Comments on: The unsustainability of public pensions

By: Cate Long

Cate Long — Wed, 07 Sep 2011 11:59:57 +0000

Thanks for checking in IrateSceptic.

Muniland covers state and local government issues with a nod to the federal government occasionally. I cover municipal bonds and fiscal issues. I’m Cate Long and my background is in the sidebar.

By: IRATESCEPTIC

IRATESCEPTIC — Wed, 07 Sep 2011 07:51:49 +0000

Someone please tell me what or who is MuniLand!

By: seattlesh

seattlesh — Wed, 07 Sep 2011 02:33:18 +0000

Strange how these pensions were sustainable for decades, until Reaganomics.

By: factsnotbeliefs

factsnotbeliefs — Wed, 07 Sep 2011 01:49:40 +0000

The firemen and police unions back candidates for public office with money and volunteers – this is the same as the workers at a corporation voting for their bosses. Workers at factories selecting their bosses did not work in Soviet Russia in the 1920s and was abolished – he hasn’t worked here it destroys the economy with wages and benefits that are not sustainable.

By: buckaroo5

buckaroo5 — Tue, 06 Sep 2011 20:39:42 +0000

The President,as leader of his party, once again expressed that every American should pay his fair share in taxes. One sizable loophole in the Federal Tax Code is TAX EXCLUSION INCOME. It is time to do something about this unfair tax revenue placed disproportionally on small business & especially the self-reliant. The President is correct we are all in this mess together. It is time to correct the inequity of Tax Exclusion income for some rather than for all workers earning income & paying taxes on all received income. There is no reason for this inequity especially after the President many request for equity.

By: toyotabedzrock

toyotabedzrock — Tue, 06 Sep 2011 17:53:04 +0000

NJ happens to be an expensive state to live in. We also have one of the largest population of millionaires.

If SS paid more the country would be much better off right now because people would have money to spend, which generates more sales tax revenue.

By: Cate_Long

Cate_Long — Tue, 06 Sep 2011 17:31:28 +0000

Making changes that renege on pension promises could be legally perilous, Rhode Island officials said, although they are heartened that judges have upheld the benefit cuts implemented in Colorado and Minnesota. And they think the growing intensity of the crisis might make unions more willing to compromise.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/e conomy/rhode-island-considers-radical-mo ves-as-pensions-put-state-on-brink/2011/ 08/31/gIQApBjz4J_story.html

By: jpmist1

jpmist1 — Sat, 03 Sep 2011 20:39:31 +0000

Yours is a very rational, sensible stance, but it seems to glide over the responsibility taxpayers have for the choices they make when they vote in politicians who make promises that backfire long after they’re out of office.

I don’t think it’s a weak argument to suggest that voting has consequences. If you put incompetent politicians in office who perennially promise low taxes by underfunding pensions, when the bill comes due it should be paid.

I had no choice to contribute into my public pension, but I did so with the assurance that it was, in a sense, a form of deferred compensation for work I agreed to do. To clawback that compensation because voters now regret hiring irresponsible fools to run their governments is horrifyingly unfair and unjustified.

If it’s necessary to clawback money I earned, then a similar clawback should be made for the taxes that should have been paid in the past which led to the shortfall.

Again, voting has consequences. It’s not right to expect public employees to bear the brunt of voter’s foolish choices.