Bob Brinker Free Discussion Site 59,820+
- jamesj24
- Happy_2
- SteveT
- jamesj24
- Happy_2
- cw75
- jamesj24
- Marteau89
- Happy_2
- pawelr
This archived discussion is "read only".
For the corresponding "live" discussions, post in the active topic forum here.
« Previous 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 Next »
» jamesj24 - Vindicitive, Greedy Brinker
I occasionally listen to Bob Brinker but today I had to shut the radio off. He was downright vindictive to people who receive what he calls "outrageous" pensions, and particularly against state of CA employees. I am a State of CA employee who has sacrificed many years to my job. What the hell does Brinker know about what pension I do or don't deserve? What right does he have to spew out such venom over the public airways? None. It will be a long while before I tune in to his show again, if ever.He had an interesting guest, Loretta Napoleoni, last week who made the point that the U.S. economy has been permanently affected by the terrorist attacks. Brinker countered, saying that the economy was growing very well due to the tax and interest rate cuts. She said the economy only grew 0.8% during the first Q. 2005. He didn't discuss it with her further.
At some point, the supply for nation's gluttonous thirst for oil will be disrupted. With China coming online as consumers, it is inevitable that a shortage of oil will become critical. When our credit as a nation is used up, we'll see economic crisis. That's what happened to the former Soviet Union. Interest rates will skyrocket, and the economy will freeze. That will probably happen when foreign investors view Europe as the safer place to invest. It may take a few years, though.
-- posted by jamesj24
» Happy_2 - government pension plans
The inequity Brinker sees in high public pensions is not understood even by Brinker.What he should be saying is that public employees did not have to contribute to social security. While the rest of us just paid into a fund that paid minimal interest, public employees pension funds were investing into the competitive market.
The guy on the radio said his local government was not paying any more into his public employees pension fund than they would have had to, if they were contributing their 50% share to Social Security. However, his pension is 85,000 a year instead of about 20k under social security.
The inequity comes in when it turns out social security is not really a pension plan, but rather a safety net for the lowest paid workers. So we the public, have to contribute to this wealth transfer program, while public employees don't have to contribute anything.
It should be noted the Federal pension system was changed twenty plus years ago to eliminate this inequity.
-- posted by Happy_2
» SteveT - Re: Vindicitive, Greedy Brinker
In response to Vindicitive, Greedy Brinker posted by jamesj24:Old bob is hard to listen to. His biggest problem is he doesn’t listen to callers. Often he tends to go off some weird tangent. I was listening today. The caller could have been clearer in pressing his case. I knew what he was referring to but bob obviously didn’t. The caller mentioned the local government was contributing to the plan an amount no more than they would to social security. It was apparently a very well run plan allowing for higher payouts. The caller also mentioned the employee also contributes to the plan. Maybe some of the problem is poor use of terminology by the caller. In the truest sense of the word this conversation is not about a pension. From that I think it safe to assume it was not a defined benefit plan. It is possible it is a defined contribution plan or it could be a 457 plan with matching employer contributions and the employee funding it also.
My point is once again bob is getting all irate and spouting off without knowing all pertinent information. But that never stops old bob.
-- posted by SteveT
» jamesj24 - Response to the last two posters:
Response to the last two posters: As a state government employee, I have never had an option to avoid paying social security taxes. I, like many others will probably be means tested out of Soc. Sec. when the time comes.Bob Brinker is indeed quick to cut off people whose opinions differ from his own. I wish he would have more guests with ALTERNATIVE views, including those who don't necessarily agree with his own. That is what free speech is all about.
-- posted by jamesj24
» Happy_2 - Re: Response to the last two posters:
In response to Response to the last two posters: posted by jamesj24:I am not sure what you are saying? California state employees do not pay into Social Security.
-- posted by Happy_2
» Marteau89 - Bob bashing Soc Security and GWB
Bob complains that GW isnt doing anything about Soc Security--despite the rather courageous decision by the President to at least address the insolvency issue. Maybe private accounts aren't the whole answer, but at least the debate has been engaged, and I expect that Bill Thomas and others will craft some very appealing changes--perhaps including some taxes on Bob's income over $90,000!. Where are other leading politicos?--they have run for cover!-- posted by Marteau89
» Happy_2 - Re: Re: happy_2
In response to Re: happy_2 posted by cw75:Looks like I was wrong about Califonia state employees paying social security. I thought Cal Pers pension fund was in lieu of social security for California state employees.
