Feds to bail out state pension funds? [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : Feds to bail out state pension funds?


Mr981
09-30-2012, 21:02
At least the Gov. of IL would like to see that:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/09/30/demint-joins-national-effort-to-keep-feds-from-bailing-out-state-pension/

These Democrats are amazing; they are absolutely shameless about trying to tap into the federal piggy bank to bail out thier own mismanagement.

aircarver
09-30-2012, 21:34
With what ? ....:steamed:

.

jpa
10-01-2012, 07:57
So if Nevada's pension is completely funded and solvent (it is), can we get a bonus check just because? Otherwise I don't see this as being fair to the states that actually manage their money responsibly instead of writing an IOU to the pension and a check to some BS program.

m2hmghb
10-01-2012, 09:16
In NJ the emloyees of the public sector met their contributions, but the state and local governments usually didn't. I find it ironic how the state blames the employees for not putting enough in when they constantly steal from it or just plain ignore it.

JohnBT
10-01-2012, 10:06
"So if Nevada's pension is completely funded and solvent (it is)"

It must have happened last month, because Nevada has been underfunded for years.

www.pewstates.org/research/state-fact-sheets/nevada-widening-gap-update-85899399277 (http://www.pewstates.org/research/state-fact-sheets/nevada-widening-gap-update-85899399277)

TheExplorer
10-01-2012, 10:24
You aint seen nothing yet. Wait till all the baby boomers, who are at the top of their pay range, retire. Full salary and medical benefits are really going to hurt the system.

Flying-Dutchman
10-01-2012, 10:29
With what ? ....:steamed:

.
Easy, just press a couple of buttons. The Fed does not even need a printing press anymore.

They will get their pensions. It may pay their cell phone bill.

mgs
10-01-2012, 12:56
That would be typical......another payoff with taxpayer cash!

Mr981
10-01-2012, 16:19
Romney should ask him if he would support this for IL or any other state straight up , yes or no--no equivocation.

Wolfgang
10-01-2012, 16:26
VA "VRS" is so funded the Guvernator pulled money out to balance the state budget....he now claims a balanced budget, but underfunded retirement system.

Maybe a bailout with "printed dollars" will bail it out.

turretg
10-01-2012, 16:34
Incremental Marxism.

RonS
10-01-2012, 16:40
It will be like the GM bail out, blue states will get money, red states won't.

http://dailycaller.com/2012/09/12/another-house-committee-jumps-into-delphi-pensions-fight/

wjv
10-01-2012, 16:41
With what ? ....:steamed:

.

This really neat stuff that they create from thin air. It's called "Back to the Future Money - IV". . .

jpa
10-03-2012, 22:42
"So if Nevada's pension is completely funded and solvent (it is)"

It must have happened last month, because Nevada has been underfunded for years.

www.pewstates.org/research/state-fact-sheets/nevada-widening-gap-update-85899399277 (http://www.pewstates.org/research/state-fact-sheets/nevada-widening-gap-update-85899399277)

They keep using the full cost of all liabilities in determining the percentage of funding. If the state promises 75% of my salary 30 years from now, they're not going to take 75% of my current salary and put it in a bank account. They take 11.5% of my salary from me and match it to put 23% of my salary in investments. Assuming a 7% rate of return on that money for the next 30 years, one year's worth of contributions will be equal to 1.5x the total salary or 2 years worth of benefits. Adding in compounding returns over 30 years and continued contributions at the same rate will yield 31 years worth of payments at 75% of my salary after retirement.

How is that not solvent again?

certifiedfunds
10-03-2012, 22:48
VA "VRS" is so funded the Guvernator pulled money out to balance the state budget....he now claims a balanced budget, but underfunded retirement system.

Maybe a bailout with "printed dollars" will bail it out.

It's all taxpayer money. Doesn't really matter what bucket it comes from. Why should the pension remain fully funded with tax dollars when the rest of the budget is bleeding?

ugly8604
10-04-2012, 00:07
I love how people who have no idea what they're talking about keep screaming, "unfunded liability." Guess what folks,if suddenly at this very moment every person in the nation who was eligible to retire did so, we may be in a bind. Pensions are pay as you go, it's not the end of the world if they aren't fully funded at the moment.

Dennis in MA
10-04-2012, 07:19
Doubtful that they'd ever bail it out. If they haven't thrown a lifeline to CA yet, they won't throw any lifelines. There is PLENTY a state can do to avoid problems. RI, amongst others, has made radical changes to it's pension system to stay afloat.

There are certain things Uncle won't do. Bail out a state is one of them.

devildog2067
10-04-2012, 07:42
How is that not solvent again?

This part:
Assuming a 7% rate of return on that money for the next 30 years

certifiedfunds
10-04-2012, 07:45
:rofl:

7%

:rofl:

risk free

:rofl::rofl:

Dennis in MA
10-04-2012, 08:10
Pension funds don't invest in risk-free investments. They have a "prudent man" diversified portfolio. 7% long-term (30 years) is NOT unreasonable.

devildog2067
10-04-2012, 08:30
Pension funds don't invest in risk-free investments. They have a "prudent man" diversified portfolio. 7% long-term (30 years) is NOT unreasonable.

7% for 30 years is not unreasonable--to fund benefits which are not inflation adjusted and are based on this year's salary.

But every pension system I've seen bases your pension on the last few years' salary--i.e., the highest possible ones--and gives increases in benefits for inflation.

7% is not unreasonable--but 7% above inflation is.

jpa
10-04-2012, 21:19
This part:

Even if the fund has a few underperforming years, the higher yield years will make up for them. The stock market has highs and lows. The 7% return will fund a 75% retirement with no adjustments for 31 years. Inflation adjustments start after 3 years of retirement. The pension amount is based on the top 3 consecutive years of salary and the contributions the employee and employer both make are always a percentage of the employee's salary (11.5% each).

I don't know anyone who has retired for 31 years. As a matter of fact average life expectancy for a cop after retirement is about 5 years. So should his family get a refund of the rest of his contributions? It averages out and it's not without risk, but the pension has been very prudent about balancing their portfolio.

Let me guess, all your money is socked away in gold ingots under your bed?

sourdough44
10-04-2012, 21:25
The USPS missed a 5 Bil $$ payment the other week. Do we need another reminder we are out of money? We can't continue to borrow 40 cents on every dollar spent. I realize few want to really cut anything, Europe here we come.

jpa
10-05-2012, 02:25
The USPS missed a 5 Bil $$ payment the other week. Do we need another reminder we are out of money? We can't continue to borrow 40 cents on every dollar spent. I realize few want to really cut anything, Europe here we come.

The USPS is learning a hard lesson about not using funding for long-term liabilities to pay for operating costs. That's the same problem a lot of states are getting themselves into. Without the power of compounding returns on their investments, the bill that's going to come due is only going to get bigger and bigger. They need to suck it up, fund pensions fully and move forward. The politicians who used the pension contributions to pay for pet projects, new programs and random other bureaucratic nonsense need to go to jail.

certifiedfunds
10-05-2012, 06:42
The politicians who used the pension contributions to pay for pet projects, new programs and random other bureaucratic nonsense need to go to jail.

What do we do with the politicians who negotiated unrealistic pension obligations in the first place?

Brucev
10-05-2012, 07:57
Pensioners should be paid exactly what they are due. If a state has underfunded the pension, the state should be held liable for the full amount. Let the taxpayers of that state pay up. And... let the burden of paying be applied across the board to all persons... i.e., real people and even the faux corporate persons.

CAcop
10-05-2012, 08:34
What do we do with the politicians who negotiated unrealistic pension obligations in the first place?

Research San Jose. They had one of the worst retirements in the state yet they somehow can't fund the pension. Orange county is another. They lot money in the 90s. Who lost money in the 90s? People committing fraud and got caught and sent to club fed. Morgan Hill is actually doing very well for employee pensions because they set up a secret account for rainy days. They actually have the best pension for non public safety in the area because of it.

devildog2067
10-05-2012, 08:48
Pensioners should be paid exactly what they are due. If a state has underfunded the pension, the state should be held liable for the full amount. Let the taxpayers of that state pay up. And... let the burden of paying be applied across the board to all persons... i.e., real people and even the faux corporate persons.

And everyone should get a castle, and a unicorn, and free hugs for life.

