Many of those “creditors on Wall Street” are pension funds or other retirees on fixed income. Who makes the decision as to which retirees are more deserving to keep their retirement income? Robbing Peter to pay Paul?

In looking at the pension situation, there is one very simple cause – unmitigated greed by the Public Sector Unions.

My father worked 30 years and receives a $35k annual pension. Yet he was still able to retire at 55. A reasonable pension.

Today, we have public sector workers retiring at the age of 40 with $100,000+ annual pensions. A person is entitled to a reasonable pension – one that would be matched by private investment without any subsequent taxpayer funding. The Democrats and Unions have FOUGHT any true accounting for pensions and medical benefits in the Public Sector, while passing ever more constraining legislation for the Private Sector. A true accounting would reveal the Ponzi / Madoff scheme that we now have.

We are now at the precipice. Public Sector pensions as we have them today are unsustainable! In fact, looking at the U.S. census we see a decline in population in those states which were the most “generous” in Public Sector pay and benefits. Why? They taxpayer is being bled to death to support these $100,000 annual pensions for men and women who retire at the age of 40!

I as a taxpayer will NOT pay more taxes to pay for bloated pensions. I will move out of State or even the U.S. Or, I will simply stop working and subscrbe to the NEW American Dream – default on my debt and collect unemployment for 3 years.

The solution? Cap ALL taxpayer funded pensions at $50K, increase retirement age to 62 and eliminate defined d=benefits plans for the Public Sector. I would even eliminate the right for Public Sector workers to Unionize.

The alternative – many, many more Pritchard’s.

I didn’t take your post as a slight to the volunteers in the first place. In Maine you could make a strong case for most citys and towns to have a volunteer force of fire and rescue. I’d like to see more towns drop their local police force and contract those services through the county sheriffs office as well.

My town has a miniscule crime rate… and the police are advocating to include a 1.5 million dollar firing range in the new police station. They currently rent out a local private gun club 4 times a year for $1000/day.

I’m all for improving public safety… accept when the payback on investment is 375 years.

I suspect having volunteer fire fighters works better in smaller communities where there is less of a temptation to “let somebody else do it”. But yes, they train very hard for that role. Response times might be a little slower, since you have fewer people standing by at any time, but that isn’t a knock on their professionalism.

The one point I wanted to respond to was TFF who said “The counter-argument is that people are too stupid to run their own lives, and thus we need to do it for them. I find that a poor excuse for infringing on people’s freedoms.”

I too loath anything that chips away at my personal freedom… my issue with that thinking is that the “stupid” defined as those who have not and will not adaquatly plan for their retirement, currently outnumber the prudent by a margin of perhaps 4-1.

Remember that ALL are welcome in the voting booth… so don’t be supprised when IRAs, 401ks, & unearned income face a special tax to help offset the cost of supporting the vast majority of the population who don’t like the idea of starving to death alone in the dark.

P.S. to Danny black… the amateurs in the three small towns surrounding my town are often called in to help our pro’s during really large fires. They train as much as our national guard forces. I’m not sure they are representitive of vol departments everywhere but I’m impressed with our locals.

The days of paid retirement are ending. People in our generation will work as long as we’re physically able, and hopefully there will be still some remnant of Social Security left to cover us in our final months, when we’ve grown too frail to go on.

But get this! Instead of investing the money in the financial markets (risky!), we’ll simply use it for other purposes. That’s okay, we’ll promise to provide benefits when you retire. Can always fund that through borrowing. But an 80% pension? Too much. We’ll aim to replace 40% of your income.

What should we call this new pension plan? “Old Age Insurance”, perhaps?

Why doesn’t the government just guarantee everyone a pension (note: not actually suggesting this I’m being sarcastic)? Why do govt employees deserve a pension any more than the rest of us? They are already getting paid 20% more BEFORE their absurd benefits.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2010 -03-04-federal-pay_N.htm

@Curmudgeon, I’ve never had a match myself. Simply acknowledging that there is a range of possibilities, depending on how generous you wish to make the plan. A 3/9 plan is approximately as generous as the historical teacher’s pension. Newly hired teachers pay almost the full cost of their pension (assuming that 8.5% annual return, which I admit is a bit unrealistic).

@KidDynamite, while I was still in the system I ran the calculations using the salary ladder of my school, an assumption of 3% annual raises (at the time that was considered roughly the long-term inflation rate), and a variety of return assumptions between 8% and 12%. An 80% pension after 35 years (assume age 60 at retirement) is roughly what you would expect from a 12% annual contribution with an investment return of 8.5% based on commercial annuity rates. There is definitely some value to having a guaranteed return that large, however even with more pessimistic assumptions the teacher (myself) was funding the majority of the pension. And that is without even considering the Social Security clawback provision.

I don’t trust that “guaranteed return” anyways. One way or another, the “promise” will be broken (or modified). Possibilities:
(1) Long-term inflation outpacing wages over the next 20 years. Since the pension is based on the final salaries, anything that holds down the salary scale will serve to hold down pensions.

(2) Persistent inflation eroding the value of the pension after it locks in. An 80% pension sounds great, a 40% pension less so. (Replacing Social Security.)

(3) Pension systems across the nation declare bankruptcy, dumping the obligations on the federal government. In the process the pensions get reset to a fraction of their promised value.