Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2011/03/11
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]frank, right as usual. pensions are the biggest part of the problem. california was so reckless in 1999 that actuaries projected the growth of their pension retirement funds assuming that the dow jones would be 25,000 in 2009 and 28,000,000 in 2099, allowing them to stop funding the pensions, and to increase payouts. pensions are the weapons of mass destruction in public finance. they are popular with politicians because they can make extravagant promises to employees by creating long-dated liabilities they know will be someone else's problem--ultimately the taxpayer's problem. because they are so bulletproof, backed by the full faith and taxing power of the local entity, there's a lot of incentive to underfund them and pay too much out of them. true reform will switch public employees to defined-contribution plans, the 401ks that us mortals fund with our own paychecks. -rei On 03/11/2011 04:47 PM, Frank Filippone wrote: > What does collective bargaining have to do with this argument? > > If, like most Engineers ( for example), the public employee had to > negotiate for himself, would it make any difference in the overall > government fiscal picture?? No. > > The company's advantage ( or in this case, Government's advantage) to > collective bargaining is to make the process of employee relations easier > and more efficient .....one stop ...... rather than 10,000 or 20,000, or > whatever individual negotiations..... The disadvantage is that the > contract is so large that it is close to impossible to renegotiate > anything. > Why should a contract be renegotiated? Because there is a change in the > world that is affecting the contract: NO MONEY. Something needs to be done > to balance or attempt to balance budgets, and there are only a few ways to > save money. > > Let's look at the issue of breaking off collective bargaining as a way to > correct past cost ( read that as .. payroll and pension) increases in > contract negotiation.... now you can go ahead with your arguments.... as > an issue of contract negotiation and especially re-negotiation..... to > reduce costs. > > In truth, something NEEDS to be done to balance the recent lower income of > government taxes.... it is now out of hand..... as shown by the number of > states that are about to go bankrupt ( in the technical sense) by decreased > tax income and increased or fixed but too high spending..... Think of it > as > your family finances... what is the first thing you do if you have a big > drop in income? You STOP SPENDING. And then you look for ways to balance > your personal expenses..... Why should anyone think Government is or > should > be different? > > Government spend in 3 ways.....debt repayment on previous projects, current > projects, and pensions. Debt repayment is renegotiated by calling higher > yielding bonds and issuing lower yielding ones.. Current projects can be > scaled back or cancelled ( ever see that one happen?) Pensions are one big > pot of $$$ that could be modified to save costs. > > Pension reform is coming..... if only by the mandate of bankruptcy... no > tax > revenue money = no government money = no pension money = no payouts.... > > Don't even think about floating bonds to make the issue go away... been > there, did that, it is what put us in the mess we are in right now.....it > only puts off the inevitable > > Sorry for all of you out there that do get a pension ( teachers, other > government employees, and you too commercial Union pensioneers, etc....) > but > the reality is that we are living longer, we put $$$ into the system with > the "old" statistics, and the funds that are there are not getting the > returns they used to.... > > When it runs out, it runs out. > > Pension is NOT a bottomless pit. > > Collective bargaining is or should be efficient, not unassailable...... > > Frank Filippone > Red735i at earthlink.net > > > > public employees are taxpayers. > reducing their income further reduces tax revenue, as well as spending > within the economy. > > It seems extremely short sighted > to imagine that stripping anyone's bargaining rights and decimating their > income some how equates to "standing up for the taxpayer;" > unless you're referring to corporate and mega-wealth tax dodgers as > taxpayers. > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information