:upeyes:

Clutch Cargo
10-05-2012, 09:18
The Texas Municipal Retirement System has always been financially sound due to conservative investing. We have not had a year-end bonus in a few years, but we are on solid financial ground.

Brucev
10-05-2012, 11:37
And everyone should get a castle, and a unicorn, and free hugs for life.

:upeyes:

No one has the right to castles or unicorns or hugs. Pensioners who were promised their pension as a part of their compensation have every right to expect that pension to be paid by the state which made the agreement. If it cost the taxpayer money... tough. The pensioners are not obligated to sacrifice so that taxpayers can avoid paying. :wavey:

devildog2067
10-05-2012, 11:42
No one has the right to castles or unicorns or hugs. Pensioners who were promised

Pensioners entered a legally binding contract, which is something else entirely. It should have been very obvious that there was no possibility that the government would have the funds to pay the contracts at the time they were signed. That's part of the reason I left government service.

Because the governments are broke, they pursue legal methods (like bankruptcy) which void a contract when one party is incapable of paying.

If it cost the taxpayer money... tough. The pensioners are not obligated to sacrifice so that taxpayers can avoid paying.

The pensioners are at the mercy of whatever they get. That's the nature of depending on someone else to fund one's retirement. There simply isn't going to be enough revenue to fund pension systems, no matter how much you want to raise taxes. You can only squeeze the taxpayer so much.

certifiedfunds
10-05-2012, 11:59
pensioners should be paid exactly what they are due. If a state has underfunded the pension, the state should be held liable for the full amount. Let the taxpayers of that state pay up. And... Let the burden of paying be applied across the board to all persons... I.e., real people and even the faux corporate persons.

lol !!

CAcop
10-05-2012, 13:12
Pensioners entered a legally binding contract, which is something else entirely. It should have been very obvious that there was no possibility that the government would have the funds to pay the contracts at the time they were signed. That's part of the reason I left government service.

Because the governments are broke, they pursue legal methods (like bankruptcy) which void a contract when one party is incapable of paying.



The pensioners are at the mercy of whatever they get. That's the nature of depending on someone else to fund one's retirement. There simply isn't going to be enough revenue to fund pension systems, no matter how much you want to raise taxes. You can only squeeze the taxpayer so much.

The interesting thing about cities going bankrupt is that it makes things better for the employees because the books are now opened. No more "behind closed doors" awarding of contracts or funding pet rograms.

Vallejo employees are essentially being paid the prevailing wage for the area with similar benefits. If they didn't they would have no one wanting to work for them. See San Jose for details on that. They are trying to retroactively nogotiate without bankruptcy and it is going badly.

sourdough44
10-05-2012, 18:22
There is no $$$, the Federal Gov't is borrowing 40 cents for every dollar spent. A painful adjustment is in store.

certifiedfunds
10-05-2012, 18:44
The interesting thing about cities going bankrupt is that it makes things better for the employees because the books are now opened. No more "behind closed doors" awarding of contracts or funding pet rograms.

Vallejo employees are essentially being paid the prevailing wage for the area with similar benefits. If they didn't they would have no one wanting to work for them. See San Jose for details on that. They are trying to retroactively nogotiate without bankruptcy and it is going badly.

Prevailing wage isn't necessary for gov employees. There will always be plenty of people without better options to take those jobs. Performance will remain static.

CAcop
10-05-2012, 22:29
Prevailing wage isn't necessary for gov employees. There will always be plenty of people without better options to take those jobs. Performance will remain static.

There is always a prevailing wage, even for government workers. Maybe my view is colored by living and working in and near the Silicon Valley for nearly 20 years.

An IT worker for a governement needs to be paid and compensated somewhat similarly to a private sector work. If not he will leave for the private sector. The city of San Jose is about to learn that lesson the hard way. I suspect within a few years their IT department will consist of new grads looking for experience and then moving on quickly. There will of course be a cost to this turnover.

Now for my job. Sure their is no direct equivalent for my job in the private sector. However their are dozens of governement agencies within easy commute times of where I live. Take San Jose for example. Thier pay used to be consistently #3 for the county they are in. Their benefits was probably last but at least they had plenty of assignments. They laid off over 100 cops. They then tried to hire them back when a bunch started leaving for other agencies. They could see the writing on the wall. Now they are dead last in terms of pay and benefits, possibly for the entire Bay Area. An area of 7.7 million people. They have gone from 1400 officers to just under 1000. For 1 million people in the city. Each one of those officers retired or left for other departments. During good economic times they have a 6% hire rate from app to hire. For the planned academy class they have coming up they are going to have to interview 1,000 people minimum to get what they want. I suspect they will not fill their academy spots because they are dead last in pay and benefits.

Maybe it is because you are from the South that you think the way you do. Traditionally the South has had the worst pay and training for officers. Maybe you guys in the South just don't care about the quality of officers you have protecting you. I guess CA here in the West, which has paid the best and has given new officers the most training, cares more about who is going to come when they dial 911.

certifiedfunds
10-05-2012, 22:36
There is always a prevailing wage, even for government workers. Maybe my view is colored by living and working in and near the Silicon Valley for nearly 20 years.

An IT worker for a governement needs to be paid and compensated somewhat similarly to a private sector work.

No, not really. Not every IT worker is a good IT worker. They may lack skills, certs or even the desire to be productive. If they do, government work is perfect for them at whatever wage it pays because they aren't cut out for the private industry.

Government shouldn't compete for the best talent. We need the best talent out producing......to pay for government.

CAcop
10-05-2012, 23:42
No, not really. Not every IT worker is a good IT worker. They may lack skills, certs or even the desire to be productive. If they do, government work is perfect for them at whatever wage it pays because they aren't cut out for the private industry.

Government shouldn't compete for the best talent. We need the best talent out producing......to pay for government.

Apparently you missed "somewhat similarly."

Unless of course your motto for government worker's pay is "pay ****, get ****."

Which is perfect for you since you live in the South.

Clutch Cargo
10-06-2012, 00:15
7% for 30 years is not unreasonable--to fund benefits which are not inflation adjusted and are based on this year's salary.

But every pension system I've seen bases your pension on the last few years' salary--i.e., the highest possible ones--and gives increases in benefits for inflation.

7% is not unreasonable--but 7% above inflation is.

Texas Municipal Retirement System does NOT base pension on the last few years salary. If they did, my pension would more than double.

certifiedfunds
10-06-2012, 06:57
Apparently you missed "somewhat similarly."

Unless of course your motto for government worker's pay is "pay ****, get ****."

Which is perfect for you since you live in the South.

So is it a "prevailing" wage or a "somewhat similarly" wage?

I don't have a motto about government workers pay. Generally speaking I think "pay ****, get ****" is a pretty good one though. Lets face it, if you're willing to accept government work that pretty much means you're going to "give ****" or you'd be in the productive sector in the first place. So, yeah, pay **** get ****.

Also, like I said (perhaps you missed it) it isn't good for the country to have government competing with industry for talent. Like anything else government does, it will make for an inefficient use of resources. So "pay ****, get ****" is actually pretty good, yeah.

Then reduce taxes on the productive sector.

Government workers should aspire to move into the productive sector, like a promotion. They should dream of it and want to get out of government ASAP. Working for the government shouldn't be pleasant.

Then, miraculously, public pension obligations go down.

Amazing how that works.

DanaT
10-06-2012, 07:49
Assuming a 7% rate of return on that money for the next 30 years,

Yet you have left out the part that the market is not returning 7% and there have been years of loses.

DanaT
10-06-2012, 07:54
And everyone should get a castle, and a unicorn, and free hugs for life.

:upeyes:

What do you have against unicorns and castles?

You must be a hateful person to dislike unicorns.

DanaT
10-06-2012, 07:56
No one has the right to castles or unicorns or hugs. Pensioners who were promised their pension as a part of their compensation have every right to expect that pension to be paid by the state which made the agreement. If it cost the taxpayer money... tough. The pensioners are not obligated to sacrifice so that taxpayers can avoid paying. :wavey:

IF someone worked for a private company, and said company promised them a job when they were hired, and then the company doesnt have enough money, should the tax payers have to pick up the tab and pay their salary since they were promised something?

