|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Apr 9, 2010 8:30:42 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Apr 9, 2010 10:53:07 GMT -8
Just when will liberal Democrats figure out that sooner or later you run out of people who can pay, willing or not? Will they just rely on inflation, the cruelest tax of all, to fund this BS?
|
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Apr 9, 2010 11:28:33 GMT -8
Just when will liberal Democrats figure out that sooner or later you run out of people who can pay, willing or not? Will they just rely on inflation, the cruelest tax of all, to fund this BS? Here is another explanation, and admittedly it's an unflattering one; they just don't care. It will be, after all, some other President, perhaps after they are dead, who will have to go on TV and tell the nation that we are broke and only a drastic cut in expenditures, including pensions for retirees will solve the problem. Or maybe they are just stupid. Stupid like FDR's "brain trust" who devised a Social Security plan that was designed to fail once modern medical science increased life expectancy and helped families limit the number of children born. AzWm |
|
|
|
Post by Hamilton on May 2, 2010 9:16:58 GMT -8
Waiting for conservative government retirees to ask that their pensions be reduced for the benefit of future generations. How long should I wait?
|
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on May 2, 2010 9:31:28 GMT -8
Waiting for conservative government retirees to ask that their pensions be reduced for the benefit of future generations. How long should I wait? Complete brain dead response that misses the point entirely. Most current retirees will be dead in a few years. It is the trillions in unfunded future obligations that are the subject. It does detract from the issue by trying to demonize those who have earned a promised benefit, sound or not. We need to change the system by making the retirement programs self funding from current contributions and not an unfunded liability for future generations. Just how smart must you be to understand this simple concept.? Smarter than our "guest" it seems. |
|
|
|
Post by Hamilton on May 2, 2010 20:07:41 GMT -8
Demonize? Not at all. It would be a shining example of your love for our country to make a small sacrifice for future generations.
|
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on May 3, 2010 11:37:26 GMT -8
Demonize? Not at all. It would be a shining example of your love for our country to make a small sacrifice for future generations. What would you suggest? I, for one, already pay taxes on all my earnings. That is something that less than half the people do now. How much more should I give up to fund those who will not work? What would be fair? |
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on May 3, 2010 12:44:03 GMT -8
Waiting for conservative government retirees to ask that their pensions be reduced for the benefit of future generations. How long should I wait? I am one such. Of course I do not want to see my benefits cut. The question is, would a 5% cut in my teachers pension really help the situation? Maybe, maybe not. As Win suggests, it is the future retiree cohorts that will hit the wall. Given the huge deficits we face now and into the future, the Feds are likely to seek new sources of revenue. They are already talking about a value added or national sales tax. No doubt that will generate huge amounts of revenue. Here's the problem; will the revenue be used to reduce the deficit or will it be spent on new entitlements? If the latter, then the problem will only get worse and we will all be screwed. AzWm |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on May 4, 2010 14:47:56 GMT -8
I think that Hamilton just wanted to take a dig at those like me that earned and are enjoying a modest pension. He wants to goad me into defending what I earned so that I would be seen as greedy or uncaring because I do not think that cutting what I earned to fund what others are unwilling to make the sacrifice to earn. they want it with out putting in the effort to earn it. At the same time hey are unwilling to say that what I advocate for us all is a pay as you go retirement system rather than creating huge unfunded liabilities for others to worry about. This sort of thinking is most likely not serious, but just a troll. You can hardly get coherent arguments against the kind of programs that I bring up from time to time. I will add that the idea that with my life expectancy, I am not the problem, but it is those much younger that will destroy what we have by the weight of their burden on the remaining workers.
|
|
|
|
Post by AlwaysAnAztec on May 4, 2010 16:29:48 GMT -8
Win, you need to give it a rest.
You were in the Navy, served 20+ years, and retired. Military retirement, rule of thumb, is 50% after 20 then plus 2.5 % for every year up to 30 for a maximum of 75%.
If you went in at 18 you retired at 50% pay at age 38. And, oh by the way, you didn't contribute a DIME to your retirement account.
