[Patchman]

Originally Posted by 2bgop

Have you read all 13 pages?

I have. So do you answer "yes" or "no"?

[TBO]

People who have trouble balancing a checkbook should refrain from posting in this, or any thread.

[DanaT]

Originally Posted by jpa

You get my point. Again, you're intentionally being daft. Creditor order of pay isn't set at the hearings, it's set in the bankruptcy code (i.e. LAW). At the hearings all they do is argue about who should get what percentage of what's left and why. Employees are never on the hook to pay their employer's expenses because they aren't the owners. If they're owners, then they're not really employees but owners and then they're liable for their share of the liabilities. You also know that I was referring to a re-org since I stated it in the post and again, you're ignoring the question since you know the answer supports my argument. If a business can't show they can pay future liabilities, the court won't allow a re-org and will push them into a full discharge. In personal bk they call it means testing. You're also ignoring the point that shareholders and owners come dead last when liquidating assets while wage claims have a much higher priority.

It's hard arguing with someone who is being intellectually dishonest. All these mental gymnastics are making my back hurt. ;P

If I am being intellectually dishonest, show me where I have said something incorrect.

Sole proprietorship you are both and employee and an owner. S-corp is much the same way. I can 100% tell you for the S-corp I file taxes for I am an employee, get paid a wage (which is subject to FICA and SECA) and have pass-through income which is not subject to FICA and SECA (one is income from being an employee and one is income from being an owner and the second is not subject to FICA or SECA).

And although shareholders are lower on the list than employees, that doesn't mean in a bankruptcy employees are first in line or that they get anything. If there is no money, there is no money and the get nothing.

[DanaT]

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?

Evedryday people take out loans for televisions, car, houses, credit cards, etc and promise to pay it back. Everyday hospitals and doctors take care of people before they are treated on a promise to pay the bill, and they skip out or file bankruptcy. The person giving them the money/service/goods upheld their end of bargain, do you have a problem if the were not allowed to file bankruptcy and creditors were able to pursue them for the rest of their lives for payment. After all, a promise was made.

[DanaT]

Originally Posted by Patchman

Why don't you first define to me to the differences between "wealth" and "revenue." Then I can give you some of my ideas.

In my mind, the more "revenue" I get, the more "wealth" I have. We own a building with 22 apartments, where we get monthly "revenues." But I feel no sense of "wealth." So clearly, that's not your definition.

It is obvious that you dont know the difference between build wealth and revenue.

[2bgop]

Originally Posted by Patchman

I have. So do you answer "yes" or "no"?

To what?

[DanaT]

Originally Posted by Sharky7

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

For the same reason people blame a company for poor results and not mismanagement.

It is mismanagement.

What they sell you is a vision of the future. If you were told the truth, "there may be money to pay in the future if everything goes as planned and if it doesn't go as planned, you are SOL", would you take the job?

[2bgop]

Originally Posted by Sharky7

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

Well point some of the bad information out and help a few of us learn something.

[DanaT]

Originally Posted by Sharky7

We have a spending problem as a country.

You admit to it. So what do you do about it? You cut spending. That is exactly what we are saying. These programs are not sustainable and need some cutting.

You can do it now and try to do precision cutting with a scalpel, you you can do it later when an axe is all that will take care of it. Look at the pension system and situation in Greece for a glimpse into our future if we keep on the current path.

[Sharky7]

Originally Posted by DanaT

Evedryday people take out loans for televisions, car, houses, credit cards, etc and promise to pay it back. Everyday hospitals and doctors take care of people before they are treated on a promise to pay the bill, and they skip out or file bankruptcy. The person giving them the money/service/goods upheld their end of bargain, do you have a problem if the were not allowed to file bankruptcy and creditors were able to pursue them for the rest of their lives for payment. After all, a promise was made.

If that same person was going out to steak dinners every night instead of eating ramen - yeah, I would be mad.

If a city has a pension liability of $500,000, they could make that up in 5 years by not hiring an employee and leaving a $75,000 salary position open ($25,000 worth of benefits).

As a nation, we need to stop using the credit card and bankruptcy excuses.

[Patchman]

Originally Posted by devildog2067

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.

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.

I appreciate your opinion. But as in any contractual dispute, the final arbiter is the courts.

Naturally, it's not anywhere close to that point, but rest assured, we will take it there, if necessary, Another great reminder what unions are good good for.

[2bgop]

Originally Posted by Patchman

I appreciate your opinion. But as in any contractual dispute, the final arbiter is the courts.

Naturally, it's not anywhere close to that point, but rest assured, we will take it here, if necessary, Another great reminder what unions are good good for.

How does a court force a generally assembly to appropriate funds to a certain place?

[Patchman]

Originally Posted by 2bgop

To what?

To my question. Yes or no?

[Sharky7]

Originally Posted by DanaT

You admit to it. So what do you do about it? You cut spending. That is exactly what we are saying. These programs are not sustainable and need some cutting.

You can do it now and try to do precision cutting with a scalpel, you you can do it later when an axe is all that will take care of it. Look at the pension system and situation in Greece for a glimpse into our future if we keep on the current path.

It's not simply the programs themselves, it always how they are managed.