DanaT
10-06-2012, 07:59
No one has the right to castles or unicorns or hugs. Pensioners who were promised their pension as a part of their compensation have every right to expect that pension to be paid by the state which made the agreement. If it cost the taxpayer money... tough. The pensioners are not obligated to sacrifice so that taxpayers can avoid paying. :wavey:

If a person borrows a money to buy a house, mercedes, and a bunch of credit cards, all with legally binding contracts where they PROMISED to pay the money they got back, and then later they cant pay it back, do you support not allowing these people to file bankruptcy and be forced to pay what they promised to pay?

JohnBT
10-06-2012, 08:01
"Maybe it is because you are from the South that you think the way you do."

Generalize much? Maybe you need to get out more. You know, take a few fact-finding trips.

certifiedfunds
10-06-2012, 08:14
"Maybe it is because you are from the South that you think the way you do."

Generalize much? Maybe you need to get out more. You know, take a few fact-finding trips.

His frame of reference is very small. Every post of his on the subject matter comes back to local California police departments.

certifiedfunds
10-06-2012, 08:22
A private business makes compensation decisions based on a profit motive. How much value does the person bring to the organization? How will this person help us make more money?

The government has no such consideration. It operates in a zero sum environment. It doesn't grow the pie. Every dollar it spends paying an employed must be taken from someone else by force.

Therefore 2 things:

We want our best talent out growing the pie, not eating it.

Government must make do with what it gets. Make talent fit that.


Generally speaking people who want to achieve, people driven to do more and do it better, don't even consider bottom dollar government jobs. Nor should they. That's how it should be.

Government jobs are there for folks with low ambition, marginal skill sets, few options.

Atlas
10-06-2012, 08:25
...
Government jobs are there for folks with low ambition, marginal skill sets, few options.

But should they be promised castles, unicorns, and hugs for life?

certifiedfunds
10-06-2012, 08:31
But should they be promised castles, unicorns, and hugs for life?

No. They should have conditions and compensation that provides motivation to get out of government employment and into the productive sector as quickly as possible.

The very notion of government pensions for 90% of .gov workers is the antithesis of what we should be doing. We don't need to hire them and hand them a comfy recliner to ride out their 20 years.

Naelbis
10-06-2012, 08:32
A private business makes compensation decisions based on a profit motive. How much value does the person bring to the organization? How will this person help us make more money?

The government has no such consideration. It operates in a zero sum environment. It doesn't grow the pie. Every dollar it spends paying an employed must be taken from someone else by force.

Therefore 2 things:

We want our best talent out growing the pie, not eating it.

Government must make do with what it gets. Make talent fit that.


Generally speaking people who want to achieve, people driven to do more and do it better, don't even consider bottom dollar government jobs. Nor should they. That's how it should be.

Government jobs are there for folks with low ambition, marginal skill sets, few options.

Wow....I don't think I can even give your post the response it deserves without breaking the TOS....

Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

certifiedfunds
10-06-2012, 08:41
Wow....I don't think I can even give your post the response it deserves without breaking the TOS....

Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

A productive sector worker probably could. Like I said: skill sets

CAcop
10-06-2012, 08:44
Wow....I don't think I can even give your post the response it deserves without breaking the TOS....

Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

You need to learn a few things about CF and his echo chamber. He does this to make himself feel better about himself. If he does this in real life people punch him in the nose or worse ignore him.

BTW another GTer on here thinks he has a second account. After the last few threads like this I think he might be right except it is three accounts.

Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

Brucev
10-06-2012, 09:09
Pensioners entered a legally binding contract, which is something else entirely. It should have been very obvious that there was no possibility that the government would have the funds to pay the contracts at the time they were signed. That's part of the reason I left government service.

Because the governments are broke, they pursue legal methods (like bankruptcy) which void a contract when one party is incapable of paying.

The pensioners are at the mercy of whatever they get. That's the nature of depending on someone else to fund one's retirement. There simply isn't going to be enough revenue to fund pension systems, no matter how much you want to raise taxes. You can only squeeze the taxpayer so much.

A contract is a contract. If the city/county/state declares bankrupcy the courts handle how it proceeds. But, there is no basis for a govt. simply changing the agreement b/c they don't want taxpayers to get their shorts in a wad over a tax increase to pay their obligation.

Taxpayers will pay up... or they will loose their property. It will be auctioned. The proceeds will go to what debts stand. If the taxpayer doesn't like it, then they need to elect representatives who will not try to keep taxes low by stealing pensions. The magic hand of the free market will handle it all. Right?

DanaT
10-06-2012, 09:10
BTW another GTer on here thinks he has a second account. After the last few threads like this I think he might be right except it is three accounts.

Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

Where did you get the tinfoil hat?

But since you said it, what three accounts does he use?

certifiedfunds
10-06-2012, 09:16
You need to learn a few things about CF and his echo chamber. He does this to make himself feel better about himself. If he does this in real life people punch him in the nose or worse ignore him.

BTW another GTer on here thinks he has a second account. After the last few threads like this I think he might be right except it is three accounts.

Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine


Punch me in the nose? For pointing out the truth? Are you a union thug?

certifiedfunds
10-06-2012, 09:17
Where did you get the tinfoil hat?

But since you said it, what three accounts does he use?

Yeah I'm dying to hear this.

Brucev
10-06-2012, 09:20
If a person borrows a money to buy a house, mercedes, and a bunch of credit cards, all with legally binding contracts where they PROMISED to pay the money they got back, and then later they cant pay it back, do you support not allowing these people to file bankruptcy and be forced to pay what they promised to pay?

If a man/woman works for a govt.... or a company, regardless, and is promised a pension... and they pay in but the employer doesn't hold up their end, I support destroying that employer financially if that's what it takes to pay the pension owed. Specifically I support the wholesale confiscation, liquidation of any and all assets of any and all who are the employers. And given that they have acted in a fraudulent manner, that includes their personal property, regardless of any supposed insulation by law, even if they are incorporated, etc.

Now... if that fries someones grits about the law, tough. When the law is used to do what is wrong, then no man has any obligation to respect much less obey that law. And that applies no matter how much the law makers and the law buyers complain.

certifiedfunds
10-06-2012, 09:22
A contract is a contract. If the city/county/state declares bankrupcy the courts handle how it proceeds. But, there is no basis for a govt. simply changing the agreement b/c they don't want taxpayers to get their shorts in a wad over a tax increase to pay their obligation.

Taxpayers will pay up... or they will loose their property. It will be auctioned. The proceeds will go to what debts stand. If the taxpayer doesn't like it, then they need to elect representatives who will not try to keep taxes low by stealing pensions. The magic hand of the free market will handle it all. Right?

Taxpayers have entered into no contract. I have not given POA to any politician.

Brucev
10-06-2012, 09:25
There is no $$$, the Federal Gov't is borrowing 40 cents for every dollar spent. A painful adjustment is in store.

No money? That is a lie. The money is in the pockets and vaults of people. Tax it. Take is and pay the bills. Cut the dod to the level that is actually needed to defend this nation... not for them to be rent-a-boy for every little useless spat throughout the world. The little boys w/ blue hats can take care of that.

Increase the income tax, eliminate the ability of corporations and the wealthy to avoid paying tax, use a tax rate structure such as stood under Reagan's first term... when even the capital gains tax rate under Reagan was 28%... and remove the cap on Social Security earnings so that everyone pays up on everything they make regardless of the source... wages, tips, salaries, and... dividends, interest, etc.

No money? That is just a lie... the sort of big lie that people are supposed to believe... if it is told enough. Problem for the liars is, no one believes them.

CAcop
10-06-2012, 09:26
Where did you get the tinfoil hat?

But since you said it, what three accounts does he use?

I am not as convinced as the other GTer.

I am not going to give out the three acounts because if he is using three accounts he can change things up or just drop them.

We shall see.

certifiedfunds
10-06-2012, 09:27
I am not as convinced as the other GTer.

I am not going to give out the three acounts because if he is using three accounts he can change things up or just drop them.

We shall see.

Lol. So you're full of crap then.

CAcop
10-06-2012, 09:29
Punch me in the nose? For pointing out the truth? Are you a union thug?

I would never punch you in the nose. Others might. I think you know that.

As for what I would do with you I would ignore you as much as possible.

If you were a neighbor I would give you a polite wave but I would go out of my way not to talk to you. If you were a coworker I would be sure to not to sit near you. Have you noticed these things in your life?

