> > Yeah, paying out agreed upon pensions is nothing but a democratic fault...I might > buy that one with some citation > > You need a citation to tell you the unions are bedmates with the Democtrates? Really? > When was the last time you saw a union rally for a Republican? If you are denying > that association, then you're just not willing to have an honest discussion about > politics. > > Allowing someone to retire after 20 years of service, and then collect a pension for > 30 or 40 more years is unsustainable... compounded by double-dippers. It is literally > crushing those states that were foolish enough to swell their government employement > rates and pension benefits too high, just like it crushed the auto companies. Big > government = big bills, it's a pyramid/ponzie scheme that will have to be contended > with to save the failing states. It won't be a popular discussion, but it's one that > will have to be had.
Actually, a pension system, if run properly, is sustainable. The problem occurs when the administrators of said pension system 'borrow' from it to pay for other things. If the pension system is well funded and administered (yes, I realize that when dealing with government this may be impossible), you really shouldn't ever have to touch the principal to pay out to your pensioners.
I will agree with the problems with double dippers. This is a practice that is mighty dodgy. This is always a problem when you have a overly complex system, people will figure out how to game it, and, unfortunately, they are usually in the minority of people collecting from said systems, and screw it up for everyone.
Minutus cantorum, minutus balorum, minutus carborata descendum pantorum.
|