Borrowing against the pension fund, raising salaries weeks before retiring with no capped salary limit, failing to contribute, low age of retirement, etc are problems that face poorly managed problems.

It can be done effectively - if it is done properly. All of the governments that are currently crying broke is because of their mismanagement. When we rob Peter to pay Paul and hope to pay back Peter on a sunny day when it is someone else's problems killed a lot of pension funds.

[Patchman]

Originally Posted by 2bgop

How does a court force a generally assembly to appropriate funds to a certain place?

To the place where the action initiated. The courts should have a record of that, I would hope.

[2bgop]

Originally Posted by Patchman

To the place where the action initiated. The courts should have a record of that, I would hope.

I don't see your a yes or no question.

Your answer makes no sense. How does a court force a general assembly to take a legislative action?

[DanaT]

Originally Posted by Sharky7

It's not simply the programs themselves, it always how they are managed.

Borrowing against the pension fund, raising salaries weeks before retiring with no capped salary limit, failing to contribute, low age of retirement, etc are problems that face poorly managed problems.

It can be done effectively - if it is done properly. All of the governments that are currently crying broke is because of their mismanagement. When we rob Peter to pay Paul and hope to pay back Peter on a sunny day when it is someone else's problems killed a lot of pension funds.

And pigs could fly if they were birds.

Yes, it can be done properly. But it wasn't. We will face the music, it just when.

Anyone in the public sector that is thinks there pension will look the same in 15 or 20 years I dont feel sorry for. Plan for what is inevitably going to occur.

Again, look to Greece.

[Sharky7]

Originally Posted by 2bgop

How does a court force a generally assembly to appropriate funds to a certain place?

Again - funds are already appropriated. They have already been planned and in most cases already paid. In the case of my state, Illinois, the money was taken out of a state fund after it was already appropriated and deposited. This left the state crying "broke."

As far as a forced court payment....How do you think citizens receive forced monetary payment when they sue a gov entity under a 1983 action?

[2bgop]

Originally Posted by Sharky7

Again - funds are already appropriated. They have already been planned and in most cases already paid. In the case of my state, Illinois, the money was taken out of a state fund after it was already appropriated and deposited. This left the state crying "broke."

As far as a forced court payment....How do you think citizens receive forced monetary payment when they sue a gov entity under a 1983 action?

I see appropriated funds re-appropriated all the time, it is extremely common in state budgeting process.

The money is paid to them by the governmental body responsible. At the state or large muni level, they have money set aside for just that scenario.

[Patchman]

Originally Posted by DanaT

Evedryday people take out loans for televisions, car, houses, credit cards, etc and promise to pay it back. Everyday hospitals and doctors take care of people before they are treated on a promise to pay the bill, and they skip out or file bankruptcy. The person giving them the money/service/goods upheld their end of bargain, do you have a problem if the were not allowed to file bankruptcy and creditors were able to pursue them for the rest of their lives for payment. After all, a promise was made.

Where I'm at, the jurisdiction is not yet anywhere close to filing for bankruptcy.

For a supposed entrepreneur, you're a little too quick to jump on the bankruptcy bandwagon.

Glad I didn't have the $3 million you were fishing for.

[Sharky7]

Originally Posted by 2bgop

I see appropriated funds re-appropriated all the time, it is extremely common in state budgeting process.

The money is paid to them by the governmental body responsible. At the state or large muni level, they have money set aside for just that scenario.

It is not considered a re-appropriation in the above example. It is considered a liability.

If you are a contract employee for the state - that would be like me going into your checking account and withdrawing (re-appropriating) a few paychecks from last year.

[Patchman]

Originally Posted by 2bgop

I don't see your a yes or no question.

Your answer makes no sense. How does a court force a general assembly to take a legislative action?

What court and general assembly? I don't even know what a "general assembly" is. The last time I heard "general assembly" was in middle school, where we had general assembly in the auditorium.

Sure you're reading my post? Or just wishing it was my post because you want to pounce?

[2bgop]

Originally Posted by Sharky7

It is not considered a re-appropriation in the above example. It is considered a liability.

If you are a contract employee for the state - that would be like me going into your checking account and withdrawing (re-appropriating) a few paychecks from last year.

It doesn't matter if everyone agrees that there is a liability created by re-approping the money or not. A legislature can absolutely do it and it is common. I see it happen all the time.

[Sharky7]

Originally Posted by 2bgop

It doesn't matter if everyone agrees that there is a liability created by re-approping the money or not. A legislature can absolutely do it and it is common. I see it happen all the time.

Can you please list another example.....An example that a legislator is taking away an already previously dispensed and clearly defined benefit in an employee package to pay for a state budget item they did not have the money to do.

[2bgop]

Originally Posted by Patchman

What court and general assembly? I don't even know what a "general assembly" is. The last time I heard "general assembly" was in middle school, where we had general assembly in the auditorium.

Sure you're reading my post? Or just wishing it was my post because you want to pounce?

You brought up judicial action and I just wanted to know how you thought the judiciary could force a state general assembly to take a legislative action.

General assembly is just a state legislature in this context. It can in a few places refer to muni gov, but it is rare.