US State Budget Crisis
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 19

Thread: US State Budget Crisis

  1. #1
    Registered User Array pherthyl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Victoria
    Bike
    2005 DR650

    US State Budget Crisis

    Unbelievable. Like a third world country in some of those states, where you'd have a better chance of getting your money back from the local bum than the government.

    http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?...ain;contentAux
    My bikes: A random assortment of junk I found in a barn and fixed up.

  2. #2
    I like traffic cones :S Array made Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    hard in the mac
    Bike
    rsv4r
    cue in legalization of pot, gambling, and prostitution everywhere in 3...2...
    "Honda = Boring, Suzuki = Wannabes, Yamaha = Poser, Ducati = Overated, BMW = Compensating, Aprilia = Insecure, Buell = BCIT business... go faKOffee." - PUREVIL

  3. #3
    Registered User Array Chumly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Vancouver
    Bike
    Honda & Suzuki
    So here in the Lower Mainland the government is still on a major spending / road building spree! Witness the construction on Highway 1.

    The bottom line is that most countries in the world will have no choice but to "monetize the debt" i.e. to print money in order to repay the debt. The problem being is that it can easily result in "stagflation" i.e. a stagnant economy and rising prices.

    The possible saving grace in this scenario is the high growth rates of Asia, but the downside to this is the accumulation of power by China and the reduced global influence of the US.

    Now you can criticize the US all you like, but I would much rather have a strong US and a weak China than the reverse.

  4. #4
    Registered User Array Fanny Bay R1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Fanny Bay
    Bike
    06 Yamaha R1, 01 Dookie 996
    I thought the message to public sector unions in Canada is exactly the same - that means BCTF, PSAC, UNDE, CUPE, etc, etc. We shouldn't throw too many stones as we are very similar, I like the NJ Governor when he stated that they don't have an income problem but rather a payout problem.
    Cheers!!
    Andy
    06 Yamaha R1 (50th Anniversary) - R1's forever!!
    Georgeous Ducati 996 (the only bike as pretty as my R1!!)

  5. #5
    Fast Pack Slow Guy Array Tattoodles's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Lynn Valley represent WHAT?
    Bike
    A privileged sufferer settling for an Italian motorcycle
    I don't buy the placement of blame on public sector pensions. Pensions have always been a reality for governments. The problem is that the pensions that the government invested on behalf of the workers were stolen by Wall Street and the big banks.

    So who's really to blame.

    Plus it's a uniquely American mind set to encourage poor folk who need entitlements the most that entitlements are anti-American.
    My bike is so much faster than yours that I dare you to ride it, you lame little turd. Do you have the balls to ride this BOTTOMLESS PIT OF TORQUE?

    ~Hunter S. Thompson

  6. #6
    Don't be stupid. Array Sikorsky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    LMD-blecch!
    Bike
    KTM
    +1 Tatoodles.

    It's too easy to point at the unions, but it's easy for people to understand.

    To look behind the easy stuff to where all this money went is far too difficult for most people.
    The difference between you and me .........

  7. #7
    Registered User Array Fanny Bay R1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Fanny Bay
    Bike
    06 Yamaha R1, 01 Dookie 996
    Quote Originally Posted by Sikorsky View Post
    +1 Tatoodles.

    It's too easy to point at the unions, but it's easy for people to understand.

    To look behind the easy stuff to where all this money went is far too difficult for most people.
    I didn't point at Unions in general and neither did the Governor, he was talking about public sector unions. Tell me anyone other than public sector employees that have full indexed defined benefit pensions at the end of their employment life? It is simply a benefit that is not available to private sector employees, not to mention their respective, vacation, dental, short/long term disability and medical plans that those in the private sector can only dream of. If the public sector employees paid into these benefits at anywhere near their respective costs I wouldn't have an issue with this but they don't. I would have absolutely no issue if you paid 25-30% of your income into the pension plan and the public was responsible for 3-5% of the contributions (this is what a normal business will RRSP match).
    Cheers!!
    Andy
    06 Yamaha R1 (50th Anniversary) - R1's forever!!
    Georgeous Ducati 996 (the only bike as pretty as my R1!!)

