[Patchman]

Originally Posted by devildog2067

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.

OK, I'll roll over and play dead then. Thanks.

[certifiedfunds]

Originally Posted by Sharky7

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

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

No. You're 100% completely off base.

My 401k is my money. I invest it. It is portable. I live with the consequences. No defined benefit.

My employer matches to a very small percentage. It is completely within their prerogative to change that in any given year.

[Sharky7]

Originally Posted by devildog2067

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.

All politicians did was a shell game. They paid for programs or infrastructure with money that was not theirs.

Instead of raising taxes to create those new programs, they stole from pension contributions.

I personally don't think taxpayers should have to pay for any of it. Liquidate assets or cut back on future spending to make up the missed contributions.

We have a spending problem....

[certifiedfunds]

Originally Posted by Sharky7

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

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

You asked about government borrowing money and whether they had to repay it. Clearly they don't. That's why investors in the bonds earn a return.

Try to keep up

[Sharky7]

Originally Posted by certifiedfunds

No. You're 100% completely off base.

My 401k is my money. I invest it. It is portable. I live with the consequences. No defined benefit.

My employer matches to a very small percentage. It is completely within their prerogative to change that in any given year.

What if they said they were going to take back ALL of the money they have given you in their match contribution?

[devildog2067]

Originally Posted by Patchman

OK, I'll roll over and play dead then. Thanks.

Your choices are:

1) Figure out a way to make some money on your own or

2) Convince the government to steal mine and give it to you.

It is what it is. If you can choose #2 and still sleep at night, that's your business. I saw the writing on the wall years ago, that's part of the reason I didn't make a career in the military.

[Sharky7]

Originally Posted by certifiedfunds

You asked about government borrowing money and whether they had to repay it. Clearly they don't. That's why investors in the bonds earn a return.

Try to keep up

Go back and re-read.

Also - don't make me blow the whistle for your recess to be over. The little snide comments when you are proven wrong are not mature.

[2bgop]

Originally Posted by Sharky7

Go back and re-read.

Also - don't make me blow the whistle for your recess to be over. The little snide comments when you are proven wrong are not mature.

"If a state government takes out a loan for a project, they must re-pay that loan."

What does he need to re-read? That is what you said, it is wrong.

I am going to guess you haven't read all 13 pages of this thread?

[certifiedfunds]

Originally Posted by Sharky7

What if they said they were going to take back ALL of the money they have given you in their match contribution?

They can't. It's my money.

It's in my account. I own my account. They have no way of reaching in.

[certifiedfunds]

Originally Posted by Sharky7

Go back and re-read.

Also - don't make me blow the whistle for your recess to be over. The little snide comments when you are proven wrong are not mature.

Cool. Go back and re read the whole thread before you comment then. This has been covered.

You're off base.

[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.

2bgop-

Public employees are not willing investors. They did not choose to invest and provide the money to the state gov hoping for a higher return.

Re-read my above shell game post above.

[certifiedfunds]

Originally Posted by Sharky7

All politicians did was a shell game. They paid for programs or infrastructure with money that was not theirs.

Instead of raising taxes to create those new programs, they stole from pension contributions.

I personally don't think taxpayers should have to pay for any of it. Liquidate assets or cut back on future spending to make up the missed contributions.

We have a spending problem....

Wrong. They appropriated taxpayer money. That is within their power.

[certifiedfunds]

Originally Posted by Sharky7

2bgop-

Public employees are not willing investors. They did not choose to invest and provide the money to the state gov hoping for a higher return.

Re-read my above shell game post above.

You asked if gov loans, bonds, had to be repaid. I answered you and explained.

[Sharky7]

Originally Posted by certifiedfunds

They can't. It's my money.

It's in my account. I own my account. They have no way of reaching in.

Exactly.

Just to make sure everyone who is reading understands pensions. I think you probably do, but for others...Here are some example numbers only and a very basic explanation...

Employee Bob pays 10% of his salary into pension. Gov matches that at 10%. Money in that fund is then invested.

