the missed contributions.

[Patchman]

Originally Posted by certifiedfunds

So you don't expect the taxpayers to ante up whatever it takes to pay the pension the politicians promised you?

Do you have a problem with the concept that a promise made to me 16 years ago, and which I kept my end of the bargain, and which I based my retirement future on, I demand to keep enforced?

Yes or No?

[moeman]

Originally Posted by jpa

NV PERS had a return for 2012 of 16%. Since 1984 they have a net return of 9.3%, also greater than the 8% expected. So does that mean I should get a refund of my contributions since they did better than their expected rate of return? If there was a shortfall you would expect that I would have to contribute more, right?

The problem with a lot of pension plans (CALPERS included) is that the money wasn't put into the plan to be invested as required. Instead the lawmakers wrote an IOU and spent the money elsewhere. Since that money wasn't invested, there's no way for it to achieve the rate of return required to sustain the system.

This kind of misappropriation committed by politicians across the country would land everyone involved in prison if it were done in private business. If the systems are underfunded and going broke it's because of mismanagement at the highest level, not because they're unsustainable.

Good post!

[certifiedfunds]

Originally Posted by Sharky7

There is a difference between being responsible for paying the pension and being responsible for the missed contributions.

Which am I responsible for and why?

[certifiedfunds]

Originally Posted by Patchman

Do you have a problem with the concept that a promise made to me 16 years ago, and which I kept my end of the bargain, and which I based my retirement future on, I demand to keep enforced?

Yes or No?

Answer my question and I will answer yours.

[Patchman]

Originally Posted by certifiedfunds

Answer my question and I will answer yours.

Answer my question and I will answer yours.

[Sharky7]

Originally Posted by certifiedfunds

Which am I responsible for and why?

If a state government takes out a loan for a project, they must re-pay that loan. We have a spending problem as a country.

Do you work for a company that has a matching 401k?

[2bgop]

Originally Posted by Sharky7

If a state government takes out a loan for a project, they must re-pay that loan. We have a spending problem as a country.

Do you work for a company that has a matching 401k?

Who forces the state to repay a loan?

[Sharky7]

Originally Posted by 2bgop

Who forces the state to repay a loan?

If they don't - they will begin facing the same problems the rest of the country is going through. Wait for that credit rating to keep getting lower and lower and YOUR taxes to go up because of it.

[devildog2067]

Originally Posted by Patchman

Politicians raid the fund. Issue IOUs payable to the future. Then when the future arrives, the current politicians says "oh, that wasn't us. And we don't have the money anyway. Sorry."

<snip>

Then blame the pensioners?

Who said anything about "blame"?

There isn't any money. That fact doesn't depend on whose "fault" it is or who is to "blame." The money is gone.

[2bgop]

Originally Posted by Sharky7

If they don't - they will begin facing the same problems the rest of the country is going through. Wait for that credit rating to keep getting lower and lower and YOUR taxes to go up because of it.

Sure, it would not be good for the old bond rating, but you said they must repay it, that is simply not true.

[devildog2067]

Originally Posted by Patchman

Do you have a problem with the concept that a promise made to me 16 years ago, and which I kept my end of the bargain, and which I based my retirement future on, I demand to keep enforced?

Yes or No?

Yes.

You kept up your end of the bargain, and they didn't keep up theirs. They screwed you. That sucks.

It doesn't give you the right to screw anyone else. Your money is gone, and if you "demand" to get paid they'll have to steal some more from someone else to pay you.

[certifiedfunds]

Originally Posted by moeman

Good post!

Not really. We're back to one legislature binding another. The money isn't misappropriated. It was appropriated differently by a different legislature.

[certifiedfunds]

Originally Posted by Sharky7

If a state government takes out a loan for a project, they must re-pay that loan. We have a spending problem as a country.

Do you work for a company that has a matching 401k?

No. They don't have to repay it. The investors who purchase the bond do so in order to get a return on their investment. There is no return without risk.

[Sharky7]

Originally Posted by 2bgop

Sure, it would not be good for the old credit rating, but you said they must repay it, that is simply not true.

I thought you were asking out of your curiosity to learn...not asking to nitpick words.

[Sharky7]

Originally Posted by certifiedfunds

No. They don't have to repay it. The investors who purchase the bond do so in order to get a return on their investment. There is no return without risk.

Gov employees did not look to invest their money. Your analogy is incorrect.

The agreement was a matching program similar to your 401k.

[2bgop]

Originally Posted by Sharky7

I thought you were asking out of your curiosity to learn...not asking to nitpick words.

I can alway learn, but I have a fairly decent grasp of this topic.