Christie vows to raise retirement age to 69

[Disir]

Both Democrats and Republicans and that is at the state level.

Again. The world doesn't revolve around you. That's the whole damn pay attention thingy.

The worst has been done by Dems, and you can't just go with mayors and governors, you have to go with who had control of the legislatures.

Pensions are obsolete due to the increased longevity of people past retirement age, and for public unions the lowering of that age as a negotiating perk. No system can stand having unproductive workers on the payroll (because that's what it is due to underfunding) for 25 to 35 years. If you truthfully estimate the amount of $$ you need to pull from people's compensation to cover this, it would be unfeasible.

Did you just become a partisan hack?

Pensions are obsolete because of the movement to 401Ks. Period. The same jack asses that couldn't wait to get their little mits into the kitty and are desperately trying to privatize social security. Same group, hero.

You are having chicken/egg problems. The simple fact is no company can keep an open ended liability like a modern pension and keep its books solvent. To do it they would have to deduct too much from their employees salaries, or boost the compensation to the point that inflationary pressures would come into play with whatever product or service they are offering.

Can 401k matches be more generous? Yes, but the key for the company is they know they have to spend X, and then they are done. There is not the open ended "how long do they live" guess work that makes accounting and planning in pension unmanageable.

The fact is that wages have been stagnant for 30 years and the same group of people has said, Oh no. they were never meant to replace the pension when that is damn sure what they did.

There was no unmanageable part of the pensions. There was the absolute you have money over there and I can't touch it. Let me at it.

Your last statement makes zero sense.

Pensions are unmanageable, especially after being mismanaged for decades.

Public pensions became unmanageable after elected officials raided them. That has nothing to do with living longer. That has to do with raiding.

Pensions are not unmanageable.

 

[martybegan]

Dumb point, from a dumb poster.

What's dumb is you not having an argument outside of "well my life is peachy and therefore there is no problem. "

Yep, nothing like unverifiable personal experience. You're so awesome.

Poor planning on your part does not constitute an emergency on mine.

On my part? You know nothing about me.

You are whining like someone expecting the government and the rest of us to bail them out at retirement age, or someone who goes after people with more than them just due to envy.

Bullshit. You want to have your cake and to eat it to and then rely on the good old stand by of your own little personal experience to avoid critical thinking.
Well, that and blame it on a political party.

I paid for my cake, why shouldn't I be the one eating it?

And Dems have far more blame for this than republicans.

 

[martybegan]

The worst has been done by Dems, and you can't just go with mayors and governors, you have to go with who had control of the legislatures.

Pensions are obsolete due to the increased longevity of people past retirement age, and for public unions the lowering of that age as a negotiating perk. No system can stand having unproductive workers on the payroll (because that's what it is due to underfunding) for 25 to 35 years. If you truthfully estimate the amount of $$ you need to pull from people's compensation to cover this, it would be unfeasible.

Did you just become a partisan hack?

Pensions are obsolete because of the movement to 401Ks. Period. The same jack asses that couldn't wait to get their little mits into the kitty and are desperately trying to privatize social security. Same group, hero.

You are having chicken/egg problems. The simple fact is no company can keep an open ended liability like a modern pension and keep its books solvent. To do it they would have to deduct too much from their employees salaries, or boost the compensation to the point that inflationary pressures would come into play with whatever product or service they are offering.

Can 401k matches be more generous? Yes, but the key for the company is they know they have to spend X, and then they are done. There is not the open ended "how long do they live" guess work that makes accounting and planning in pension unmanageable.

The fact is that wages have been stagnant for 30 years and the same group of people has said, Oh no. they were never meant to replace the pension when that is damn sure what they did.

There was no unmanageable part of the pensions. There was the absolute you have money over there and I can't touch it. Let me at it.

Your last statement makes zero sense.

Pensions are unmanageable, especially after being mismanaged for decades.

Public pensions became unmanageable after elected officials raided them. That has nothing to do with living longer. That has to do with raiding.