This is quite similar to YOUR 401k. You might put in 4% and get a matching 4% every year.

--------------------------------------

Many local or state governments ran into problems when they reached into the pension cookie jar to pay for other items.

I am lucky enough to work for an agency that has it's own pension board. Unfortunately, the teachers in Illinois had their pensions consolidated into a state fund. Rod Blago borrowed against that fund time and time again....money that the teachers had put in and money the school districts contributed.

[Sharky7]

Originally Posted by certifiedfunds

Wrong. They appropriated taxpayer money. That is within their power.

Wrong. If it was future contributions and a bill was passed to back that up - it would be an appropriation.

Your attitude towards spending/borrowing is what is wrong with our gov. Do you believe your own mortgage should not have to be paid? Hell...why pay your credit card bills. Just go into bankruptcy.

[2bgop]

Originally Posted by Sharky7

2bgop-

Public employees are not willing investors. They did not choose to invest and provide the money to the state gov hoping for a higher return.

Re-read my above shell game post above.

OK? They have the ability to do that. They can spend that money on anything they want and when the time comes to pay those pensioners, they don't have to.

[Sharky7]

Originally Posted by 2bgop

OK? They have the ability to do that. They can spend that money on anything they want and when the time comes to pay those pensioners, they don't have to.

What state are you in? Not in my state constitution.

[2bgop]

Originally Posted by Sharky7

What state are you in? Not in my state constitution.

So there is an article or section in your state constitution that allows for one general assembly to bind a future general assembly?

[Sharky7]

Originally Posted by 2bgop

OK? They have the ability to do that. They can spend that money on anything they want and when the time comes to pay those pensioners, they don't have to.

What state do you live in?

SECTION 5. PENSION AND RETIREMENT RIGHTS Membership in any pension or retirement system of the State, any unit of local government or school district, or any agency or instrumentality thereof, shall be an enforceable contractual relationship, the benefits of which shall not be diminished or impaired. (Source: Illinois Constitution.)

[Sharky7]

Originally Posted by 2bgop

So there is an article or section in your state constitution that allows for one general assembly to bind a future general assembly?

That's not relevant though. We are talking about past contributions that were misappropriated.

If the economy stays in the dumps - I am sure many states should and will increase employee contribution %.

Many other reforms are necessary as well. No more wink and nudge pay raises in the last few weeks of your job to bump up your pension payouts.

[2bgop]

Originally Posted by Sharky7

What state do you live in?

SECTION 5. PENSION AND RETIREMENT RIGHTS Membership in any pension or retirement system of the State, any unit of local government or school district, or any agency or instrumentality thereof, shall be an enforceable contractual relationship, the benefits of which shall not be diminished or impaired. (Source: Illinois Constitution.)

Ok, that says you have an enforceable contractual relationship.

That doesn't mean the general assembly can be forced to appropriate funds to any place they don't want to.

[2bgop]

Originally Posted by Sharky7

That's not relevant though. We are talking about past contributions that were misappropriated.

If the economy stays in the dumps - I am sure many states should and will increase employee contribution %.

Many other reforms are necessary as well. No more wink and nudge pay raises in the last few weeks of your job to bump up your pension payouts.

I live MO and DC.

Have you read all 13 pages of this thread? I am tried of typing the same damn thing.

[Sharky7]

Originally Posted by 2bgop

Ok, that says you have an enforceable contractual relationship.

That doesn't mean the general assembly can be forced to appropriate funds to any place they don't want to.

The funds have already been appropriated. Do you mean that the state has to be the guarantor of the pension fund?

[2bgop]

Originally Posted by Sharky7

The funds have already been appropriated. Do you mean that the state has to be the guarantor of the pension fund?

Have you read all 13 pages?

[Sharky7]

Originally Posted by 2bgop

Have you read all 13 pages?

Yep. Lots of bad information and only a few people who even understand enough of the problem to contribute positively to the conversation.