The HuntingPA.com Outdoor Community banner
  • Hey Guest, it looks like you haven't made your first post yet. Until you make an introduction thread, the rest of the site is locked to posting. Why not take a few minutes to say hi!
1 - 20 of 37 Posts

· Registered
Joined
·
647 Posts
I think it is wrong that they have to contribute to the system. $0 contributions, $0 benefits. Private retirement for all. When you have saved enough to retire, you retire.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
647 Posts
Bluetick said:
SMost state civil service folks work for less to get the Bennie's.
Bluetick, you are living in the past. Most people I know have not received raises in years. In fact, many in the private sector have seen pay cuts and layoffs.

Gone are the days where the government employees made less. And if they want to make more, they should consider working more than 35 hours a week.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
647 Posts
kudu58 said:
I don't agree with Dick about everything, but I certainly agree with him here. Every LEO has surely earned every cent of pension that they get in retirement, same as military personnel. We can't thank these folks enough, let alone bash them for what they do receive just because times are a little hard right now.
The "me" mentality of today makes me want to vomit. And the "no pensions for any state employee" is one of the stupidest things I've ever read on here.

Hope this bill passes. Good luck with it BT.
Don't complain about insolvent government. You are adding more employees to a broken system in the name of fairness.

As of 2010, an entry level WCO started at $39,000. They max out at $62,000.

If you live in PGH or southeastern, you might be below the average income. But if you live anywhere else in the state, you will be making more than the average private sector employee with an equivalent education.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
647 Posts
kudu58 said:
So if WCO's have it so good, why aren't all of you doing it for a living? Heck you've just about got me convinced to change professions. Think I'm just gonna stroll on out there and become a WCO, put in my time until I reach the maximum pay rate, which I'm certain will only take 6 months or so, then simply get myself assigned to the district of the state with the lowest median income so I can feel like I am doing way better than everybody else, finish out my time without getting injured or killed on the job and live out the rest of my life in the lap of luxury to everyone's else detriment. Sounds like a plan. Where do I sign up?

Give me a break...

Your logic is beyond flawed and I'm not sure why I am entertaining it. I'd probably be better off sending you a calculator so you can compute what happens when expenditures exceed revenues.

But let us focus on your most absurd statement:

"Every LEO has surely earned every cent of pension that they get in retirement, same as military personnel." Really? Every single one? Well according to Kudu58, every single one of them has operated at maximum efficiency and thus deserves to be fully compensated.

But let us further expose your feel-good, rainbow and unicorn logic. You ask why we are not working as a WCO for a living. Among many of the possible answers is that there is an overabundance of capable candidates for the job. Take a look at the number of qualified applicants to the amount of job openings. This is a lesson in supply and demand.

So with this overabundance of candidates, your suggestion is to increase the compensation package associated with the job? Yes, that will correct the off-kilter ratio.

Lastly, you and your union/pension brethren are fixated on arbitrary cut-offs for retirement. 20 years of service that is the number!!! How about 19 years? Or 21 years? Or 23 years? Or how about this novel idea, when you have saved enough to retire, that is the correct amount of years? I challenge you to defend why 20 years of service is the correct amount and not arbitrary.

Some food for thought.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
647 Posts
kudu58 said:
The "me" mentality of today makes me want to vomit. And the "no pensions for any state employee" is one of the stupidest things I've ever read on here.
How dare I care about the financial solvency of my state and nation. What a radical thought. But have no fear, I have a solution. When our governments exceed their revenues, we will generate more via tax increases. And we will repeat the process until be we become the USSA (United Social States of America.)
 

· Registered
Joined
·
647 Posts
But that is all good, because our under-compensated state employees should not have to face the economic reality their private sector counterparts stare in the face on daily basis.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
647 Posts
Regardless, any fixed number of service is arbitrary. We as citizens of a broke state and country should be using the WCOs as an example that state employees can operate without fixed pensions.

Instead of saying, "Hey LEOs, WCOs have made due just fine under their current system, let's adjust the LEOs accordingly to get them on track with the WCOs" we say, "Oh how unfair, WCOs are not enrolled in the same unsustainable, fiscally irresponsible pension plans as other LEOs. In the name of fairness, something must be done!!!!"

We are broke and on a wildly unsustainable path to financial ruin. If this is such a radical and absurd thought, well, I'll proudly tout my label accordingly.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
647 Posts
4c_game_chaser said:
kudu58 said:
Maybe you should just pay more taxes.
or maybe look at where all your taxes go and gripe and complain about the large ones. I'm so tired of the "my property taxes" and "my state taxes" argument. Look at your federal and your SS taxes. they are much larger, but no one is on here complaining about those. You get what you pay for in public service. Take away the benefits and you will have your average high school dropouts running the state because no one else will be dumb enough to take the jobs. Some are just jealous that they either didn't have the intelligence, foresight, clean record or desire to be a public employee. Give them the pensions they deserve.
Oh the poor, downtrodden public sector employees. Their 35 hour work week, weeks of paid vacation, sick days, personal days, health benefits, etc. just don't cut it.