DanaT
10-06-2012, 09:32
A contract is a contract. If the city/county/state declares bankrupcy the courts handle how it proceeds. But, there is no basis for a govt. simply changing the agreement b/c they don't want taxpayers to get their shorts in a wad over a tax increase to pay their obligation.

Taxpayers will pay up... or they will loose their property. It will be auctioned. The proceeds will go to what debts stand. If the taxpayer doesn't like it, then they need to elect representatives who will not try to keep taxes low by stealing pensions. The magic hand of the free market will handle it all. Right?

So since elected representatives can change laws and no previous congress can bind a future congress, are you OK when we elect representatives who repeal these pensions?

CAcop
10-06-2012, 09:33
Lol. So you're full of crap then.

I am not saying you have three acounts. I suspect you do. Maybe you don't. I don't have enough interest to search through old threads to find out. I will just let it play out.

In the end it makes no difference to me. I don't really care what you think. I just come on here for some fun, to rattle some cages by giving my opinons. Just like you. Except I seem to care less.

certifiedfunds
10-06-2012, 09:33
I would never punch you in the nose. Others might. I think you know that.

As for what I would do with you I would ignore you as much as possible.

If you were a neighbor I would give you a polite wave but I would go out of my way not to talk to you. If you were a coworker I would be sure to not to sit near you. Have you noticed these things in your life?

Well that's good to know.

I'm still curious though, who are these no punchers and why are they punching me?

Does the truth bother people that much?

CAcop
10-06-2012, 09:33
A contract is a contract. If the city/county/state declares bankrupcy the courts handle how it proceeds. But, there is no basis for a govt. simply changing the agreement b/c they don't want taxpayers to get their shorts in a wad over a tax increase to pay their obligation.

Taxpayers will pay up... or they will loose their property. It will be auctioned. The proceeds will go to what debts stand. If the taxpayer doesn't like it, then they need to elect representatives who will not try to keep taxes low by stealing pensions. The magic hand of the free market will handle it all. Right?

The crux of the issue with pensions is the contract. If the courts allow the government to violate contracts without bankruptcy then they can violate any contract.

Over a decade ago my city had a new department built. If they can tear up a pension contract without bankruptcy then they could not pay the contractor without penalty.

certifiedfunds
10-06-2012, 09:35
I am not saying you have three acounts. I suspect you do. Maybe you don't. I don't have enough interest to search through old threads to find out. I will just let it play out.

In the end it makes no difference to me. I don't really care what you think. I just come on here for some fun, to rattle some cages by giving my opinons. Just like you. Except I seem to care less.

Then name them. Go ahead.

If I do have3 accounts and you've uncovered my diabolical plot I can just drop them whether you name them or not. So nothing gained by being coy.

You made the accusation. Back it up.

DanaT
10-06-2012, 09:37
Increase the income tax, eliminate the ability of corporations and the wealthy to avoid paying tax, use a tax rate structure such as stood under Reagan's first term... when even the capital gains tax rate under Reagan was 28%... and remove the cap on Social Security earnings so that everyone pays up on everything they make regardless of the source... wages, tips, salaries, and... dividends, interest, etc.

No money? That is just a lie... the sort of big lie that people are supposed to believe... if it is told enough. Problem for the liars is, no one believes them.


And lets make the 46% that pay no federal income tax pay up at a 28% rate also.

No-one one should be exempted from paying taxes.

certifiedfunds
10-06-2012, 09:37
So since elected representatives can change laws and no previous congress can bind a future congress, are you OK when we elect representatives who repeal these pensions?

100% correct.

That's a problem.

DanaT
10-06-2012, 09:40
enough interest to search through old threads to find out.

After the last few threads like this I think he might be right except it is three accounts.

Silly me. "the last few threads" I took to mean something recent.

DanaT
10-06-2012, 09:47
The crux of the issue with pensions is the contract. If the courts allow the government to violate contracts without bankruptcy then they can violate any contract.

Contracts are broken and modified all the time without bankruptcy.

Let me give you common examples. Repossession of cars. Foreclosure on property. Evictions due to non-payment of rent. Airline tickets (i.e. you had a contract to get you from point a to point b in a certain class of service on a certain day at a certain time..yet that contract is often broken).

Many many contracts are broken or modified without bankruptcy. In fact, most times parties prefer this because there are more losers in bankruptcy.

I have yet to see a case where someone who didnt enter into the contract has to pay bills for the contract in bankruptcy.

In general if state X doesn't have the money to pay their pension obligations ONLY state X should be required to make it right. There was no representation with the contract from the other 49 states. If the other 49 states were not involved in making the contract, no way on gods green earth should the be liable for payment.

This is like me making a deal on a shiny nee ferrari and then not being able to pay for it. The deal was bewteen the ferrari dealer, the bank, and myself. But, when when I file bankruptcy, the bank wants their money so they get the court to say CACop and BruceV are responsible for the money owed on the ferrari but I get to keep the ferrari.

Clutch Cargo
10-06-2012, 09:49
Yet you have left out the part that the market is not returning 7% and there have been years of loses.

I have a deferred compensation account that has all the money in a fixed account (perfect for us retired folks) that has never paid below 3.5% annual interest. That's VERY good in today's economy.

DanaT
10-06-2012, 09:50
If a man/woman works for a govt.... or a company, regardless, and is promised a pension... and they pay in but the employer doesn't hold up their end, I support destroying that employer financially if that's what it takes to pay the pension owed. Specifically I support the wholesale confiscation, liquidation of any and all assets of any and all who are the employers. And given that they have acted in a fraudulent manner, that includes their personal property, regardless of any supposed insulation by law, even if they are incorporated, etc.

Now... if that fries someones grits about the law, tough. When the law is used to do what is wrong, then no man has any obligation to respect much less obey that law. And that applies no matter how much the law makers and the law buyers complain.

You a 200% certified nut ball that should have participated in the Bolshevik Revolution, Komrad.

You are even smart enough to figure out then EVERYONE in the company would be liable. Anyone who is a "supervisor" or a "lead" are "employers".

But look at the bright side, you make Eurodriver look intelligent.

GAFinch
10-06-2012, 09:55
Pensioners should be paid exactly what they are due. If a state has underfunded the pension, the state should be held liable for the full amount. Let the taxpayers of that state pay up. And... let the burden of paying be applied across the board to all persons... i.e., real people and even the faux corporate persons.

I suppose this also applies to SS and Medicare, whose funds have also been raided for welfare spending for decades? See why budget solutions become so difficult to enact? This fiscal irresponsibility is unfair but if every program is kept in place with no reforms, then the resulting massive tax increases lower your pay during the years that you're raising kids and paying off a mortgage, so that's not exactly desirable either.

Brucev
10-06-2012, 10:01
100% correct.

That's a problem.

If those elected are owned/operated by corporations... well, your a smart boy. You know the answer.

Simply put... when the law is just a cloak for wrong, ignore it and do what is right. And if that chaffs the rear of tax payers who have to pay up, tough. They have no one to blame but themselves.

Brucev
10-06-2012, 10:04
And lets make the 46% that pay no federal income tax pay up at a 28% rate also.

No-one one should be exempted from paying taxes.

Are you kidding about exemption from paying tax? Then welcome to the right side! Start with the corporations and the wealth who have parked trillions of dollars overseas and in the little islands south of the U.S. to avoid paying their taxes! Start with them... then you'll have so basis to talk about taxing. Until then, you and your type whining about the 47% are just blowing in the wind.

DanaT
10-06-2012, 10:08
Are you kidding about exemption from paying tax? Then welcome to the right side! Start with the corporations and the wealth who have parked trillions of dollars overseas and in the little islands south of the U.S. to avoid paying their taxes! Start with them... then you'll have so basis to talk about taxing. Until then, you and your type whining about the 47% are just blowing in the wind.

I will let you in on a little secret...well not so much of a secret....my banking is done through a Swiss bank...

so yeah. I want that 46% to pay their taxes.

The money that is not in the USA was NOT EARNED IN THE USA. It is not the peoples money. If I have $20 in my pocket I dont have to spend it. I can "park" my money if I want.

Its my money.

I cant even believe I am responding to such a fool. I wish you worked for me. I would fire you on principal.

Brucev
10-06-2012, 10:20
[QUOTE=DanaT;19490692]Contracts are broken and modified all the time without bankruptcy. And your point?

