Anonymous
10/10/2018 16:57
Subject: Re:States' fiscal condition
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:GMU/Koch propoganda
+1
Mercator has an agenda
What exactly is the agenda?
They are free marketeers who believe states should not have pension systems.
Ok. And if the poorly run pension system literally bankrupts the state...you wouldn't agree?
Only if the state has some alternate plan to provide retirement benefits to its employees.
Right now, most public sector employees get pensions but are not eligible for Social Security or other public retirement benefits. If you eliminate pensions, you need to somehow backfill that hole. (I'm not at all opposed to eliminating them conceptually--our state's are all in abysmal shape--but I also don't think you can suddenly pull the rug out from so many retirees who rely on pensions because they don't receive Social Security, and the only way states have found to fulfill their obligations with past employees is to continue to have current employees pay into the system.) If it were feasible to eliminate it for current employees while paying down the past obligations to then sunset the system, I think many states would jump on that--but where would the money come from? (As is, most have substantially reduced benefits for recent hires relative to those who started a generation or two ago.) You'd also then need to find other ways to make some of those jobs appealing to people, since the pension and benefits are a big part of the employment package for public sector employees who could earn much higher salaries in the private sector.
I will also say that at least a chunk of our state's pension issues are related to rampant borrowing against the pension by the state in the past, which is a separate and also problematic issue.
How did the DC government pull the pension plug from all new hires (minus police fire and teachers) after 1986? Dc moved
to 401k for all hires employed after 1986. Do you know how they backfilled the pensions for the earlier employees? BtW, the DC government retirement 401k is awful.
Anonymous
10/10/2018 11:44
Subject: States' fiscal condition
So the government
1) extorts people and businesses out of their hard earned money with the threat of force.
2) runs pension and social security Ponzi schemes
3) profits off of drug business but does no hard work
4) profits off of tobacco and alcohol business but does no hard work
5) runs lottery and casino racquets and other gambling
3 questions .. When will the government get into prostitution? What is so illegal about organized crime activities? And how is it possible for the government to go into debt?
1) extorts people and businesses out of their hard earned money with the threat of force.
2) runs pension and social security Ponzi schemes
3) profits off of drug business but does no hard work
4) profits off of tobacco and alcohol business but does no hard work
5) runs lottery and casino racquets and other gambling
3 questions .. When will the government get into prostitution? What is so illegal about organized crime activities? And how is it possible for the government to go into debt?
Anonymous
10/10/2018 11:35
Subject: States' fiscal condition
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:The federal government treats social security like a piggy bank too. All governments are corrupt and run a Ponzi scheme like Bernie Madoff. If you depend on them for your livelihood that's your stupid decision.
You don't know what you're talking about. You are literally ignorant on this topic so let me educate you.
Social Security now pays more in benefits than it takes in. That means that they have to sell the bonds they've purchased to pay for benefits.
That's a Ponzi scheme. The money was supposed to be saved and invested in bonds. Instead it was mixed into the general funds and spent. Now current workers (investors) pay the benefits to the prior investors instead of having their money saved and invested.
That is a pure Ponzi scheme.
You are the one that needs educating.
Anonymous
10/10/2018 11:29
Subject: States' fiscal condition
The law should force states to make adequate provision for pensions. There is a real problem with politicians making public sector pensions too generous because they know the costs will come down the line.
Anonymous
10/10/2018 11:24
Subject: States' fiscal condition
Anonymous wrote:The federal government treats social security like a piggy bank too. All governments are corrupt and run a Ponzi scheme like Bernie Madoff. If you depend on them for your livelihood that's your stupid decision.
You don't know what you're talking about. You are literally ignorant on this topic so let me educate you.
Social Security now pays more in benefits than it takes in. That means that they have to sell the bonds they've purchased to pay for benefits.
Anonymous
10/10/2018 10:48
Subject: States' fiscal condition
The federal government treats social security like a piggy bank too. All governments are corrupt and run a Ponzi scheme like Bernie Madoff. If you depend on them for your livelihood that's your stupid decision.
Anonymous
10/09/2018 12:45
Subject: Re:States' fiscal condition
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:GMU/Koch propoganda
+1
Mercator has an agenda
What exactly is the agenda?
They are free marketeers who believe states should not have pension systems.
Ok. And if the poorly run pension system literally bankrupts the state...you wouldn't agree?
Only if the state has some alternate plan to provide retirement benefits to its employees.