You earned your retirement just like I am earning my retirement and AzWm earned his. He also doesn't get SSI unless he contributed in another life. You do.
|
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on May 4, 2010 21:12:27 GMT -8
Win, you need to give it a rest. You were in the Navy, served 20+ years, and retired. Military retirement, rule of thumb, is 50% after 20 then plus 2.5 % for every year up to 30 for a maximum of 75%. If you went in at 18 you retired at 50% pay at age 38. And, oh by the way, you didn't contribute a DIME to your retirement account. You earned your retirement just like I am earning my retirement and AzWm earned his. He also doesn't get SSI unless he contributed in another life. You do. You are either a troll or brain dead! Look at the entire thread to get context. |
|
|
|
Post by AlwaysAnAztec on May 5, 2010 9:37:57 GMT -8
Win, you need to give it a rest. You were in the Navy, served 20+ years, and retired. Military retirement, rule of thumb, is 50% after 20 then plus 2.5 % for every year up to 30 for a maximum of 75%. If you went in at 18 you retired at 50% pay at age 38. And, oh by the way, you didn't contribute a DIME to your retirement account. You earned your retirement just like I am earning my retirement and AzWm earned his. He also doesn't get SSI unless he contributed in another life. You do. You are either a troll or brain dead! Look at the entire thread to get context. I do not know WTF a "Troll" is. I was responding to your continuing criticism of other people's pension plans. If it will suit you, I will delete my 'brain dead' account and leave you and William to your own devices. You drove =Bob away and you are about to do the same with me.  |
|
|
|
Post by davdesid on May 5, 2010 13:46:54 GMT -8
>>>You were in the Navy, served 20+ years, and retired. Military retirement, rule of thumb, is 50% after 20 then plus 2.5 % for every year up to 30 for a maximum of 75%.
If you went in at 18 you retired at 50% pay at age 38. And, oh by the way, you didn't contribute a DIME to your retirement account.<<<
Only if being on duty 24/7 for weeks or even months at a time with no such thing as "overtime", and at low salary at that, doesn't count for anything.
Other than that, your calculations are correct.
|
|
|
|
Post by AlwaysAnAztec on May 5, 2010 15:35:04 GMT -8
>>>You were in the Navy, served 20+ years, and retired. Military retirement, rule of thumb, is 50% after 20 then plus 2.5 % for every year up to 30 for a maximum of 75%. If you went in at 18 you retired at 50% pay at age 38. And, oh by the way, you didn't contribute a DIME to your retirement account.<<< Only if being on duty 24/7 for weeks or even months at a time with no such thing as "overtime", and at low salary at that, doesn't count for anything. Other than that, your calculations are correct. Yes, I know. 4 years and two WESTPAC tours of Vietnam for me.  |
|
|
|
Post by davdesid on May 5, 2010 15:54:22 GMT -8
>>>You were in the Navy, served 20+ years, and retired. Military retirement, rule of thumb, is 50% after 20 then plus 2.5 % for every year up to 30 for a maximum of 75%. If you went in at 18 you retired at 50% pay at age 38. And, oh by the way, you didn't contribute a DIME to your retirement account.<<< Only if being on duty 24/7 for weeks or even months at a time with no such thing as "overtime", and at low salary at that, doesn't count for anything. Other than that, your calculations are correct. Yes, I know. 4 years and two WESTPAC tours of Vietnam for me. Thank you for your service. Welcome home.  |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on May 5, 2010 19:44:22 GMT -8
You are either a troll or brain dead! Look at the entire thread to get context. I do not know WTF a "Troll" is. I was responding to your continuing criticism of other people's pension plans. If it will suit you, I will delete my 'brain dead' account and leave you and William to your own devices. You drove =Bob away and you are about to do the same with me. I think you misconstrue what I advocate and also mistake the imputed contribution to retirement made by Military folks and the sacrifice that they make. I recognize and honor your service as well and hope that you will say that you just made another choice than what I made. We had the same decisions to make, but just made different ones. I do not see where you can argue against pay as you go for just about everyone but Military, Police, Fireman and the like. We just can carry only so much unfunded future obligations both in Government and in the Private Sector. Just what part of the Union retirement liability brought down GM and Chrysler? They could very well have had near the same benefits on a pay as you go path as they have now without the lead anchor around the necks of the Companies and probably the taxpayer. Even Federal Civil Service now has a much cheaper retirement system and if fully taken advantage of by employees, a better payout in retirement. I don't think anyone chased anyone from any forum by anything but the weight of points made in discussion. That is why your repeated "trolls" about what people have chosen to do is met with short fused answers. Go ahead and invest a couple seconds with a search of "troll" if you really are unaware. |
|
