Part of the reason why even reasonable people do not take left's claims of "tax to protect environment" seriously because this is all the money that they can see going to the pockets of politicians and government employees.
> Part of the reason why even reasonable people do not take left's claims of "tax to protect environment" seriously because this is all the money that they can see going to the pockets of politicians and government employees.
"Hey, I want to be able to rob government employees of the compensation they were contractually promised when they did their jobs."
Color your argument however you want, in whatever political flavor you like, that is essentially what you suggest. I'm really not going to feel guilty if the government taxes you to pay average Americans the pay they agreed too.
Sorry, I'm genuinely not interested in your politics of envy.
Personally, as far as I can tell, for the same job the government would pay me less than I make now. So...I'm really not worried Government employees are being overcompensated.
Government departments promised each other outrageous compensation and somebody who is coming 30 years and wasn't even present back then is supposed to be skinned to the bone so that grand pa can swing his golf club in Scotland?
[Source:http://www.latimes.com/projects/la-me-el-monte-pensions/]
Who is the one doing the 'robbing' here?
There is limit up to how much you can abuse these things until the next generations call it quits and leave you with nothing.
Okay, so question, why aren't you working as a Government employee due to the outrageous compensation that dwarfs all alternatives?
Did I state the compensation for government employees is more than every other job out there?
My point is you can't award your self a unreasonable pay package and then expect somebody who didn't even sign up to pay for it, pay for it.
Which is an admission that your following sentence is a fiction:
> My point is you can't award your self a unreasonable pay package and then expect somebody who didn't even sign up to pay for it, pay for it.
Government employees aren't overpaid when the people who can get them can be paid more by the private sector in terms of total compensation.
The next problem with your argument is you intend to rob people who agreed to be paid $X for their labor after they kept up their end of the bargain.
The third problem is, if you do that, you'll see a steep decline in police & military who heavily rely on pensions as part of the total compensation package. I suggest robbing your police, military, and other emergency/security forces because you think their compensation is unreasonable is unlikely to be a wise choice if you enjoy a stable society.
Oh btw, it gets better, since in order to do this you have to void a good chunk of legal precedent about employment and will likely create a ton of other unintended, non-obvious consequences.
If you don't like how the government operates, exercise your power to vote rather than attempting to rob people after they upheld their end of the social contract.
That is certainly not a minuscule portion.
Pensions are part of employee salaries. Not budgeting for them is like buying a house, and not budgeting for anything past the first mortgage payment.
Why are we talking about defaulting, or haircutting pensions, instead of defaulting... On any of the other people or companies that the state owes money to?
Changing 'future' pension payment rules, where a pension kicks in after 20 years of employment, when you are on year 19, should not fly.
I fail to see how social security, which is a national program for all citizens, is any less holy than pensions. Pensions are usually backed by city and state govt which have much shallower pockets.
What I'm saying is if the federal government can cut back social security benefits there's no reason we shouldn't cut future pension benefits
SS is a welfare program. This is fundamentally different from a salary. Welfare programs can, and do change just before, or just after, you become eligible for them. This is fine. This is social programs are supposed to work. (Although, generally, their accounts should not be plundered to fund illegal wars.) There was no contract that you signed when you started paying into SS. It's a tax, which funds a welfare program.
Salaries, on the other hand, are sacred. Pensions aren't social programs. They are deferred salaries. Cutting pensions is a salary clawback.
If you're going to stop paying the pensions you're obligated to, you damn better have declared bankruptcy, and let your creditors - including the pensioners - pick over your carcass.
There are other programs administered by the Social Security Administration (e.g. SSDI) that are welfare programs, but that's not what the previous poster was talking about.
The fact that the payments are structured much like a pension is tangential. For example, nothing stops the feds from restructuring it into flat payments.
What do you base this statement on? The Federal Government enumerates the exact formula used to determine future social security benefit payments, even for people 40 years away from retirement. Given a known salary scale, a 22 year old can calculate their expected future social security benefit down to the penny. This future benefit is funded by a 12.4% tax/contribution from your salary. It's a % contribution for a defined benefit.
How is that any different than a state or municipal pension?
They are in fact so similar that, in some states, participation in the state's pension plan entirely replaces (rather than compliments) participation in social security.
That's more than double the $5.2 billion a year the Brown administration hopes to raise from a plan that would boost gas taxes by 12 cents a gallon, raise the vehicle-license fee by $25 to $175 a year (depending on the value of the vehicle), impose a $100 annual fee on electric cars because they don't currently pay gas taxes and include a large hike on diesel fuel. Money is fungible, so if the state overspends on pensions, it has to make it up somewhere else. [2]
[1] http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/01/04/jerry-browns-pension-r...
[2] http://reason.com/blog/2017/04/07/california-road-tax-hike-i...