They need a comfy pension to ride out the last 20, 30, maybe 40 years of their life after retiring at age 50.

We wonder why our government is broke. All you pro-pension, pro-union folk need to take a good hard look at Greece and the rest of Europe.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
647 Posts
4c_game_chaser said:
kudu58 said:
Maybe you should just pay more taxes.
Take away the benefits and you will have your average high school dropouts running the state because no one else will be dumb enough to take the jobs. Some are just jealous that they either didn't have the intelligence, foresight, clean record or desire to be a public employee. Give them the pensions they deserve.
Right, because we our state and nation does not have a glut of college-educated young adults working jobs where no college education is needed.

And if we eliminate those pensions, those "high school dropouts" will surpass those displaced college educated folk and get the job.

Is the free-market that hard to understand? Are the capitalists jealous that we did not get the state pension? OR ARE THE PENSION GRABBERS JEALOUS BECAUSE THEY COULD NOT UNDERSTAND THE FREE MARKET AND CAPITALISM?
 

· Registered
Joined
·
647 Posts
Bluetick said:
No not me.

Wayne you miss one thing, like it or not, from the ashes of the depression, Americans accepted the social contract where employers provided a retirement to employees in some fashion. That is the norm in this country, on top of social security.

Sure, some smaller companies may not offer that. But the vast majority of those posting on this site, private or public will acknowledge that their job has a retirement plan.

In the public sector, we have for years accepted that military has the 20 and out retirement.

Same for law enforcement and fire fighters, mostly.

Teacher contracts are all over the place.

I would have no issues doing the 20 and out, with a caveat that the person needs to be at least 62 to start collecting. In other words, take the full retirement at 50 forward, but no proceeds until later in life. Get another job that fits your desires and physical abilities. Or, stay in the job until you reach retirement age per Social security and pro-rate it as SS does.
I am not opposing some form of a retirement plan. What I oppose is a fixed benefit plan.

I'd have no problem with the state running an employer match up to a certain percentage.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
647 Posts
John S said:
Funny I didn't hear any righteous indignation when the pension fund lent the state a ton of money thereby saving tax increases.
That is wrong too. But, what kind of logic is it to say, oh they made a bad decision in the past, so we are going to use our "bad decision" that is owed to us?
 

· Registered
Joined
·
647 Posts
R.W.J said:
John S said:
Funny I didn't hear any righteous indignation when the pension fund lent the state a ton of money thereby saving tax increases.
You also didnt hear any of this in the 80's and 90's when the public sector was booming. The folks that took civil service jobs were laughed at. It just like the old tortise and the hare story. But now people want to point fingers and cry foul.
I don't know anyone who is trying to retroactively deny anyone what was previously agreed to. At least I am not. I am pushing for pension reform in the future.

It is not sustainable. You know that. And yet you are too selfish to acknowledge such.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
647 Posts
zimmerstutzen said:
2Interesting how they want to have parity with the public sector, until the public sector goes down the tubes.
Z,

I agree with a lot of what you say. However, I take issue with your thought about it being possible for the public sector to go down the drain.

We are controlled by a liberal (some who label themselves as conservative) body who will tax the people into oblivion until the government makes up the lion's share of the economy. And then, they will shift to making the United States a socialist nation.

I suppose once we become a declared socialist nation, it would be possible for the public sector to fail. However, I believe that no one would give a blank once it got to that point. And for all I'm concerned, all these union/pension folks can enjoy their cake in a crippled economy where their dollar couldn't buy a stick of gum when they get the socialist utopia they dream of.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
647 Posts
R.W.J said:
So at what age should a L.E. Officer retire, at what age does declining health, strengh and reflexes make it unsafe for the Officer and the public?
When he has enough money to fund his retirement.

In terms of health, safety, etc., I suppose it would be the same age as a private sector plumber, construction worker, doctor, mechanic.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
647 Posts
R.W.J said:
waynectyhunter said:
R.W.J said:
So at what age should a L.E. Officer retire, at what age does declining health, strengh and reflexes make it unsafe for the Officer and the public?
When he has enough money to fund his retirement.

In terms of health, safety, etc., I suppose it would be the same age as a private sector plumber, construction worker, doctor, mechanic.
Which one of the occupations you just named are required to take somebody into custody? and have physical altercations?
None of the jobs I mentioned are required to take people into custody. (See how I actually answered the question???? I'm still waiting for you people to acknowledge whether you are in a union and/or pension beneficiary).


There are dangers in every job to a varying degree and I believe you are implying that people should be rewarded based upon how danger level of his or her job? Well you might be interested to know that the 10 most dangerous jobs are:

Taxi Drivers
Power line workers
Truck Drivers
Farmers
Iron Workers
Roofers
Garbagemen
Pilots
Loggers; And
Fishermen.

So I would assume that they should all have pensions because they are putting their life at risk, at an objectively higher rate, than an LEO?
 
1 - 20 of 37 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top