Michael Hardner Posted February 20, 2011 Report Share Posted February 20, 2011 We the taxpayers can not afford to fund union pensions and health care benefits. You negotiate your terms just as they do. I'm still going through the thread waiting for somebody to give us some numbers on something that's supposed to be an economics issue but - with every post - seems to be about telling other people that they're not worth what they negotiated with their employer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted February 20, 2011 Report Share Posted February 20, 2011 Imagine that. Those with most income pay more. It's really astonishing to see how the goalposts for fair taxation have changed since the days of that great Republican Eisenhower. Nobody's moving any goal posts, just stating facts. My opinion is that it would be fair to fix income tax rates back to where that great Republican Reagan had them. So you want to cut tax rates 5%-7%? Are you sure that's wise? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted February 20, 2011 Report Share Posted February 20, 2011 While I - reluctantly - admit that there may still be a place for unions representing workers in thre PRIVATE sector, there is absolutely no reason or viable cause for unions in the PUBLIC sector. Wrong. When there are no competitors to your boss' company, AND they write the laws that govern your relationship a union is most necessary. This situation is proof of that more than anything. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scotty Posted February 20, 2011 Report Share Posted February 20, 2011 These problems are effecting every state. Because for too long, public sector unions have been given a free ride. Especially related to their pyramid scheme of defined benefit pension programs. Shady, the problem of unfunded pension plans is not the responsibility of unions but of a series of governments which preferred to keep taxes low in the name of their own election chances, and thus preferred to NOT fund their growing pension requirements properly. It wasn't like this was a secret. It wasn't like they agreed to pensions and then forgot to fund them. They were short-sited and focused only on their own immediate election plans, and preferred to ignore what would happen down the road. In Canada, by comparison, federal public servant pensions are fully funded, which unfortunately allows the government to raid the pension fund for surpluses when it wants to - to the tune of $36 billion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted February 20, 2011 Report Share Posted February 20, 2011 You negotiate your terms just as they do. Yes, but their terms aren't infinite. Their contracts aren't life-long. And now, they're being re-negotiated. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pinko Posted February 20, 2011 Report Share Posted February 20, 2011 I had hoped you would address the central issue. Pubic sector defined benefit pension plans, and public sector comprehensive benefit packages they pay little to zero into. And rely on the taxpayers to foot the bill for them. You are going around in circles my friend. Unless you can produce a specific plan in a specific jurisdiction I will take your assertions with the attention deserving of such generalities. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scotty Posted February 20, 2011 Report Share Posted February 20, 2011 I remember once reading a remark by Thomas Friedman about the "coddled" European workers. ("Coddled" is a direct quote, I remember it clearly.) Which made me recognize the distinction between these coddled European layabouts, compared to the suffering, hard-working writer-of-weekly-articles millionaire from the New York Times. Odd that those lazy, coddled European workers have higher productivity than us, isn't it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted February 20, 2011 Report Share Posted February 20, 2011 Shady, the problem of unfunded pension plans is not the responsibility of unions but of a series of governments which preferred to keep taxes low in the name of their own election chances That's not true. Take New Jersey. They're the highest taxed state in the country. Is that keeping taxes low? They've seen double-digit property tax increases every year for the last 8 years. Is that keeping taxes low? But why should tax payers be subsidizing public sector union pensions in the first place? Perhaps if they actually contributed to them the way they should, there wouldn't be any problems. Gee, what a concept. Instead, they're hellbent on their pyramid scheme of defined benefit pensions. So they barely have to contribute, but get to take huge generious pensions when they retire. All at the expense of the taxpayer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted February 20, 2011 Report Share Posted February 20, 2011 You are going around in circles my friend. Unless you can produce a specific plan in a specific jurisdiction I will take your assertions with the attention deserving of such generalities. I've already cited several examples in a previous post. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted February 20, 2011 Report Share Posted February 20, 2011 It's a fact, as well as public knowledge. You can access it through various sources online, including the IRS. The top 5% pay 53% of all income taxes. The top 10% pay 65% of all income taxes. The top 50% pay 96% of all income taxes. The bottome 50% pay virtually nothing in income taxes. Educate yourself better. It helps when discussing these types of issues. Numbers ! Give us your source - I'd be interested in the source for this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted February 20, 2011 Report Share Posted February 20, 2011 Odd that those lazy, coddled European workers have higher productivity than us, isn't it? Actually they don't. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scotty Posted February 20, 2011 Report Share Posted February 20, 2011 I looked up and cited in the same manner as the poster who made the original assertion. That would be me. I didn't claim to have looked up anything. I've spent a few summers in Europe and prefer to go to non-tourist places where you meet more real people and get more of a feel for life there. So as I asked, have you been there? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted February 20, 2011 Report Share Posted February 20, 2011 Numbers ! Give us your source - I'd be interested in the source for this. The IRS. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pinko Posted February 20, 2011 Report Share Posted February 20, 2011 "Perhaps if they actually contributed to them the way they should, there wouldn't be any problems." Are you familiar with how such plans are designed? If so, how about explaining the mechanics of such plans including the trust arrangements associated with same. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted February 20, 2011 Report Share Posted February 20, 2011 I didn't claim to have looked up anything Does that also describe your European worker productivity assertion? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted February 20, 2011 Report Share Posted February 20, 2011 These problems are effecting every state. Because for too long, public sector unions have been given a free ride. Especially related to their pyramid scheme of defined benefit pension programs. Underfunded pensions are a problem for management aren't they ? Isn't it their job to plan for the funding ? GM made this mistake too. I don't get why the governments that negotiated agreements shouldn't be responsible for fulfilling their end. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bloodyminded Posted February 20, 2011 Report Share Posted February 20, 2011 Odd that those lazy, coddled European workers have higher productivity than us, isn't it? Blasphemy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted February 20, 2011 Report Share Posted February 20, 2011 Nobody's moving any goal posts, just stating facts. No you're not. There have been hardly any links provided, and no numbers yet. So you want to cut tax rates 5%-7%? Are you sure that's wise? Are you saying tax rates were lower under Ronald Reagan ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted February 20, 2011 Report Share Posted February 20, 2011 Yes, but their terms aren't infinite. Their contracts aren't life-long. And now, they're being re-negotiated. Contracts are negotiated with both parties, not when one party passes a law changing the agreement. And people say public sector unions aren't necessary... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted February 20, 2011 Report Share Posted February 20, 2011 The IRS. Link ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pinko Posted February 20, 2011 Report Share Posted February 20, 2011 (edited) "Underfunded pensions are a problem for management aren't they ?" That they are and in addition such funds should not be used for other than the purpose of the pension plan itself. Most plans have periodic actuarial projections provided and prudent plan holders make adjustments based on these projections. Edited February 20, 2011 by pinko Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scotty Posted February 20, 2011 Report Share Posted February 20, 2011 That's not true. Take New Jersey. They're the highest taxed state in the country. Is that keeping taxes low? They've seen double-digit property tax increases every year for the last 8 years. Is that keeping taxes low? But why should tax payers be subsidizing public sector union pensions in the first place? Perhaps if they actually contributed to them the way they should, there wouldn't be any problems. Gee, what a concept. Instead, they're hellbent on their pyramid scheme of defined benefit pensions. So they barely have to contribute, but get to take huge generious pensions when they retire. All at the expense of the taxpayer. Well, I don't claim to be an expert on New Jersey public pension plans but I did a cursory search and came up with the following: Gov. Christie is expected to outline his proposal for "reforming" New Jersey's public employee pension funds in his annual budget message on Feb. 22. Any discussion about the reform of New Jersey's public pension funds for workers, including state employees, teachers and school support staff, county and local employees, should start with the state's failure to live up to its financial obligation to these funds and not end until that has been fully rectified. For 13 of the last 17 years, the state has willfully ignored that obligation. During that time, employees have, without exception, made their contributions. In the case of one of the funds, the Teachers Pension and Annuity Fund (TPAF), that amounts to worker contributions of nearly $7 billion -- almost seven times as much as the state's contribution. Successive administrations have turned a well-respected pension plan into a Ponzi scheme -- that is, it pays current recipients with the contributions of current participants while making no contribution of its own. Successive administrations willfully did this, all the while issuing statements to workers telling them what their benefits would be, based on a statutorily based formula. If this failure to put a single dime into the pension funds for those 13 years isn't willful neglect, then what is? New Jersey Times Comment? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted February 20, 2011 Report Share Posted February 20, 2011 With this issue, we have a great chance here at MLW to discuss workers' rights / unionism et. al. Probably the first good example of a new issue on this front since GM had financial problems a few years back. My problem with this issue is that, though it's painted in economic terms no good numbers have been provided. Further to that, the rationales given are peppered with emotionalism: - "We can't afford it !" (Why not ? On paper, we're richer as a whole than our parents or grandparents were) - "They don't deserve pensions !" - Plus, the reluctance to apply the same rules to American hero unions tips their hand. I'm open to looking at these things, but where oh where is the economic RATIONALE people ? Give me something to chew on. Furthermore, here are some things that make this topic less interesting and take focus away from the argument at hand: - posting videos of idiots right or left - sloganeering, comparisons to Hitler, Stalin, Laurel or Hardy - finding out how old Pinko is (66) or where Yukon Jack was born, or how astrologically lucky or hard-working he was to find his way through life. If you disagree, and think that those things are worth discussing, why not start a new thread so we can discuss the Wisconsin situation here ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GWiz Posted February 20, 2011 Report Share Posted February 20, 2011 (edited) It actually isn't. The top tier of income earners pay the lions share of income taxes.I think the top 1% earners pay something like 40% by themselves. The bottom 50% of American income earners pay virtually no income taxes. Ahhh yes, the vagaries and fallacies of "statistics"... Summary of Collections Before Refunds by Type of Return, FY 2009 [1] Gross Collections (Millions of $) 1,175,422 225,482 858,164 46,632 3,094 21,583 ______________ 2,330,377 Which is well over 2.3 TRILLION dollars collected by the Fed. Gov. in the United States (2009)... (excludes SS taxes) Do the top 2% of "rich" Americans pay well over 1 TRILLION dollars in "income tax"? NO! It's a little more "complicated" than that... http://www.irs.gov/taxstats/article/0 However, even if "statistically" true, as a percentage of wealth, would YOU rather be one of the TOP 2% of Americans having their money or part of the 13.2% of American households earning less than $50,000.00 annually? Who feels "taxes" (even if near 0) more? Edited February 20, 2011 by GWiz Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted February 20, 2011 Report Share Posted February 20, 2011 Contracts are negotiated with both parties, not when one party passes a law changing the agreement. And people say public sector unions aren't necessary... There's no money. Have you ever receieved a paycheque from a bankrupt employer? They can either make concession now, or face a mass lay off. And then, in a short period of time after that, have their contracts renegotiated to the terms being presently offered. You seem to think there's a magic money tree, when even if no money exists, somebody gets paid. That's why public sector unions are a joke. They're not grounded in economic reality Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.