Right now, most public sector employees get pensions but are not eligible for Social Security or other public retirement benefits. If you eliminate pensions, you need to somehow backfill that hole. (I'm not at all opposed to eliminating them conceptually--our state's are all in abysmal shape--but I also don't think you can suddenly pull the rug out from so many retirees who rely on pensions because they don't receive Social Security, and the only way states have found to fulfill their obligations with past employees is to continue to have current employees pay into the system.) If it were feasible to eliminate it for current employees while paying down the past obligations to then sunset the system, I think many states would jump on that--but where would the money come from? (As is, most have substantially reduced benefits for recent hires relative to those who started a generation or two ago.) You'd also then need to find other ways to make some of those jobs appealing to people, since the pension and benefits are a big part of the employment package for public sector employees who could earn much higher salaries in the private sector.
I will also say that at least a chunk of our state's pension issues are related to rampant borrowing against the pension by the state in the past, which is a separate and also problematic issue.
This. Plenty of states treated the public pension plans like piggy banks, but these people are ineligible for social security.
Anonymous
10/09/2018 12:26
Subject: Re:States' fiscal condition
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:GMU/Koch propoganda
+1
Mercator has an agenda
What exactly is the agenda? Illinois is, in fact, totally insolvent due to the pension situation. Reporting that fact in the context of a state ranking doesn't seem like it's politically fueled.
+1
It's not propaganda if it's true.
Anonymous
10/09/2018 12:20
Subject: Re:States' fiscal condition
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:GMU/Koch propoganda
+1
Mercator has an agenda
What exactly is the agenda?
They are free marketeers who believe states should not have pension systems.
Ok. And if the poorly run pension system literally bankrupts the state...you wouldn't agree?
Only if the state has some alternate plan to provide retirement benefits to its employees.
Right now, most public sector employees get pensions but are not eligible for Social Security or other public retirement benefits. If you eliminate pensions, you need to somehow backfill that hole. (I'm not at all opposed to eliminating them conceptually--our state's are all in abysmal shape--but I also don't think you can suddenly pull the rug out from so many retirees who rely on pensions because they don't receive Social Security, and the only way states have found to fulfill their obligations with past employees is to continue to have current employees pay into the system.) If it were feasible to eliminate it for current employees while paying down the past obligations to then sunset the system, I think many states would jump on that--but where would the money come from? (As is, most have substantially reduced benefits for recent hires relative to those who started a generation or two ago.) You'd also then need to find other ways to make some of those jobs appealing to people, since the pension and benefits are a big part of the employment package for public sector employees who could earn much higher salaries in the private sector.
I will also say that at least a chunk of our state's pension issues are related to rampant borrowing against the pension by the state in the past, which is a separate and also problematic issue.
Anonymous
10/09/2018 11:46
Subject: Re:States' fiscal condition
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:GMU/Koch propoganda
+1
Mercator has an agenda
What exactly is the agenda?
They are free marketeers who believe states should not have pension systems.
Ok. And if the poorly run pension system literally bankrupts the state...you wouldn't agree?
Anonymous
10/09/2018 11:45
Subject: Re:States' fiscal condition
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:GMU/Koch propoganda
+1
Mercator has an agenda
What exactly is the agenda?
They are free marketeers who believe states should not have pension systems.
Anonymous
10/09/2018 11:42
Subject: Re:States' fiscal condition
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:GMU/Koch propoganda
+1
Mercator has an agenda
What exactly is the agenda? Illinois is, in fact, totally insolvent due to the pension situation. Reporting that fact in the context of a state ranking doesn't seem like it's politically fueled.
Anonymous
10/09/2018 11:15
Subject: Re:States' fiscal condition
Anonymous wrote:GMU/Koch propoganda
+1
Mercator has an agenda
Anonymous
10/09/2018 10:56
Subject: Re:States' fiscal condition
GMU/Koch propoganda
Anonymous
10/09/2018 10:49
Subject: States' fiscal condition
The Mercatus center has just come out with its annual assessment of states' fiscal condition for 2018.
I thought this might be of interest to readers of this forum. Virginia is rated above average and Maryland below average.
DC is not included in the report. State pensions are a drag for a number of states.
https://www.mercatus.org/statefiscalrankings?utm_source=marketing&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=fiscalrankings2018
I thought this might be of interest to readers of this forum. Virginia is rated above average and Maryland below average.
DC is not included in the report. State pensions are a drag for a number of states.
https://www.mercatus.org/statefiscalrankings?utm_source=marketing&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=fiscalrankings2018