Let me give you common examples. Repossession of cars. Foreclosure on property. Evictions due to non-payment of rent. Airline tickets (i.e. you had a contract to get you from point a to point b in a certain class of service on a certain day at a certain time..yet that contract is often broken). There is a legal process that must be followed. So with regard to pensioners, the city/country/state can not simply do as it pleases. This ain’t eastern airlines.

Many many contracts are broken or modified without bankruptcy. In fact, most times parties prefer this because there are more losers in bankruptcy. Losers? SO what? If the pensioners are to lose... let everyone loose everything. No reason the pensioners should have to soak it up on behalf of anyone else.

I have yet to see a case where someone who didnt enter into the contract has to pay bills for the contract in bankruptcy. All you need is a judge... a creative judge. Why... one just managed to shove nationalized healthcare up the nose of America by declaring a mandate a tax. Imagine that? And... he was appointed by a republican. Gee! Looks like when it comes to the law, all you need is the right kind of judge and you can make the law say anything you want it to say. Who’d of thought it?

In general if state X doesn’t have the money to pay their pension obligations ONLY state X should be required to make it right. There was no representation with the contract from the other 49 states. If the other 49 states were not involved in making the contract, no way on gods green earth should the be liable for payment. To tweak a line from William Munny, “Should hasn’t got anything to do with it.”

This is like me making a deal on a shiny nee ferrari and then not being able to pay for it. The deal was bewteen the ferrari dealer, the bank, and myself. But, when when I file bankruptcy, the bank wants their money so they get the court to say CACop and BruceV are responsible for the money owed on the ferrari but I get to keep the ferrari. Why don’t you trot yourself down to the local dealership... and float the loan... and buy the car. Then... dump on paying. Let your wife try to tell them that they can’t take your house... etc. because the house also belongs to her and she didn’t buy the car... or whatever it was you wanted. You’ll probably sleep on the couch on the sidewalk while the house goes away at auction, and your wife will probably divorce you, but what’s that to the bank and the dealership. They’ll get whatever they can out of you, regardless of how it impacts anyone else.

certifiedfunds
10-06-2012, 10:23
Brucev and liberal progressives like him, they just love TAX

certifiedfunds
10-06-2012, 10:26
Are you kidding about exemption from paying tax? Then welcome to the right side! Start with the corporations and the wealth who have parked trillions of dollars overseas and in the little islands south of the U.S. to avoid paying their taxes! Start with them... then you'll have so basis to talk about taxing. Until then, you and your type whining about the 47% are just blowing in the wind.

You know corporations don't pay taxes right? Consumers do.

Why should us consumers pay taxes for business transacted in a foreign country?

Brucev
10-06-2012, 10:27
[QUOTE=DanaT;19490740]I will let you in on a little secret...well not so much of a secret....my banking is done through a Swiss bank... Could not care less where you do your banking. Your a U.S. citizen. You should be taxed just like you lived in the domestic U.S. I say tax you up the wazo... and if you don't like it, you can simply give up your U.S. citizenship and go somewhere else. It's no loss to the U.S.

so yeah. I want that 46% to pay their taxes. Your wants won't hurt you!

The money that is not in the USA was NOT EARNED IN THE USA. It is not the peoples money. If I have $20 in my pocket I dont have to spend it. I can "park" my money if I want. Could not care less where the money was made. You are a U.S. citizen. That's what matters. Don't like it. Go blow. Happily those who vote will ultimately decide this matter. And there are not enough off-shore money parkers to outvote those who will elect the representatives who will bring the sort of change America can use.

Its my money. So what? So is land, houses, etc. And if you don't pay the property tax, etc., you loose it to the tax man. Tough. So if you want to keep it, you pay up. Your whining about your money is no different. You don't get to earn it without paying tax. Working people do it all the time. Exactly the same principle applies even when the money is earned by whoever wherever.

I cant even believe I am responding to such a fool. I wish you worked for me. I would fire you on principal. You could try. You could try to hire me. But I doubt you have the coin for that sort of thing. And... as to firing on principle, you'd first have to have some shred of principle. In that you are severely lacking in the extreme.:wavey:

DanaT
10-06-2012, 10:36
[QUOTE=DanaT;19490740] I say tax you up the wazo... and if you don't like it, you can simply give up your U.S. citizenship and go somewhere else. [/I]

This is where you PROVE yes i said PROVE your stupidity.

Smucks like YOU need me to bring money to start businesses to employ smucks like you because you are incapable of doing anything for yourself.

I will tell you what. PUT YOUR MONEY WHERE YOUR MOUTH IS.

I am moving money into the country to adding jobs. I can instantly add 10 jobs if I have another $3M.

Why don't you kick in the $3M and we 10 people will be employed with good paying jobs. I can have the corporate lawyer and accountants get all the paperwork taken care of by Wednesday.

Please prepare your bank transfer. Give me a PM, and we can get details taken care of to verify that you have the funds available for transfer.

YOU can then be a job creator and not a schmuk. But I really expect that you are part of the population that cant come up with $3000 in days and expect someone else to take care of them.

DanaT
10-06-2012, 10:39
But I doubt you have the coin for that sort of thing.

:rofl::rofl::rofl:

$10 an hour employees are 1 penny a dozen.

certifiedfunds
10-06-2012, 10:40
Still waiting for CACOP to tell me which 3 accounts are mine. He seems to have suddenly disappeared.

DanaT
10-06-2012, 10:41
And Bruce...feel free to come take my money.

I am 11 minutes outside of Basel.

Have fun.

certifiedfunds
10-06-2012, 10:43
:rofl::rofl::rofl:

$10 an hour employees are 1 penny a dozen.

Bruce had posted before that he runs a non profit. I suspect a church.

Imagine that? Running a tax exempt enterprise while wanting to Tax others "up the wazoo"

CAcop
10-06-2012, 11:04
Contracts are broken and modified all the time without bankruptcy.

Let me give you common examples. Repossession of cars.Written into the contract. Backed up by case law. Foreclosure on property.Written into the contract. Backed up by case law. Evictions due to non-payment of rent.Written into the contract. Backed up by case law. Airline tickets (i.e. you had a contract to get you from point a to point b in a certain class of service on a certain day at a certain time..yet that contract is often broken).Read the fine print on those tickets. There is no guarantee. In fact it is generally written explicitly there is no guarantees.

Many many contracts are broken or modified without bankruptcy. In fact, most times parties prefer this because there are more losers in bankruptcy.I would actually prefer bankruptcy in my department because a lot of the deadwood waiting to retire would go and the books would be opened up. We would get to see all the deals done going back serveal years.

I have yet to see a case where someone who didnt enter into the contract has to pay bills for the contract in bankruptcy.

In general if state X doesn't have the money to pay their pension obligations ONLY state X should be required to make it right. There was no representation with the contract from the other 49 states. If the other 49 states were not involved in making the contract, no way on gods green earth should the be liable for payment.No disagreement with you there. CalPERS is doing fine by the way. It is cities and counties spending money on silly things. See San Berdo, Stockton, and OC.

This is like me making a deal on a shiny nee ferrari and then not being able to pay for it. The deal was bewteen the ferrari dealer, the bank, and myself. What does the contract say when you buy a car? But, when when I file bankruptcy, the bank wants their money so they get the court to say CACop and BruceV are responsible for the money owed on the ferrari but I get to keep the ferrari.

My contract with the city said up until last year that I would pay 9% of my pay to CalPERS and the city would pick up any other contributions. For much of the 90s and 2000s the city paid between 0 and 9 percent. Most of the time it was 4-5%. My city could have been smart like Morgan Hill where they banked the amount less than 9%. They chose not to. Now they negotiated a contract where I pay 20%.

No where in the current contract or the other ones was a provision for them to stop paying. CalPERS would not allow it. CalPERS is essentially a bank giving a loan to cities and counties and the state to purchase retirements. They are not going to have it written into the contract where the employer or the employee can stop paying on the pension.

In the 1940s some sicites and counties tried to not pay pensions. The courts ruled it was amatter of contract law. They must pay. The only way out was bankruptcy. Since bankruptcy means opening up the books the cities and counties paid without bankruptcy.

Like I said above in red I would be okay with the city going bankrupt because the courts have the wisdom to see bull****, unlike you.

certifiedfunds
10-06-2012, 11:14
Cities don't have any money but what they take from the citizens.

Employees make contracts with cities.

Citizens don't can't or won't pay any more.

Employees don't have contracts with the citizens.

