This is kind of scary and humorous... MN is in much worse shape than WI and SD in being prepared to honor their obligations to their Public Employees... In fact, IA and ND are even in better shape. Who da thunk... :-) CNN Pension Shortfall PEW State Pensions
So were MN politicians:
So were MN politicians:
- far to generous in what they promised?
- or were they to stingy in what they invested?
- can they reduce the future benefits to make the problem go away?
- or maybe they just thought our kids could make up the difference later...
20 comments:
that is my future benefits we are talking about. Do we think they are likely to be cut. I will need the money. I can't afford to save much on my salary.
I don’t know but is a big problem. That is one big advantage of IRAs and 401ks. The money is in your name and you manage it.
thanks for not lecturing me on how to manage my money better. One thing I like about SS and TRA is I will keep getting my check even if I live to 100 and don't need to worry about my savings running out. I think they should make me fund these programs at a higher level for higher future benefits. I could skip some of the times that we eat out for a more well funded retirement.
Technically you have a defined benefit plan.
They are obligated to fund it until they change the law. :-)
At least we saved money early on.
--Hiram
Seems like we are back to the previous post... We and older citizens saved money by passing the bills forward.
"Of course the question is how do we get the current voters to stop being selfish. As Hiram notes, our children do not have a lobbyist and they don't vote... Which of course seems to be a problem for them since we are apparently selfish... We keep insisting on low taxes and high benefits, even if it means putting it on the credit card of future generations. How did we get so selfish and uncaring? "
Why would we cut the pension benefits of government employees? I'm of the belief that folks should live up to the contracts they sign, and that especially goes for the government.
Sounds good.
Now who's taxes do you want to raise to get the pension fully funded?
Who do we hold accountable for over promising and under delivering?
Or should we keep pushing the bills out to future tax payers like we are for SS, Medicare, National Debt, etc?
"Now who's taxes do you want to raise to get the pension fully funded?"
That is the Legislature's job.
"Who do we hold accountable for over promising and under delivering?"
The folks who are "underdelivering" are the legislators who are not funding the pension.
"Or should we keep pushing the bills out to future tax payers like we are for SS, Medicare, National Debt, etc?"
I would argue it's not exactly comparable. But, yes, we should be making adequate payments to the pension funds today so as not to stick future taxpayers for a bill they didn't run up.
We the people elect the Legislators...
We the people like spending money and cutting taxes...
We can not change the past, we can only learn from it...
So what now?
"So what now?"
We pay the bill. Having the government default on its promises to workers is the baddest of bad faith propositions.
Sounds good. Maybe... Though I think most things in the law are renegotiable if someone made a bad promise.
The irony of course is that our kids will be the ones voting at that time. If they are as selfish as our generations have been... They will likely reduce the payout. And I will whole heartedly support them...
Choices need to have consequences.
"Though I think most things in the law are renegotiable if someone made a bad promise."
What evidence is there that it's a "bad promise" versus a failure to live up to the terms of the deal?
What evidence is there that it's a "good promise"?
As I say above, future voters will get to make that determination based on their perspective at the time. And how frustrated they are that their elders left them deeply in debt.
The contract has been signed and approved by the Legislature -- the burden of proof is now on those who wish to change it.
Should government just start stiffing vendors to save a few bucks? The same argument applies, does it not?
The notion that the government should just arbitrarily walk away from a contract it has signed is absurd. The government can't be the enforcer of other people's contracts if it refuses to live up to its own.
I don't know, I am assuming the beneficiaries can sue them if they disagree. They probably should be suing them now for not keeping the pension fund fully funded. Private companies get in big trouble when they fall behind.
It is different, but we know that the USA is not legally obligated to deliver a certain level of SS and Medicare benefits to any particular citizen. It is simply a welfare program and can be changed at any time. (ie we have no "savings account" with our name on it)
And we know that government can continually change the rules of how much tax they can collect and on what they can tax. I mean you recommend seizing more private funds from wealthy citizens.
My point being that government sets the rules of our game. If future citizens and politicians decide they can not afford what someone promised decades ago... I guess that is why we have courts.
Here is an interesting thought...
It would be wrong if we failed to fund and honor the pensions...
Isn't it wrong to force kids to pay for the debts their Parents and Grand Parents neglected to save for?
That is an interesting dilemma.
State employee pension funds are governed by contracts.
You disdained low income folks who defaulted on their mortgages. But it's OK for government to walk away from their commitments? Is there no level you won't stoop to in order to piss on union workers?
Post a Comment