La Cucaracha by Lalo Alcaraz for March 09, 2011

You greedy teachers should be more like the honest, hard-working CEOs. Now THEY are the paragons of virtue!

CLARK You are making a dangerous generalization. Civil Servant may not have had their wages garnished by FDR’s Ponzi scheme, but this does not stop them from putting in 5 years of private sector,before or after retirement to “Double Dip”. Newer hires (78 and beyond) pay for their retirement (which is half the percent of Civil Service) and their 401k (which is where they will get their real retirement), and that scam called Social Security. As to your USAF years, why don’t you just look at your last Social Security Statement. It came in an envelope addressed to you and was delivered by a blue suited man. BTW, no taxes are used to pay the blue suited man,s retirement or health care. More government agencies should go off budget like the USPS did in 78. Let them pay their own way like the Post Office.

Personally, I’m open to the idea of public servants going into the Social Security system, or getting their pension money up front to invest as they see fit - GOING FORWARD.

Which is not a knock on public employee pensions so much as it’s a condemnation of public officials that raid the pension funds to cover (up) day-to-day expenses.

Poll after poll tells us that people like the things government does, and do not want the programs cut. Of course no one wants to pay taxes, but people want services. Set the tax rates to a level that funds the services voters want.

Even the most ardent Grover Norquist admirer accepts that you need government for roads, defense and such.

@Lewreader..A public employee who gets any puiblic pension has his/her social security reduced by an amount that could be up to 90%. This has been a law that has been around for some time passwed under the Democrats by Rostenkowski. I know my because I get a public pension but won’t see most of my Social Security payout. And Miliary service is not social security eligible.

^ actually, I see that as quite fair since the pensions are far greater in payout and benefit and are still essentially publicly funded (unless you somehow think that the money public employees use to pay into their plans isn’t actually tax payer money…).

However, the “double-dip” does happen too often by slicksters. Some even retire from public office only to then start working again in public office a little bit later so as to continue to collect on the retirement while obtaining another paycheck for office. It’s been a heated issue around here recently (from both Dems and Reps who have been guilty of it).

What has been missed by many of those above is that a large number of people who will retire will collect far an above what they paid in to SS (though I’m not sure about value-to-value because of depreciation) and to their pensions, especially if they live a long life (unless you think that a person person retiring at 50 or 55 having worked in public office for 25 yrs but lives to 90 collecting 80% of what he was making while active plus benefits doesn’t equate to that… unless you are putting 80% of your paycheck into your pension?).

This, while others who are quite wealthy will never get close to what they pay into SS. So be careful what you say about getting what you pay for. You may find that your checks stop many years to early or drastically drop in dollars received.

Furthermore, the principle of SS has been a type of redistribution of wealth where some with very low incomes will receive well more than what they ever pay in. It doesn’t really make sense, but I understand it. The rich folk don’t need SS, but the most destitute do, as they generally can’t afford to “save” money.

Ain’t it funny how people never seem to complain about how CEO yachts, multiple houses, Gulfstreams and fleets of luxury cars add to the costs of goods and services. (Private sector pensions? What are those? They became extinct long ago).

When I worked for the government, I had FICA deducted.

The cash that SS once had was included in the general operating fund money by both parties when in power because it helps hide the deficit and keeps CEO-taxes low or non-existent. Now those same people are screaming about SS being insolvent and needing to be “reformed” - read less benefits for more cost. The SS trustees just need to start cashing in all those government IOUs.

Been doing some math here. If a teacher retires at 65 (and how many can last that long?) they have perhaps 20 years of life left. To get 40K a year for the rest of their life (800K) they would need to have started teaching at 25 and put 20K in their retirement fund EVERY YEAR FOR 20 YEARS.

Alcaraz surely can’t be this ignorant. Of course you get back every penny you put in and much more, unless it gets stolen. Retirement accounts are possible because the money is INVESTED in T-Bills (i.e., borrowed from your children) or money markets (i.e., those big evil rich people that are denying children education by not paying enough taxes).