Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.
Deficits Don't Matter... again
Comments
-
If a business does it properly and they have the right assumptions. The cost on day 1 isn't that different than a 401k. The problem is, no one manages it and it becomes severally underfunded and once you get there, you can't come back unless you perpetually grow at huge rates. Couple that with the fact that businesses used shitty assumptions, including average lifespan, it it's a sister waiting to happen.SFGbob said:
Sweet Geezus, because the money it takes to fully fund a pension program grows on trees and isn't a burden for any private company to come up with.2001400ex said:
They also require the entity, be it the government or business, to grow continuously to meet the future demands. Which is always funny (or shitty) when a business fails because of slow growth or regressive revenues and the board blames the retirement system for excess costs. No.... If you funded it to begin with and had the proper assumptions, it would be self funded and it would be a benefit, not a burden.AZDuck said:
I think the poont is that "defined benefits" retirements are way better than IRAs, corporate propaganda for the last 30 or so years notwithstandingUW_Doog_Bot said:
So your justification for bloated entitlements is that when given a choice people overwhelmingly choose free shit?AZDuck said:
You know what's funny? The military is in the process of converting from a post-20 year "defined benefits" program for retirees to one very much like the one you just described. There are three cohorts:SFGbob said:
No, what I would do rather than creating an unsustainable system that you're compelled to pay into your entire working life, I would have workers pay into a private system, with pre-tax money that allowed the person to invest and save that money as a personal asset. As of is now, if you're hit by a bus at 50, everything you paid into that system is gone. Yes, your wife might get a small benefit or your kids might get a few years of benefits until they reach a certain age.UWhuskytskeet said:Bob loves old poor people.
My system would look much more like what a 401K plan looks like. Borrowing for a first time home purchase would be allowed, and transferring that asset to your heirs at the time of your death would also be allowed.
(1) People who are vested in the old program (like me, thank God)
(2) People who can choose to go to the new "blended" system or stay in the old system
(3) Newfish, who have no choice but to go with the new system.
This is gonna sound crazy, but the people who have a choice are choosing the old system by 97 to 1.
Market choices, huh? Crazy.
I'm shocked! Shocked that public employees would endorse unsustainable pension programs at the expense of privately employed tax payers.
There's a reason why the only people who still have pension plans are all government employees.
401K has been a great deal for me and my only regret is that I didn't start it when I first got out of college. Now imagine if my 401K also included every dollar that's been taken from me and my employers since I first started working. Hell, I'd already be retired.
The government pension is essentially a Ponzi scheme, with current revenues funding current retirees. -
I dunno, I'm just slumming today because of the actual rape of a supreme court nominee.
Ducks love rape. -
Yeah but the lower pay argument has kind of gone by the boards. For some positions yes, but for most positions that no longer applies. Government employees on average are now better paid than private sector employees.AZDuck said:
Agreed. And of course, that used to be a benefit of working for a larger corporation rather than a smaller firm. Also too, part of the reason qualified individuals take positions with the government rather than private industry is that they are willing to accept lower pay in exchange for better benefits.SFGbob said:
Sweet Geezus, because the money it takes to fully fund a pension program grows on trees and isn't a burden for any private company to come up with.2001400ex said:
They also require the entity, be it the government or business, to grow continuously to meet the future demands. Which is always funny (or shitty) when a business fails because of slow growth or regressive revenues and the board blames the retirement system for excess costs. No.... If you funded it to begin with and had the proper assumptions, it would be self funded and it would be a benefit, not a burden.AZDuck said:
I think the poont is that "defined benefits" retirements are way better than IRAs, corporate propaganda for the last 30 or so years notwithstandingUW_Doog_Bot said:
So your justification for bloated entitlements is that when given a choice people overwhelmingly choose free shit?AZDuck said:
You know what's funny? The military is in the process of converting from a post-20 year "defined benefits" program for retirees to one very much like the one you just described. There are three cohorts:SFGbob said:
No, what I would do rather than creating an unsustainable system that you're compelled to pay into your entire working life, I would have workers pay into a private system, with pre-tax money that allowed the person to invest and save that money as a personal asset. As of is now, if you're hit by a bus at 50, everything you paid into that system is gone. Yes, your wife might get a small benefit or your kids might get a few years of benefits until they reach a certain age.UWhuskytskeet said:Bob loves old poor people.
My system would look much more like what a 401K plan looks like. Borrowing for a first time home purchase would be allowed, and transferring that asset to your heirs at the time of your death would also be allowed.
(1) People who are vested in the old program (like me, thank God)
(2) People who can choose to go to the new "blended" system or stay in the old system
(3) Newfish, who have no choice but to go with the new system.
This is gonna sound crazy, but the people who have a choice are choosing the old system by 97 to 1.
Market choices, huh? Crazy.