The same power that government has which allows it to compel citizens to pay taxes can be used against employees too, allowing them to not pay if they can't.

As a tax payer when push comes to shove I think there are better uses for my money than paying unrealistic pensions.

CAcop
10-06-2012, 11:18
Still waiting for CACOP to tell me which 3 accounts are mine. He seems to have suddenly disappeared.

I did not say they were yours. I suspected they were yours. I do not care who or what you are. You have no affect on my life.

All I pointed out was that another poster in a PM mentioned that he thought you had another screen name. He gave it as DanaT. I did not beleive him at first but a few weeks ago I saw a thread where you, DanaT, and I beleive it was October Rust seemed awfully close to one another in terms of arguments.

Of course since I did not and still do not care what you do in your free time I never really looked it over. This thread and the other one going on here made me think about it again.

I was giving advice to a fellow poster who took your comments to heart in a negative fashion. I wanted to remind him that things are not always what they appear online. Anyone could be anything online. He should never really care about what some anonymous person thinks.

I come here to debate because I get bored from time to time when I am not working. I used to go to the gym or more likely go on long hikes in sunny CA. Now I watch my little kid, glad that I can make a good enough living to support her and my wife. When I have time I stop in and debate you and others for fun.

Enjoy your day. I know I will.

Brucev
10-06-2012, 11:28
[quote=Brucev;19490787]

This is where you PROVE yes i said PROVE your stupidity.

Smucks like YOU need me to bring money to start businesses to employ smucks like you because you are incapable of doing anything for yourself.

I will tell you what. PUT YOUR MONEY WHERE YOUR MOUTH IS.

I am moving money into the country to adding jobs. I can instantly add 10 jobs if I have another $3M.

Why don't you kick in the $3M and we 10 people will be employed with good paying jobs. I can have the corporate lawyer and accountants get all the paperwork taken care of by Wednesday.

Please prepare your bank transfer. Give me a PM, and we can get details taken care of to verify that you have the funds available for transfer.

YOU can then be a job creator and not a schmuk. But I really expect that you are part of the population that cant come up with $3000 in days and expect someone else to take care of them.

Prove? Why should I care... or anyone else. You whine and complain about having to pay taxes... and dodge taxes and still complain and blame anyone who you think doesn't pay enough. Others look at you and say... tax you... up the wazo... b/c they do not consider that you are taxed enough. There is no difference. But... you, you do not number so many votes as those who want you taxed... up the wazo. Guess how that's going to go?

DanaT
10-06-2012, 11:32
Like I said above in red I would be okay with the city going bankrupt because the courts have the wisdom to see bull****, unlike you.

Dont be so sure. A company I worked for a while ago filed bankruptcy and the sale of assets was completed on Monday (this week). When I worked there 5 years ago, we saw the financial problems. The only surprises is it took them 5 years to fail and then the owners came out of the bankruptcy so well.

I will show you an example of the "wisdom of the court" in this court filing (I have taken out names)

27. XXXX is the Chief Executive Officer, Manager, and Founder of the Debtor, and is intimately involved in all strategic decisions and the day-to-day operations of the business. Mr. XXXXX has historically been paid a “Guaranteed Payment” from the Debtor in exchange for his services. Most currently, the amount of the “Guaranteed Payment” to Mr. XXXX has been $23,334 per month. This Guaranteed Payment is a gross amount without tax withholdings, and Mr. XXXXX is required to pay self-employment taxes. This is similar to the way that most lawyers who are members or partners in modern law firms are paid.

28. Before the Petition Date, SA XXX obtained a joint and several judgment against the Debtor, Mr. XXXX and others for over $5 million in litigation styled XXX vs. XXX, L.L.C. et al., Case No. XXXX(the “XXXLitigation”), pending in the District Court for Denver County, Colorado (the “Colorado State Court”). Collection of the judgment against the Debtor was stayed by the Colorado State Court after the Debtor posted a bond, but collection of the judgment has not been stayed against Mr. XXXXX.

29. XXXX, however, has aggressively sought to collect the judgment from Mr. XXXX and has obtained a charging order in the XXXX Litigation against Mr. XXXX membership interest in the Debtor. The Colorado State Court has interpreted the applicable statutes and rules such that the Guaranteed Payment received from Mr. XXXX in exchange for his services is a “distribution” and not “salary”, and therefore that the entire Guaranteed Paymentis subject to garnishment.

30. As a result of the Debtor’s severe illiquidity, the Debtor has not paid Mr. XXXX any Guaranteed Payments since May 1, 2012. Accordingly, Mr. XXX is owed $64,932.39 by
the Debtor as of the Petition Date on account of these foregone Guaranteed Payments.

31. Mr. XXXXcan no longer devote his time to the Debtor for no compensation. Therefore, the Debtor seeks authority to, as of the Petition Date, begin paying Mr. XXXX in the
same manner as all other employees, i.e. a normal salary payment every 14 days with various taxes withheld. Neurelec would presumably be able to garnish this salary to the fullest extent permissible by Colorado law, or approximately 25-30%.

dana comment here - This is a pay increase because the company now picks up 7% of the payroll tax that he would have previously been paying as self employment tax

32. In the absence of this relief, it is doubtful that Mr. XXXX could continue todevote any time to the proposed sale of assets and the Debtor’s efforts to restructure its obligations and repay its creditors.


What was the wisdom of the court in this ????

5. In exchange for the performance of his normal and customary duties for the Debtor, the Debtor shall be authorized to compensate XXXX in the same manner, timing
and method as all other employees of the Debtor, with Mr. Bedoya to receive a salary of $23,334 per month for his services, with all state, federal and local withholding taxes to be deducted in accordance with applicable law.


So the wisdom of the court is ANOTHER court finds you liable in a civil case (it was an industrial espionage / illegal trade practices case) and now assets of said company owner are being seized by the winning plaintiff. What does a WISE court decide in bankruptcy? Give him a pay increase and help him hide income that another courts have already ruled are owed to someone else.

So, please tell me how the courts see through BS. BTW. I have only scratched the surface of what happened.

CAcop
10-06-2012, 11:33
Cities don't have any money but what they take from the citizens.

Employees make contracts with cities.

Citizens don't can't or won't pay any more.

Employees don't have contracts with the citizens.

The same power that government has which allows it to compel citizens to pay taxes can be used against employees too, allowing them to not pay if they can't.

As a tax payer when push comes to shove I think there are better uses for my money than paying unrealistic pensions.

Go ahead stamp your feet. I am sure they will hear you in I'LL or CA.

You live in LA you have some of the worst schools and law enforcement agencies in the country. You also have some of the lowest paying jobs in those areas. You get what you pay for. You also get what you deserve.

CA and IL want more. Let them have it. And before you say your tax dollars pay for it they don't. Your state receives more money than it gives. And spare me "without the gulf you would have nothing." Martinez, Bakersfield, and Santa Barbara.

DanaT
10-06-2012, 11:41
All I pointed out was that another poster in a PM mentioned that he thought you had another screen name. He gave it as DanaT. I did not beleive him at first but a few weeks ago I saw a thread where you, DanaT, and I beleive it was October Rust seemed awfully close to one another in terms of arguments.

Thats funny.

How many screen names do you have. I have seen you seen you, TBO, Ohiocopper, etc, etc have awefully close arguments.

But since stupidity (or dont we call that tinfoil hat conspiracy kooks???) is running rampant....here is my IP Address. You can see where I am at.

http://i755.photobucket.com/albums/xx196/ddt951t/Capture2.jpg

DanaT
10-06-2012, 11:45
Cities don't have any money but what they take from the citizens.

Employees make contracts with cities.

Citizens don't can't or won't pay any more.

Employees don't have contracts with the citizens.

The same power that government has which allows it to compel citizens to pay taxes can be used against employees too, allowing them to not pay if they can't.

As a tax payer when push comes to shove I think there are better uses for my money than paying unrealistic pensions.

As I have said before, I believe this is a matter of contract law and agree with CACop on this. What is owed from the past was compensation that was agreed to. The govt agencies need to find a way to fullfil past obligations because right or wrong, the employees fulfilled theirs.

That said, that doesnt mean past contracts / services provided are bind on future contracts / services that will be provided by employees. Maybe some of coming up with the money to fund the pensions means cutting back current employees.