Here is the story from Money Cental/MS:
Public defined-benefit pensions differ from similar private-sector pensions in a couple of key ways:
Participants often contribute a portion of their salary to the plan. The median contribution is 5%, according to public-pension expert Keith Brainard, research director for the National Association of State Retirement Administrators. Most private-sector defined-benefit pensions don’t accept employee contributions.
The plan may take the place of Social Security. Many, but not all, public-pension plans opt out of the Social Security system. That means covered workers don’t pay 6.2% of their salaries in Social Security taxes, like the rest of us do, and their pension benefits are typically higher to compensate for the lack of Social Security payments in retirement.
When a public-pension plan does coordinate with Social Security -- in other words, workers and their employers contribute to and benefit from both -- the worker’s pension benefit is typically calculated using a multiplier of about 1.8%. So, the employee’s years of service are multiplied by 1.8%, and the result is multiplied by the employee’s salary to determine the pension-check amount. Someone with 30 years of service, using a 1.8% multiplier, would be entitled to a pension benefit equal to 54% of his pay. The benefit may be reduced by whatever amount he gets from Social Security.
If a public pension is meant to replace Social Security, the typical multiplier is 2.2%, Brainard said. That would boost the 30-year employee’s take to 66% of pay.
California: a special case
That’s what is typical. Some public employees in California, however, get a much better deal.
The California Public Employees' Retirement System uses a multiplier of 2% for most workers, who also participate in Social Security, said spokesman Brad Pacheco. As a result, employees with 30 years’ service can retire at 55 with pensions equal to 60% of their pay, although their benefit is reduced by whatever they get from Social Security. (These workers contribute 5% of their pay to the CalPERS system in addition to paying Social Security taxes.)
One in three workers, though, really hit the jackpot. Prison guards and highway patrol officers get a 3% multiplier (the cops get it at age 50, the guards at 55). That means they can retire early with 90% of pay after 30 years’ service.
The state also has gradually increased the categories of workers considered “public safety” employees who qualify for a 2.5% multiplier. As a result, this group -- which for a long time consisted mostly of prison cooks, plumbers and others with at least some inmate contact -- now includes a much wider variety of non-prison jobs, including Department of Motor Vehicle driving examiners and public-health inspectors. These folks can retire at 55 with 75% of their pay. Like cops and prison guards, the public-safety jobholders don’t participate in the Social Security system.
http://moneycentral.msn.com/content/Reti...
-- posted by Happy_2
» pawelr - Social Security
Hi Bob: I admire your Money Talk but I was surprised by your position on Social Security on last weekend's program.Correct me if I'm wrong, but SS is a pyramid program/scheme were I pay benefits of my elders and getting paid by my juniors. As long as there were 15 workers or more per beneficiary, the program was great. However Baby Boomers dropped the ball and didn't recruit enough participants into the program to pay their retirement benefits. Right now there is some 3 workers per beneficiary and the number is going down to two. When there will be 1 worker per 1 or 2 beneficiaries, the things are liable to get ugly.
As I see it, Baby Boomers will sink/are sinking Social Security. They wont get any where near the benefits SS provided from 15 workers. The young workers entering the economy don't believe any more (to their credit) that they will get anything from SS
To President's credit, he touched the third rail and called king to be naked. The private accounts are a way to wean young workers off SS - SS which they won't see any way. I think he is addressing the issue heads on. Lets Congress now get to work and devise the best solution.
And there is the question of 1.7 trillion dollars of payroll SS tax (SS 'trust' fund) spent away/'invested' by Congress - to be taxed back/again from us later with interest the trust 'pays'. If I wanted to be irresponsibly partisan, I'd advance a reckless theory, like that all this SS trust fund money funded Democrats hold on power for all these decades. But I'm not so I won't.
Regards,
Pawel Radzikowski
-- posted by pawelr
« Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 Next »
Please follow the guidelines set forth in the Suite101 Posting Etiquette when adding to the discussion.