Hacker News Reader

Comment by betterunix2 | Hacker News Reader

Like it or not these pensions are already legal obligations of state and local governments. Yell about or at the unions all you want, but if these obligations are not met, get ready for lawsuits and negative consequences for municipal credit ratings. Would you rather pay somewhat higher taxes now to cover pension obligations, or significantly higher taxes later because of the higher muni bond rates your state will have to deal with when the problem worsens (or your state is forced into bankruptcy)?

This is not just a problem of public employees or their unions. You are on the hook for these payments and will remain on the hook even if starting today everyone had a defined-contribution plan. Yes, this is your problem too.

View on HN

The guarantees - constitutional in some states - are what will cause the problem to be bigger.

When you can't resolve unsustainable debt without bankruptcy, then you will go bankrupt and credit rating be damned.

Detroit, Chicago, Illinois are just warm ups for the big battles over the next few decades.

I am not convinced that things are hopeless. If we continue to avoid the problem then eventually it will become unsolvable, but we still have a chance to fix this. Step 1 is finding leaders who "tell it like it is" (not the idiotic version that our president practices, but the version where you give people a clear and honest assessment of the situation they face) and are prepared to make hard decisions that might risk their political aspirations. We might also take a moment to reexamine the seemingly religious devotion some politicians have to cutting taxes and accept the fact that sometimes higher taxes are necessary to prevent even costlier outcomes (in NJ we pay more to repair the damage potholes do to our cars than we would pay in higher taxes to properly maintain our roads -- somehow people have trouble connecting the dots).

Good luck keeping the highest end of you tax base around to cover the shortfalls.

Maybe so, but wealthy people seem to like living in high-tax areas like NYC and SF, and I am pretty sure they also like having paved roads, functioning transit systems, and all the other things they would lose if the state had to find a way to meet its obligations without raising taxes. Things are not yet hopeless and if we had politicians who did their jobs and demonstrated competent leadership we could sort out this mess.

> if we had politicians who did their jobs and demonstrated competent leadership we could sort out this mess.

This feels like the crux of the problem, but we've got the politicians we voted for. I'm starting to wonder if its even possible for the average person to vote in the long-term interests of their community against their own short-term interest. Some will... but the majority?

The majority won't because they haven't the luxury of time to understand the consequences of the politicians being voted into office. Your average person doesn't actually understand the differences between a Republican and a Democrat. They assume the label that works for them socially and run with their herd. Both of which are aimed off the cliff by the inane policy makers elected on popularity over policy. This system works and the average person is too short sighted to see the cliff, at no fault of their own.

For the most part the average citizens do everything they should and a bit more. Sadly resources are mismanaged and citizens carry the burden because our system is collectively failing to stop bad actors at every stop.

Every good solution ive heard comes at the expense of higher taxes especially on rent seekers and high income/ wealthy individuals and families. Ignoring the political suicide of going after those classes, the entire proposal is a catch 22. How can these victims be expected to trust a politician when they've been taken advantage of by politicians their whole lives?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com