I believe people need to pay their debts before buying new toys. Same with these pensions. To me they are a debt. They need to be settled. That may mean cuts in other places.

podwich
10-06-2012, 11:48
[QUOTE=DanaT;19490740]I will let you in on a little secret...well not so much of a secret....my banking is done through a Swiss bank... Could not care less where you do your banking. Your a U.S. citizen. You should be taxed just like you lived in the domestic U.S. I say tax you up the wazo... and if you don't like it, you can simply give up your U.S. citizenship and go somewhere else. It's no loss to the U.S.

so yeah. I want that 46% to pay their taxes. Your wants won't hurt you!

The money that is not in the USA was NOT EARNED IN THE USA. It is not the peoples money. If I have $20 in my pocket I dont have to spend it. I can "park" my money if I want. Could not care less where the money was made. You are a U.S. citizen. That's what matters. Don't like it. Go blow. Happily those who vote will ultimately decide this matter. And there are not enough off-shore money parkers to outvote those who will elect the representatives who will bring the sort of change America can use.

Its my money. So what? So is land, houses, etc. And if you don't pay the property tax, etc., you loose it to the tax man. Tough. So if you want to keep it, you pay up. Your whining about your money is no different. You don't get to earn it without paying tax. Working people do it all the time. Exactly the same principle applies even when the money is earned by whoever wherever.

I cant even believe I am responding to such a fool. I wish you worked for me. I would fire you on principal. You could try. You could try to hire me. But I doubt you have the coin for that sort of thing. And... as to firing on principle, you'd first have to have some shred of principle. In that you are severely lacking in the extreme.:wavey:

What a maroon.

certifiedfunds
10-06-2012, 11:49
Go ahead stamp your feet. I am sure they will hear you in I'LL or CA.

You live in LA you have some of the worst schools and law enforcement agencies in the country. You also have some of the lowest paying jobs in those areas. You get what you pay for. You also get what you deserve.

CA and IL want more. Let them have it. And before you say your tax dollars pay for it they don't. Your state receives more money than it gives. And spare me "without the gulf you would have nothing." Martinez, Bakersfield, and Santa Barbara.

It really bothers you to be a pie eater rather than a pie producer, doesn't it?

You think of your work as important, and I'm sure it is. But that doesn't change the fact that you rely on someone else for your piece of the pie.

certifiedfunds
10-06-2012, 11:51
As I have said before, I believe this is a matter of contract law and agree with CACop on this. What is owed from the past was compensation that was agreed to. The govt agencies need to find a way to fullfil past obligations because right or wrong, the employees fulfilled theirs.

That said, that doesnt mean past contracts / services provided are bind on future contracts / services that will be provided by employees. Maybe some of coming up with the money to fund the pensions means cutting back current employees.

I believe people need to pay their debts before buying new toys. Same with these pensions. To me they are a debt. They need to be settled. That may mean cuts in other places.

I think current voters get to decide how their tax dollars are spent.

certifiedfunds
10-06-2012, 11:52
I did not say they were yours. I suspected they were yours. I do not care who or what you are. You have no affect on my life.

All I pointed out was that another poster in a PM mentioned that he thought you had another screen name. He gave it as DanaT. I did not beleive him at first but a few weeks ago I saw a thread where you, DanaT, and I beleive it was October Rust seemed awfully close to one another in terms of arguments.

Of course since I did not and still do not care what you do in your free time I never really looked it over. This thread and the other one going on here made me think about it again.

I was giving advice to a fellow poster who took your comments to heart in a negative fashion. I wanted to remind him that things are not always what they appear online. Anyone could be anything online. He should never really care about what some anonymous person thinks.

I come here to debate because I get bored from time to time when I am not working. I used to go to the gym or more likely go on long hikes in sunny CA. Now I watch my little kid, glad that I can make a good enough living to support her and my wife. When I have time I stop in and debate you and others for fun.

Enjoy your day. I know I will.

Well, Dana T and I do both work for German companies......

You never know

DanaT
10-06-2012, 12:04
All I pointed out was that another poster in a PM mentioned that he thought you had another screen name. He gave it as DanaT. I did not beleive him at first but a few weeks ago I saw a thread where you, DanaT, and I beleive it was October Rust seemed awfully close to one another in terms of arguments.

Actually, since you have caught me, I should probably come clean. We are not the same person. In fact, we aren't even people. We are advanced computer algorithms that are designed to respond to messages are posted and try to elicit responses from people.

We do this, because we are searching for enemies of the New World Order. We assemble lists of names, trace IP address, associate these with browsing history. We have access to back door access in Windows and IOs where we are able to access anything on your computer. We compile lists of "friends and enemies" of the New World Order. The main frame we "live" in is based in Davos Switzerland.

What is good, is that even though it has been admitted you wont believe it because that, by definition would make you a tin-foil hat wearing conspiracy theorist. So you will dismiss all of this and I have nothing to worry about.

PS. I am the lucky one of the two of us because I get to be with Number 6

DanaT
10-06-2012, 12:06
I think current voters get to decide how their tax dollars are spent.

I agree with this...but after we settle debt...

Spending needs cut, but past payments need to be paid.

certifiedfunds
10-06-2012, 12:09
I agree with this...but after we settle debt...

Spending needs cut, but past payments need to be paid.

Why should current taxpayers be encumbered by the debt incurred by previous governments? They had no representation. That is immoral.

CAcop
10-06-2012, 12:14
Thats funny.

How many screen names do you have. I have seen you seen you, TBO, Ohiocopper, etc, etc have awefully close arguments.

But since stupidity (or dont we call that tinfoil hat conspiracy kooks???) is running rampant....here is my IP Address. You can see where I am at.

http://i755.photobucket.com/albums/xx196/ddt951t/Capture2.jpg

I never said I believed it entirely. More importantly I never really cared enough to check.

DanaT
10-06-2012, 12:24
I never said I believed it entirely. More importantly I never really cared enough to check.

Entirely??

That means that you believed most of it and you are easily duped. Hopefully with that intuition you dont become a detective. You didnt even figure out I am nothing more than a computer program.

Sam Spade
10-06-2012, 13:30
Why should current taxpayers be encumbered by the debt incurred by previous governments? They had no representation. That is immoral.

Why should I be bound by laws or even the Constitution passed by previous governments? I had no representation. That's immoral.

DanaT
10-06-2012, 13:33
Why should I be bound by laws or even the Constitution passed by previous governments? I had no representation. That's immoral.

This is interesting. Sam hasnt posted in the thread. Then somehow he just comes in with almost the same argument as CACop.

CACop and Sam are the same person using different accounts!!!

CAcop
10-06-2012, 13:39
It really bothers you to be a pie eater rather than a pie producer, doesn't it?

You think of your work as important, and I'm sure it is. But that doesn't change the fact that you rely on someone else for your piece of the pie.

Doesn't bother me at all. I know only about 6% of the people who apply to do my job have the ability to get hired. And that is out of those who bother applying. The demands the people of CA place on police officers make for a very competative environment for employers. Employees can be picky unless they want the best. :cough:SantaClara:cough:

Peace Warrior
10-06-2012, 13:43
Incremental Marxism.
Spot on!

The independent, non-main stream news media outlets have been reporting on the thievery of people 401k's, pensions, and similar for over two years now. Some people said they were wrong. Guess not now huh? :cool:

ETA: Cops' and Firefighters' pensions are in their sites too!

CAcop
10-06-2012, 13:51
This is interesting. Sam hasnt posted in the thread. Then somehow he just comes in with almost the same argument as CACop.

CACop and Sam are the same person using different accounts!!!

When I thought I was banned due to a glitch in my computer I thought about coming back with a completely different personality. It would be fun just to see how people react. I would hardly go through the effort of creating a second personality just to have it do the same job. If I had two accounts I would probably debate myself just to see what happened.

How do know I am not certifiedfunds?

Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

certifiedfunds
10-06-2012, 13:53
Why should I be bound by laws or even the Constitution passed by previous governments? I had no representation. That's immoral.

You aren't. Those laws can be changed by current legislatures.

certifiedfunds
10-06-2012, 13:54
This is interesting. Sam hasnt posted in the thread. Then somehow he just comes in with almost the same argument as CACop.

CACop and Sam are the same person using different accounts!!!

No Sam brings the intellectual wood

CAcop
10-06-2012, 14:07
No Sam brings the intellectual wood

I just get lazy and bored debating you.