Pensions are not unmanageable.

By raiding you mean not funding? And no one reason is usually the cause of a failure, it takes multiple steps happening in sequence or the same time to create a cluster-f$%k. Engineering 101.

How about someone tells you that you have a monthly expense you have to pay, which requires taking out of your savings, but they won't tell you how long it will last? Eh, 5 or 50 years...

 

[Disir]

What's dumb is you not having an argument outside of "well my life is peachy and therefore there is no problem. "

Yep, nothing like unverifiable personal experience. You're so awesome.

Poor planning on your part does not constitute an emergency on mine.

On my part? You know nothing about me.

You are whining like someone expecting the government and the rest of us to bail them out at retirement age, or someone who goes after people with more than them just due to envy.

Bullshit. You want to have your cake and to eat it to and then rely on the good old stand by of your own little personal experience to avoid critical thinking.
Well, that and blame it on a political party.

I paid for my cake, why shouldn't I be the one eating it?

And Dems have far more blame for this than republicans.

Everyone pays for their cake.

And no, make no mistake if there is cash involved that stops neither the Ds nor the Rs.

It's clear that you can provide no other argument.

 

[martybegan]

Poor planning on your part does not constitute an emergency on mine.

On my part? You know nothing about me.

You are whining like someone expecting the government and the rest of us to bail them out at retirement age, or someone who goes after people with more than them just due to envy.

Bullshit. You want to have your cake and to eat it to and then rely on the good old stand by of your own little personal experience to avoid critical thinking.
Well, that and blame it on a political party.

I paid for my cake, why shouldn't I be the one eating it?

And Dems have far more blame for this than republicans.

Everyone pays for their cake.

And no, make no mistake if there is cash involved that stops neither the Ds nor the Rs.

It's clear that you can provide no other argument.

its clear your are a greedy tool.

By increasing the cap on SS without increasing the payout cap, you want someone else to pay for your cake.

 

[Disir]

Did you just become a partisan hack?

Pensions are obsolete because of the movement to 401Ks. Period. The same jack asses that couldn't wait to get their little mits into the kitty and are desperately trying to privatize social security. Same group, hero.

You are having chicken/egg problems. The simple fact is no company can keep an open ended liability like a modern pension and keep its books solvent. To do it they would have to deduct too much from their employees salaries, or boost the compensation to the point that inflationary pressures would come into play with whatever product or service they are offering.

Can 401k matches be more generous? Yes, but the key for the company is they know they have to spend X, and then they are done. There is not the open ended "how long do they live" guess work that makes accounting and planning in pension unmanageable.

The fact is that wages have been stagnant for 30 years and the same group of people has said, Oh no. they were never meant to replace the pension when that is damn sure what they did.

There was no unmanageable part of the pensions. There was the absolute you have money over there and I can't touch it. Let me at it.

Your last statement makes zero sense.

Pensions are unmanageable, especially after being mismanaged for decades.

Public pensions became unmanageable after elected officials raided them. That has nothing to do with living longer. That has to do with raiding.

Pensions are not unmanageable.

By raiding you mean not funding? And no one reason is usually the cause of a failure, it takes multiple steps happening in sequence or the same time to create a cluster-f$%k. Engineering 101.

How about someone tells you that you have a monthly expense you have to pay, which requires taking out of your savings, but they won't tell you how long it will last? Eh, 5 or 50 years...

I agree with that statement 100% and, in fact, that is what I have been saying.

Like this:
It s The States Turn To Play Raid The Pension Fund - Businessweek

 

[Disir]

On my part? You know nothing about me.

You are whining like someone expecting the government and the rest of us to bail them out at retirement age, or someone who goes after people with more than them just due to envy.

Bullshit. You want to have your cake and to eat it to and then rely on the good old stand by of your own little personal experience to avoid critical thinking.
Well, that and blame it on a political party.

I paid for my cake, why shouldn't I be the one eating it?

And Dems have far more blame for this than republicans.

Everyone pays for their cake.