  8. #8
    Registered User Array bandito's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    CBR600RR / RVT1000 RC51
    Bike
    CRF 230 BSA 650
    Quote Originally Posted by Fanny Bay R1 View Post
    I didn't point at Unions in general and neither did the Governor, he was talking about public sector unions. Tell me anyone other than public sector employees that have full indexed defined benefit pensions at the end of their employment life? It is simply a benefit that is not available to private sector employees, not to mention their respective, vacation, dental, short/long term disability and medical plans that those in the private sector can only dream of. If the public sector employees paid into these benefits at anywhere near their respective costs I wouldn't have an issue with this but they don't. I would have absolutely no issue if you paid 25-30% of your income into the pension plan and the public was responsible for 3-5% of the contributions (this is what a normal business will RRSP match).
    I can tell you first hand that the short term disability benefits for federal gov't employees is non existant. It consists of you applying for EI disability, with a 2 week waiting period, and 55% of your earning for some time. It's no better than Joe Schmoe being on short term.
    Long Live Shervin Of The North!

  9. #9
    Don't be stupid. Array Sikorsky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    LMD-blecch!
    Bike
    KTM
    FannyBay R1 .... will you be collecting a military pension?
    The difference between you and me .........

  10. #10
    I like traffic cones :S Array made Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    hard in the mac
    Bike
    rsv4r
    Quote Originally Posted by Sikorsky View Post
    FannyBay R1 .... will you be collecting a military pension?
    while still possibly working as a civilian contractor for the DND.
    "Honda = Boring, Suzuki = Wannabes, Yamaha = Poser, Ducati = Overated, BMW = Compensating, Aprilia = Insecure, Buell = BCIT business... go faKOffee." - PUREVIL

  11. #11
    Don't be stupid. Array Sikorsky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    LMD-blecch!
    Bike
    KTM
    Aahhhhhhh, the holy grail of double dipping, truly a wondrous thing.
    The difference between you and me .........

  12. #12
    Registered User Array Fanny Bay R1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Fanny Bay
    Bike
    06 Yamaha R1, 01 Dookie 996
    I didn't say I wasn't taking advantage of it!!!

    PS: I'm in the 11th year of my pension which I started to get at 39!!
    Cheers!!
    Andy
    06 Yamaha R1 (50th Anniversary) - R1's forever!!
    Georgeous Ducati 996 (the only bike as pretty as my R1!!)

  13. #13
    Don't be stupid. Array Sikorsky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    LMD-blecch!
    Bike
    KTM
    Quote Originally Posted by Fanny Bay R1 View Post
    If the public sector employees paid into these benefits at anywhere near their respective costs I wouldn't have an issue with this but they don't. I would have absolutely no issue if you paid 25-30% of your income into the pension plan and the public was responsible for 3-5% of the contributions (this is what a normal business will RRSP match).
    Here is something directly from the National Defence pension site.

    Does this mean rates will be lower for CF pension plan members than for members of the PS and RCMP plans?

    No. CF personnel, PS employees and members of the RCMP have had identical contribution rates under their pension plans for a long time, and this will continue. Because the costs of the three plans differ and because there are variations in the plans, the same contribution rate does not represent the same share of plan costs.

    I donít think itís fair that I pay the same amount as public service employees. Life in the military is a lot different than life as a public servant.

    While the CF and PS plans are alike in a great many ways, and both are generous plans, the CF plan has many important differences to recognize the greater demands that are placed on CF personnel.

    For example, CF personnel can be entitled to immediate annuities at a much earlier age than can PS employees. While it is true that CF personnel contribute at the same rate as PS employees, the more generous features in the CF plan mean that, in fact, the government and, in turn, the taxpayer, pay a higher portion of the costs of the CF plan than they do of the PS plan.

    This will continue to be true. In fact, by 2013, PS employees will pay about 40% of plan costs while CF members will pay about 34% of the cost of a pension plan that has more generous features.

    If contribution rates are the same for all three plans, why do cost shares differ?

    While the three pension plans are quite similar, their differences mean that the cost of providing pension coverage varies across the three plans.