I'm shocked! Shocked that public employees would endorse unsustainable pension programs at the expense of privately employed tax payers.
There's a reason why the only people who still have pension plans are all government employees.
401K has been a great deal for me and my only regret is that I didn't start it when I first got out of college. Now imagine if my 401K also included every dollar that's been taken from me and my employers since I first started working. Hell, I'd already be retired. -
Anyone who gets paid less in the public sector than the government sucks at life.SFGbob said:
Yeah but the lower pay argument has kind of gone by the boards. For some positions yes, but for most positions that no longer applies. Government employees on average are now better paid than private sector employees.AZDuck said:
Agreed. And of course, that used to be a benefit of working for a larger corporation rather than a smaller firm. Also too, part of the reason qualified individuals take positions with the government rather than private industry is that they are willing to accept lower pay in exchange for better benefits.SFGbob said:
Sweet Geezus, because the money it takes to fully fund a pension program grows on trees and isn't a burden for any private company to come up with.2001400ex said:
They also require the entity, be it the government or business, to grow continuously to meet the future demands. Which is always funny (or shitty) when a business fails because of slow growth or regressive revenues and the board blames the retirement system for excess costs. No.... If you funded it to begin with and had the proper assumptions, it would be self funded and it would be a benefit, not a burden.AZDuck said:
I think the poont is that "defined benefits" retirements are way better than IRAs, corporate propaganda for the last 30 or so years notwithstandingUW_Doog_Bot said:
So your justification for bloated entitlements is that when given a choice people overwhelmingly choose free shit?AZDuck said:
You know what's funny? The military is in the process of converting from a post-20 year "defined benefits" program for retirees to one very much like the one you just described. There are three cohorts:SFGbob said:
No, what I would do rather than creating an unsustainable system that you're compelled to pay into your entire working life, I would have workers pay into a private system, with pre-tax money that allowed the person to invest and save that money as a personal asset. As of is now, if you're hit by a bus at 50, everything you paid into that system is gone. Yes, your wife might get a small benefit or your kids might get a few years of benefits until they reach a certain age.UWhuskytskeet said:Bob loves old poor people.
My system would look much more like what a 401K plan looks like. Borrowing for a first time home purchase would be allowed, and transferring that asset to your heirs at the time of your death would also be allowed.
(1) People who are vested in the old program (like me, thank God)
(2) People who can choose to go to the new "blended" system or stay in the old system
(3) Newfish, who have no choice but to go with the new system.
This is gonna sound crazy, but the people who have a choice are choosing the old system by 97 to 1.
Market choices, huh? Crazy.
I'm shocked! Shocked that public employees would endorse unsustainable pension programs at the expense of privately employed tax payers.
There's a reason why the only people who still have pension plans are all government employees.
401K has been a great deal for me and my only regret is that I didn't start it when I first got out of college. Now imagine if my 401K also included every dollar that's been taken from me and my employers since I first started working. Hell, I'd already be retired. -
DoJ is paying AUSAs like 65k their first year. I mean, obviously there's other benefits (connections, access to federal judiciary) but that paycheck blows. I'm in my 12th year as a JAG and I make probably 3/4 of my law school peers (with *much* more litigation experience), and I have to move to shitholes and get shot at. I would say you might be right at the senior levels, but most folks in the GS grades aren't exactly getting rich.SFGbob said:
Yeah but the lower pay argument has kind of gone by the boards. For some positions yes, but for most positions that no longer applies. Government employees on average are now better paid than private sector employees.AZDuck said:
Agreed. And of course, that used to be a benefit of working for a larger corporation rather than a smaller firm. Also too, part of the reason qualified individuals take positions with the government rather than private industry is that they are willing to accept lower pay in exchange for better benefits.SFGbob said:
Sweet Geezus, because the money it takes to fully fund a pension program grows on trees and isn't a burden for any private company to come up with.2001400ex said:
They also require the entity, be it the government or business, to grow continuously to meet the future demands. Which is always funny (or shitty) when a business fails because of slow growth or regressive revenues and the board blames the retirement system for excess costs. No.... If you funded it to begin with and had the proper assumptions, it would be self funded and it would be a benefit, not a burden.AZDuck said:
I think the poont is that "defined benefits" retirements are way better than IRAs, corporate propaganda for the last 30 or so years notwithstandingUW_Doog_Bot said:
So your justification for bloated entitlements is that when given a choice people overwhelmingly choose free shit?AZDuck said:
You know what's funny? The military is in the process of converting from a post-20 year "defined benefits" program for retirees to one very much like the one you just described. There are three cohorts:SFGbob said:
No, what I would do rather than creating an unsustainable system that you're compelled to pay into your entire working life, I would have workers pay into a private system, with pre-tax money that allowed the person to invest and save that money as a personal asset. As of is now, if you're hit by a bus at 50, everything you paid into that system is gone. Yes, your wife might get a small benefit or your kids might get a few years of benefits until they reach a certain age.UWhuskytskeet said:Bob loves old poor people.
My system would look much more like what a 401K plan looks like. Borrowing for a first time home purchase would be allowed, and transferring that asset to your heirs at the time of your death would also be allowed.
(1) People who are vested in the old program (like me, thank God)
(2) People who can choose to go to the new "blended" system or stay in the old system
(3) Newfish, who have no choice but to go with the new system.
This is gonna sound crazy, but the people who have a choice are choosing the old system by 97 to 1.
Market choices, huh? Crazy.
I'm shocked! Shocked that public employees would endorse unsustainable pension programs at the expense of privately employed tax payers.
There's a reason why the only people who still have pension plans are all government employees.
401K has been a great deal for me and my only regret is that I didn't start it when I first got out of college. Now imagine if my 401K also included every dollar that's been taken from me and my employers since I first started working. Hell, I'd already be retired. -
Call me when trump tops 10 trillion. Minus interest on Obunghole's expenditures of course.2001400ex said:
Except there's identifiable actions by Trump and Congress to increase expenditures and reduce revenues.RaceBannon said:On the economy Obama was quite clear that this is his and Trump didn’t do it
Guess Obama wants to add to his 10 trillion -
Can we talk at $5 trillion in 4 years?Sledog said:
Call me when trump tops 10 trillion. Minus interest on Obunghole's expenditures of course.2001400ex said:
Except there's identifiable actions by Trump and Congress to increase expenditures and reduce revenues.RaceBannon said:On the economy Obama was quite clear that this is his and Trump didn’t do it
Guess Obama wants to add to his 10 trillion
If you want to minus interest. Ok, done. Now minus Medicare part D, reduction in revenues from the recession, TARP, and 2 wars from Obama. Ok sugar bear? -
Obama voted for TARP, why wouldn't he be responsible for the cost of it? I don't believe he was in the Senate when they passed Medicare part D but if he was there's no way he voted against it. And remember one of those wars was the war Obama and the Rats said they were just itching to kick ass in after Bush took his eye off the ball. So really you can minus one war.2001400ex said:
Can we talk at $5 trillion in 4 years?Sledog said:
Call me when trump tops 10 trillion. Minus interest on Obunghole's expenditures of course.2001400ex said:
Except there's identifiable actions by Trump and Congress to increase expenditures and reduce revenues.RaceBannon said:On the economy Obama was quite clear that this is his and Trump didn’t do it
Guess Obama wants to add to his 10 trillion
If you want to minus interest. Ok, done. Now minus Medicare part D, reduction in revenues from the recession, TARP, and 2 wars from Obama. Ok sugar bear? -
Cool. Take off what $4 trillion from Obama then?SFGbob said:
Obama voted for TARP, why wouldn't he be responsible for the cost of it? I don't believe he was in the Senate when they passed Medicare part D but if he was there's no way he voted against it. And remember one of those wars was the war Obama and the Rats said they were just itching to kick ass in after Bush took his eye off the ball. So really you can minus one war.2001400ex said:
Can we talk at $5 trillion in 4 years?Sledog said:
Call me when trump tops 10 trillion. Minus interest on Obunghole's expenditures of course.2001400ex said:
Except there's identifiable actions by Trump and Congress to increase expenditures and reduce revenues.RaceBannon said:On the economy Obama was quite clear that this is his and Trump didn’t do it
Guess Obama wants to add to his 10 trillion
If you want to minus interest. Ok, done. Now minus Medicare part D, reduction in revenues from the recession, TARP, and 2 wars from Obama. Ok sugar bear? -
Well his VP and two of his Secretaries of State voted for it, so 3/4 of that is still on him.2001400ex said:
Cool. Take off what $4 trillion from Obama then?SFGbob said:
Obama voted for TARP, why wouldn't he be responsible for the cost of it? I don't believe he was in the Senate when they passed Medicare part D but if he was there's no way he voted against it. And remember one of those wars was the war Obama and the Rats said they were just itching to kick ass in after Bush took his eye off the ball. So really you can minus one war.2001400ex said:
Can we talk at $5 trillion in 4 years?Sledog said:
Call me when trump tops 10 trillion. Minus interest on Obunghole's expenditures of course.2001400ex said:
Except there's identifiable actions by Trump and Congress to increase expenditures and reduce revenues.RaceBannon said:On the economy Obama was quite clear that this is his and Trump didn’t do it
Guess Obama wants to add to his 10 trillion
If you want to minus interest. Ok, done. Now minus Medicare part D, reduction in revenues from the recession, TARP, and 2 wars from Obama. Ok sugar bear?