And no, make no mistake if there is cash involved that stops neither the Ds nor the Rs.

It's clear that you can provide no other argument.

its clear your are a greedy tool.

By increasing the cap on SS without increasing the payout cap, you want someone else to pay for your cake.

If you are worried about Social Security then raise the cap.

A greedy tool? You worthless partisan, uneducated, hillbilly piece of shit.

 

[g5000]

The average life expectancy when Social Security was established was 60. Social Security was INSURANCE. It was intended for those who lived beyond the mean life expectancy.

At the time SS was established, only 5.4% of the US population was over 65.

Today, over 13.1% of the population is over 65. This means an ever decreasing percentage of people are working to support an ever increasing percentage of people. This is clearly an unsustainable trend.

We are living DECADES longer than our ancestors who established Social Security. Common sense dictates we should be working longer.

The Social Security and Medicare eligibility ages should be raised to 70, and indexed to 9 percent of the population going forward.

I did not pick the 9 percent figure out of the air. That is the percentage of over-65s when Medicare was established in 1965.

 

[g5000]

Gov Christie wants to raise retirement age. He is obviously a moron.
Christie Cut entitlements for rich hike retirement age

Here is a much better idea. A transaction tax punishes high frequency trades and short sellers.

False dichotomy aside, why do high frequency traders and short sellers need to be "punished"?

 

[martybegan]

You are having chicken/egg problems. The simple fact is no company can keep an open ended liability like a modern pension and keep its books solvent. To do it they would have to deduct too much from their employees salaries, or boost the compensation to the point that inflationary pressures would come into play with whatever product or service they are offering.

Can 401k matches be more generous? Yes, but the key for the company is they know they have to spend X, and then they are done. There is not the open ended "how long do they live" guess work that makes accounting and planning in pension unmanageable.

The fact is that wages have been stagnant for 30 years and the same group of people has said, Oh no. they were never meant to replace the pension when that is damn sure what they did.

There was no unmanageable part of the pensions. There was the absolute you have money over there and I can't touch it. Let me at it.

Your last statement makes zero sense.

Pensions are unmanageable, especially after being mismanaged for decades.

Public pensions became unmanageable after elected officials raided them. That has nothing to do with living longer. That has to do with raiding.

Pensions are not unmanageable.

By raiding you mean not funding? And no one reason is usually the cause of a failure, it takes multiple steps happening in sequence or the same time to create a cluster-f$%k. Engineering 101.

How about someone tells you that you have a monthly expense you have to pay, which requires taking out of your savings, but they won't tell you how long it will last? Eh, 5 or 50 years...

I agree with that statement 100% and, in fact, that is what I have been saying.

Like this:
It s The States Turn To Play Raid The Pension Fund - Businessweek

You are having chicken/egg problems. The simple fact is no company can keep an open ended liability like a modern pension and keep its books solvent. To do it they would have to deduct too much from their employees salaries, or boost the compensation to the point that inflationary pressures would come into play with whatever product or service they are offering.

Can 401k matches be more generous? Yes, but the key for the company is they know they have to spend X, and then they are done. There is not the open ended "how long do they live" guess work that makes accounting and planning in pension unmanageable.

The fact is that wages have been stagnant for 30 years and the same group of people has said, Oh no. they were never meant to replace the pension when that is damn sure what they did.

There was no unmanageable part of the pensions. There was the absolute you have money over there and I can't touch it. Let me at it.

Your last statement makes zero sense.

Pensions are unmanageable, especially after being mismanaged for decades.

Public pensions became unmanageable after elected officials raided them. That has nothing to do with living longer. That has to do with raiding.

Pensions are not unmanageable.

By raiding you mean not funding? And no one reason is usually the cause of a failure, it takes multiple steps happening in sequence or the same time to create a cluster-f$%k. Engineering 101.

How about someone tells you that you have a monthly expense you have to pay, which requires taking out of your savings, but they won't tell you how long it will last? Eh, 5 or 50 years...

I agree with that statement 100% and, in fact, that is what I have been saying.

Like this:
It s The States Turn To Play Raid The Pension Fund - Businessweek

As long as pensions stay under the control of the governments in question and not the unions, this is the end result. Again, construction unions run their own pensions, so they are 100% aggressive in making sure the construction companies pony up when they are supposed to. They also have far more incentive to invest wisely, because they know if they fuck up, it's their ass.

Government pension funds have no such worries. The people running them are government employees themselves, they know they can raid the taxpayers pockets if they need to, and in some states the pensions HAVE to be paid constitutionally, so either taxes go up, or services get cut.

 

[martybegan]

You are whining like someone expecting the government and the rest of us to bail them out at retirement age, or someone who goes after people with more than them just due to envy.

Bullshit. You want to have your cake and to eat it to and then rely on the good old stand by of your own little personal experience to avoid critical thinking.
Well, that and blame it on a political party.

I paid for my cake, why shouldn't I be the one eating it?

And Dems have far more blame for this than republicans.

Everyone pays for their cake.

And no, make no mistake if there is cash involved that stops neither the Ds nor the Rs.

It's clear that you can provide no other argument.

its clear your are a greedy tool.

By increasing the cap on SS without increasing the payout cap, you want someone else to pay for your cake.

If you are worried about Social Security then raise the cap.

A greedy tool? You worthless partisan, uneducated, hillbilly piece of shit.

Then raise my payout when I retire. By the end of my career I should be over it, if it continues on its current increase pattern.

 

[g5000]

Simply raise the retirement age incrementally (we recently did this - from 65 to 67)

The 1983 Congress was full of cowards. They made sure the age increase did not take effect until they were all dead. And while the retirement age increases by two years by 2027, life expectancy has already increased by four years!

See for yourself:

Life Expectancy at Birth by Race and Sex 1930 2010

Social Security history

Social Security Amendments of 1983-Signed on April 20, 1983

• Raises the age of eligibility for unreduced retirement benefits in two stages to 67 by the year 2027.

 

[g5000]

As long as pensions stay under the control of the governments in question and not the unions, this is the end result. Again, construction unions run their own pensions, so they are 100% aggressive in making sure the construction companies pony up when they are supposed to. They also have far more incentive to invest wisely, because they know if they fuck up, it's their ass.

The government has had to bail out a lot of these union pension funds you are touting.

New Reports Show Severe Shortfalls in Multiemployer Union Pensions National Legal and Policy Center

A retirement plan supposedly is an excellent reason for joining a union. Yet a March report by the U.S. Government Accountability Office reveals chronic underfunding and potential insolvency of pension plans involving a union and two or more private-sector employers within the same industry.

Nearly 30,000 PBGC-insured defined-benefit plans represent roughly 44 million persons. Of these, about 1,500 plans are of the multiemployer type covering 10.4 million workers, retirees and family members. By far the largest portion is in the construction industry.

 

[martybegan]

As long as pensions stay under the control of the governments in question and not the unions, this is the end result. Again, construction unions run their own pensions, so they are 100% aggressive in making sure the construction companies pony up when they are supposed to. They also have far more incentive to invest wisely, because they know if they fuck up, it's their ass.

The government has had to bail out a lot of these union pension funds you are touting.

New Reports Show Severe Shortfalls in Multiemployer Union Pensions National Legal and Policy Center

A retirement plan supposedly is an excellent reason for joining a union. Yet a March report by the U.S. Government Accountability Office reveals chronic underfunding and potential insolvency of pension plans involving a union and two or more private-sector employers within the same industry.

Nearly 30,000 PBGC-insured defined-benefit plans represent roughly 44 million persons. Of these, about 1,500 plans are of the multiemployer type covering 10.4 million workers, retirees and family members. By far the largest portion is in the construction industry.

Not good, but here they are at least forced to figure something out. No one wants their pension to end up under PBGC, so the people running it are forced to figure things out. With government run public union pensions, you don't have that pressure.