    For example, Regular Force members of the CF pension plan can begin to draw unreduced pensions at an earlier age than can their PS counterparts. Paying a lifetime unreduced pension to someone starting at age 45 is more expensive than starting it at age 55 or 60. This means that the cost of the CF plan is higher. And since CF personnel contribute at the same rate as do PS employees and members of the RCMP, the government is responsible for a greater share of plan costs.

    This larger proportionate financial commitment to the CF plan is one way the government recognizes the unique demands that it places on military personnel, demands that have no parallel in the rest of the federal PS sector.


    So the military is entitled to earlier pensions, indexed pensions and pensions that have a greater percentage of the amount paid for by the taxpayer.

    But in your opinion any other government employee isn't. Correct me if I have mis-understood you.
    The difference between you and me .........

  14. #14
    I like traffic cones :S Array made Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    hard in the mac
    Bike
    rsv4r
    well, in a lot of cases the military taxes the human body a heck of a lot more. I dont even want to imagine how broken some of them are after 20 years in the infantry.

    Sure it's a choice, but not a lot of people decide to make that choice.
    "Honda = Boring, Suzuki = Wannabes, Yamaha = Poser, Ducati = Overated, BMW = Compensating, Aprilia = Insecure, Buell = BCIT business... go faKOffee." - PUREVIL

  15. #15
    Registered User Array Fanny Bay R1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Fanny Bay
    Bike
    06 Yamaha R1, 01 Dookie 996
    Quote Originally Posted by Sikorsky View Post
    Here is something directly from the National Defence pension site.

    Does this mean rates will be lower for CF pension plan members than for members of the PS and RCMP plans?

    No. CF personnel, PS employees and members of the RCMP have had identical contribution rates under their pension plans for a long time, and this will continue. Because the costs of the three plans differ and because there are variations in the plans, the same contribution rate does not represent the same share of plan costs.

    I donít think itís fair that I pay the same amount as public service employees. Life in the military is a lot different than life as a public servant.

    While the CF and PS plans are alike in a great many ways, and both are generous plans, the CF plan has many important differences to recognize the greater demands that are placed on CF personnel.

    For example, CF personnel can be entitled to immediate annuities at a much earlier age than can PS employees. While it is true that CF personnel contribute at the same rate as PS employees, the more generous features in the CF plan mean that, in fact, the government and, in turn, the taxpayer, pay a higher portion of the costs of the CF plan than they do of the PS plan.

    This will continue to be true. In fact, by 2013, PS employees will pay about 40% of plan costs while CF members will pay about 34% of the cost of a pension plan that has more generous features.

    If contribution rates are the same for all three plans, why do cost shares differ?

    While the three pension plans are quite similar, their differences mean that the cost of providing pension coverage varies across the three plans.

    For example, Regular Force members of the CF pension plan can begin to draw unreduced pensions at an earlier age than can their PS counterparts. Paying a lifetime unreduced pension to someone starting at age 45 is more expensive than starting it at age 55 or 60. This means that the cost of the CF plan is higher. And since CF personnel contribute at the same rate as do PS employees and members of the RCMP, the government is responsible for a greater share of plan costs.

    This larger proportionate financial commitment to the CF plan is one way the government recognizes the unique demands that it places on military personnel, demands that have no parallel in the rest of the federal PS sector.


    So the military is entitled to earlier pensions, indexed pensions and pensions that have a greater percentage of the amount paid for by the taxpayer.

    But in your opinion any other government employee isn't. Correct me if I have mis-understood you.
    No I don't think the military should get these either. I'm well aware of the costs of this and other progams in the miltary (95% top up on Mat and Pat leave - even if your spouse is at home, six weeks paid vacation, special leave, 7.5 hr work days, etc, etc, etc). I think its nuts and the military guys I work with are extremely under worked and over paid.

    When I joined I was seventeen and a pension was the last thing on my mind - that said I'm not stupid and I'm not going to say no to the benefit. Do I feel that 22-odd years of serving (of which eight was at school being paid for by the tax payer) shoud result in what might be 40-45 years worth of pension (its only indexed when I reach 60 but it is retoactive back to the retiremnt date) - absolutely not!!!!
    Cheers!!
    Andy
    06 Yamaha R1 (50th Anniversary) - R1's forever!!
    Georgeous Ducati 996 (the only bike as pretty as my R1!!)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts