What if we made the wisconson union pay for their own pension funds

Truthmatters

Diamond Member
May 10, 2007
80,182
2,272
1,283
100 cents of every dollar for WI state workers' pensions paid for by the state workers themselves | Corrente



Would you let them keep their own pensions then?



Guess what they already do.




Out of every dollar that funds Wisconsin' s pension and health insurance plans for state workers, 100 cents comes from the state workers.

How can that be? Because the "contributions" consist of money that employees chose to take as deferred wages – as pensions when they retire – rather than take immediately in cash. The same is true with the health care plan. If this were not so a serious crime would be taking place, the gift of public funds rather than payment for services.
 
Last edited:
100 cents of every dollar for WI state workers' pensions paid for by the state workers themselves | Corrente



Would you let them keep their own pensions then?



Guess what they already do.




Out of every dollar that funds Wisconsin' s pension and health insurance plans for state workers, 100 cents comes from the state workers.

How can that be? Because the "contributions" consist of money that employees chose to take as deferred wages – as pensions when they retire – rather than take immediately in cash. The same is true with the health care plan. If this were not so a serious crime would be taking place, the gift of public funds rather than payment for services.

INteresting story that relates. My brother worked for a school district that, on the average, paid the teachers between $5-8k lower than the other districts in the area. However, their health benefits were 100% covered, something no other district did. The district pointed out that distinction to all new hirees. Well, since then, the teachers have taken on more and more of the co-pays, etc. and are footing (out of pocket) more and more of the health care costs to the point that they are now comparable to the other districts in the area. Has their pay gone up to compensate? Hell no. They've taken cuts and are getting non-pay furlough days this year. And his district has a record surplus of money for "raining days".
 
  • Thread starter
  • Banned
  • #3
Someone wants our public school system shrunk to a size they can drown it in the bathtub.


Why all Americans can not see that the right wing leaders are selling them tripe to get them to vote for distroying the country.

They want the American populace uneducated, powerless agaisnt their employers and leveled in pay with the third world countries.
 
Someone wants our public school system shrunk to a size they can drown it in the bathtub.


Why all Americans can not see that the right wing leaders are selling them tripe to get them to vote for distroying the country.

They want the American populace uneducated, powerless agaisnt their employers and leveled in pay with the third world countries.

Yes.

Yes, we do.

And now TM, we are going to have to silence you.

Guantanamo?

Or Somalia?

We are compassionate oligarchy :)
 
  • Thread starter
  • Banned
  • #5
I know you wish you could.

Got any reason why your boss should take your benifits away to save money for his company?
 
What if we made the wisconson union pay for their own pension funds

WE'd probably have to make the government of Wisconson stop spending it before it was needed for the pensionors, then.



 
100 cents of every dollar for WI state workers' pensions paid for by the state workers themselves | Corrente

Would you let them keep their own pensions then?

Guess what they already do.

Out of every dollar that funds Wisconsin' s pension and health insurance plans for state workers, 100 cents comes from the state workers.

How can that be? Because the "contributions" consist of money that employees chose to take as deferred wages – as pensions when they retire – rather than take immediately in cash. The same is true with the health care plan. If this were not so a serious crime would be taking place, the gift of public funds rather than payment for services.

What a lie! For someone to use the name truthmatter, you sure have trouble telling the truth!
 
  • Thread starter
  • Banned
  • #9
Good for you .

why should you be allowed to take your employees benifits away because of your profit line?
 
http://www.tax.com/taxcom/taxblog.nsf/Permalink/UBEN-8EDJYS?OpenDocument

Source article for the OP's post.

After reading it, all this article does is play word games with the pension plans shown. The basic premise is that state employee compensation is a single negotiated package. In that negotiation is the base salary of the worker, the cost of health care, and the cost of the pension. The article's premise is that since the pension contribution is part of the compenstation package, it is therefore the employee's money, and therefore they fund thier own pension.

While true on the surface, the article ignores several points. Point 1 is that all the money comes from the taxpayer, as the employee works for the government, and the government is paid for by taxes. Point 2 is that it does not really go into the breakdowns of how much the splits are.

There is also no mention of how solvent the pension plan is based upon this system, and if the state is required to make contributions above and beyond those mandated by the contracts.
 
Last edited:
When your employer gives the money for your 401k to one of his suppliers in the form of a discount because he likes them is that fair?


Should he have any contractural right to keep paying your benifits and 401 K matching he promised you?



Or can should he by law have the right to just strip you of those parts of your agreed upon compensation?
 
Good for you .

why should you be allowed to take your employees benifits away because of your profit line?

Because if it weren't for my resources and the risk I assume, they wouldn't have a job to bitch about. They are always free to seek employment elsewhere.

For the record, I cancelled health insurance for my employees in 2009. They now can qualify for an allowance for insurance they provide themselves. Some do, some don't. Not my problem anymore.
 
Why does being a public sector worker make you a second class citizen with fewer working rights?
 
Good for you .

why should you be allowed to take your employees benifits away because of your profit line?

Because if it weren't for my resources and the risk I assume, they wouldn't have a job to bitch about. They are always free to seek employment elsewhere.

For the record, I cancelled health insurance for my employees in 2009. They now can qualify for an allowance for insurance they provide themselves. Some do, some don't. Not my problem anymore.

So now you have employees who cant afford to go to the Dr?


I guess even your employees benifited from the health care bill huh?

Do you hate them having that benifit?
 
When your employer gives the money for your 401k to one of his suppliers in the form of a discount because he likes them is that fair?


Should he have any contractural right to keep paying your benifits and 401 K matching he promised you?



Or can should he by law have the right to just strip you of those parts of your agreed upon compensation?

I have no idea what you mean by your first point. Please try to clarify (if possible) past your 1-2 sentance sound byte response.

On the second, I dont have a contract with my employer. he can take away my Health Insurance or 401k if he wants to, and I can go get another job if I want to.

He can do it, just as I can go to a competitor and work for them if the benefits/pay are better.
 
So now you have employees who cant afford to go to the Dr?


I guess even your employees benifited from the health care bill huh?

Do you hate them having that benifit?

I am not aware of any employee who cannot go to a Dr. They don't pay my premium and I don't pay theirs.

I believe all of my employees have private coverage, so I doubt they have seen any benefit from the Law. I am not aware of any employee who supports the Law, and I have several dozen employees. They are paid fairly, and well.

My business would not be where it is without my employees. My employees would not be where they are without my business. We're all fine with that arrangement, even if you aren't.
 
  • Thanks
Reactions: del
100 cents of every dollar for WI state workers' pensions paid for by the state workers themselves | Corrente



Would you let them keep their own pensions then?



Guess what they already do.

Out of every dollar that funds Wisconsin' s pension and health insurance plans for state workers, 100 cents comes from the state workers.

How can that be? Because the "contributions" consist of money that employees chose to take as deferred wages – as pensions when they retire – rather than take immediately in cash. The same is true with the health care plan. If this were not so a serious crime would be taking place, the gift of public funds rather than payment for services.

I find that hard to believe TM. You might want to check your Premise here. Most States either contribute a portion to Employee Retirement Funds. Maybe you could focus on a legitimate source. Just a thought. ;)


The New York Times editorial board has decided, reluctantly, it is time to rein in the compensation that government union employees get:
That huge increase is largely because of Albany’s outsized generosity to the state’s powerful employees’ unions in the early years of the last decade, made worse when the recession pushed down pension fund earnings, forcing the state to make up the difference.
Although taxpayers are on the hook for the recession’s costs, most state employees pay only 3 percent of their salaries to their pensions, half the level of most state employees elsewhere. Their health insurance payments are about half those in the private sector.
In all, the salaries and benefits of state employees add up to $18.5 billion, or a fifth of New York’s operating budget. Unless those costs are reined in, New York will find itself unable to provide even essential services.
So to review – government unions conspired to elect union friendly Democrats to the state legislature who in turn then granted, via “outsized generosity [with other people’s money]”, incredibly expensive benefits that cost those union members next to nothing.
Uh, yeah, I think that’s what has been said about Wisconsin as well. But in its very next paragraph, the NYT says, presumably so as not to seem too anti-union or anti-worker, that pointing this out isn’t either of those things, but that darn GOP is both:
To point out these alarming facts is not to be anti- union, or anti-worker. In recent weeks, Republican politicians in the Midwest have distorted what should be a serious discussion about state employees’ benefits, cynically using it as a pretext to crush unions.
The NYT provides one of the perverse joys I look forward too each day – trying to figure out how the editorial board will torture both the language and logic to come up with the positions it assumes. This is another example. What is happening in Wisconsin – almost precisely the same scenario – is anti-worker and anti-union because good old Governor Walker is one of them – a Republican.
But Governor Cuomo? Why the model of what it means to be a union friendly Democratic governor:
Gov. Andrew Cuomo has pursued a reasonable course, making it clear that he expects public unions to make sacrifices, starting with a salary freeze. He wants to require greater employee contributions to pensions and health benefits, with a goal of saving $450 million.
Negotiations begin this month, but so far union leaders have publicly resisted Mr. Cuomo’s proposals. If they don’t budge, Mr. Cuomo says he will have to lay off up to 9,800 workers.

New York Times: New York is not like Wisconsin « The Greenroom
 

Forum List

Back
Top