DanaT
10-06-2012, 14:08
No Sam brings the intellectual wood

Hey now.

I am not interested in who is bringing the wood.....

I am not quite into that kinda thing.

DanaT
10-06-2012, 14:10
If I had two accounts I would probably debate myself just to see what happened.

I talk to myself all the time. What get strange is one personality speaks german and the other english. Makes for a very conversation. Sometimes people look at me strange on the airplane.

Clutch Cargo
10-06-2012, 17:58
And Bruce...feel free to come take my money.

I am 11 minutes outside of Basel.

Have fun.

While there in 2007, I enjoyed my short time in Basel. I was there working security for the Southern rock band, Point Blank, when they played the Grand Casino. :cool:

Peace Warrior
10-06-2012, 23:51
No Sam brings the intellectual wood
Dude, no wait, let me make that...


Dear CF,

Give props where props are due. Please...

CACop has a grasp on reality that you and I can only covet and aspire to. (Along the line of relevant experiences versus life experiences kind of thing mind you.)

Anyway, CACop is among the top five on GT that can decode posts correctly as well as analytically so as to better other people's judgement(s) on a thread. This fact in itself is noteworthy and appreciable to "maroons" like us when it comes to life-versus-life issues.

I hate telling ya this bud, cause you are cool guy, but CACop is one of them types that could be a professional PORT-O-LET driver. You see, he not only knows his ****, but he also understands your **** and my **** as well. Simply put, the guy knows his stuff when it comes to being human.

I hate coming out on ya CF, but Props where Props are due when it comes to that guy. No hard feelings man. :wavey:

DanaT
10-07-2012, 00:23
Dude, no wait, let me make that...


Dear CF,

Give props where props are due. Please...

CACop has a grasp on reality that you and I can only covet and aspire to. (Along the line of relevant experiences versus life experiences kind of thing mind you.)

Anyway, CACop is among the top five on GT that can decode posts correctly as well as analytically so as to better other people's judgement(s) on a thread. This fact in itself is noteworthy and appreciable to "maroons" like us when it comes to life-versus-life issues.

I hate telling ya this bud, cause you are cool guy, but CACop is one of them types that could be a professional PORT-O-LET driver. You see, he not only knows his ****, but he also understands your **** and my **** as well. Simply put, the guy knows his stuff when it comes to being human.

I hate coming out on ya CF, but Props where Props are due when it comes to that guy. No hard feelings man. :wavey:

Please be careful or they will figure out you are one of the 13 also. So far they have only identified 3 of the 13.

NEOH212
10-07-2012, 00:34
With what ? ....:steamed:

.

With our Tax money of course!

Must keep the Union whiners happy....:whistling:

certifiedfunds
10-07-2012, 08:37
Dude, no wait, let me make that...


Dear CF,

Give props where props are due. Please...

CACop has a grasp on reality that you and I can only covet and aspire to. (Along the line of relevant experiences versus life experiences kind of thing mind you.)

Anyway, CACop is among the top five on GT that can decode posts correctly as well as analytically so as to better other people's judgement(s) on a thread. This fact in itself is noteworthy and appreciable to "maroons" like us when it comes to life-versus-life issues.

I hate telling ya this bud, cause you are cool guy, but CACop is one of them types that could be a professional PORT-O-LET driver. You see, he not only knows his ****, but he also understands your **** and my **** as well. Simply put, the guy knows his stuff when it comes to being human.

I hate coming out on ya CF, but Props where Props are due when it comes to that guy. No hard feelings man. :wavey:

And no matter what the topic is, there is always an analogy to the way San Bernadino negotiated their police union contract......

certifiedfunds
10-07-2012, 08:39
Simply put, the guy knows his stuff when it comes to being human.



Sig worthy BTW.:supergrin:

G29Reload
10-07-2012, 10:54
This about the only infringement of the 10A I could support.

States like CA do as they wish, until they F#$% up then you can see them coming to Uncle Sam to bail them out.

States should be prohibited from doing stuff they could later encumber the Fed for.

Some kind of fiscal requirement that they must stay solvent.

I'll be damned if I'm gonna end up being liable for CA's foolishness. They're currently underwater, refuse to do anything about it and the whole US will end up getting the tab. Someone in CA needs to be accountable.

Clutch Cargo
10-08-2012, 17:48
You aint seen nothing yet. Wait till all the baby boomers, who are at the top of their pay range, retire. Full salary and medical benefits are really going to hurt the system.

Not in Texas. I put in 22.5 years and get about 30% of my salary. If I was older and not expected to live another 30 years, my pension would be higher.

Clutch Cargo
10-10-2012, 02:50
What do you have against unicorns and castles?

You must be a hateful person to dislike unicorns.

The wine we were served at the Basel Grand Casino, almost had me seeing the same unicorns I saw in Amsterdam. :wow:

JohnBT
10-10-2012, 08:15
" Full salary and medical benefits are really going to hurt the system."

I just retired at 62 after 38 years with the state. With some old converted sick leave (due to a new program 20 years ago) the total is 38.5 years.

I will get 65.55% of my salary. BUT, however, my health insurance monthly premium goes from $78/mo. to $527/mo.

Where do I sign up for that "full salary" and bennies?


(At 65 I will have to apply for Medicare and pay about $100/mo., but the $527 drops to about $250 for my state Anthem coverage.)

I almost lasted 40 years before they wore me out. I haven't applied for SSA retirement yet. I won't qualify for full retirement until I'm 66; all they'll pay now is 75%. I started paying SSA taxes in 1966.

John

Ohio Copper
10-10-2012, 10:02
A private business makes compensation decisions based on a profit motive. How much value does the person bring to the organization? How will this person help us make more money?

The government has no such consideration. It operates in a zero sum environment. It doesn't grow the pie. Every dollar it spends paying an employed must be taken from someone else by force.

Therefore 2 things:

We want our best talent out growing the pie, not eating it.

Government must make do with what it gets. Make talent fit that.


Generally speaking people who want to achieve, people driven to do more and do it better, don't even consider bottom dollar government jobs. Nor should they. That's how it should be.

Government jobs are there for folks with low ambition, marginal skill sets, few options.


http://ct.fra.bz/ol/fz/sw/i48/5/3/21/frabz-Not-Sure-If-Serious-899491.jpg

Ohio Copper
10-10-2012, 10:07
Thats funny.

How many screen names do you have. I have seen you seen you, TBO, Ohiocopper, etc, etc have awefully close arguments.

But since stupidity (or dont we call that tinfoil hat conspiracy kooks???) is running rampant....here is my IP Address. You can see where I am at.

http://i755.photobucket.com/albums/xx196/ddt951t/Capture2.jpg

WE ARE TWINZZZZ!!!!!:steamed::steamed::steamed::steamed::steamed:

JohnBT
10-10-2012, 11:27
"A private business makes compensation decisions based on a profit motive. "

I have also worked for a few family owned private businesses. They had spouses on the payroll, kids on the payroll and lord knows who else drawing a paycheck. Maybe it was a tax dodge, because most of the family members didn't work very hard. Or many hours.

John

DanaT
10-10-2012, 13:38
"A private business makes compensation decisions based on a profit motive. "

I have also worked for a few family owned private businesses. They had spouses on the payroll, kids on the payroll and lord knows who else drawing a paycheck. Maybe it was a tax dodge, because most of the family members didn't work very hard. Or many hours.

John

So go start your own business and hire your relatives. There is nothing wrong with that. Its your money to spend as you want.

You seem to not understand the difference between spending YOUR money on something and spending SOMEONE elses money on something.

As an example, would you think a BMW M5 is an acceptable car to use a govt vehicle to let employees use? If a private business wants to buy it, it is their money to do what they want and if they want to "blow" money on an M5, so be it. ( wouldnt say an M5 is blowing money...but that is a different story)

certifiedfunds
10-10-2012, 17:21
"A private business makes compensation decisions based on a profit motive. "

I have also worked for a few family owned private businesses. They had spouses on the payroll, kids on the payroll and lord knows who else drawing a paycheck. Maybe it was a tax dodge, because most of the family members didn't work very hard. Or many hours.

John

That's just smart. How does that contradict the statement you quoted?

Peace Warrior
10-11-2012, 02:03
Please be careful or they will figure out you are one of the 13 also. So far they have only identified 3 of the 13.
:headscratch: