Originally Posted by xsu
Teacher's pension are under funded because state legislatuers fudge the numbers over the years to make the budget looks nicer, not because Teachers take an inordinate amount of money. Plus, teachers require 30 years of service to fully vest in their pensions. So where is the retiring young part coming in? Also, teachers pay the same tax as you and me, so don't go off talking as if they are not tax payers too.
Most teachers qualify to retire around 55, not too many private workers even have a pention and our retirement age is in the mid to upper 60's and trending higher. I would call 30 years early. The pensions are underfunded because the teachers in most states contribute very little compared to the "defined" benefit they are guaranteed. Compare that to a private worker who contributes to a 401K or IRA and whose retirement is based on what they contribute and the funds earnings, with no guarantee. We also have a huge problem with public workers retiring from one job, collecting their pension, and then picking up another public sector job and full salary as well. Sickening.
What's clearly failing our children is not the teachers, but the education system set up by legislators, school boards, and generally a host of other parties that have nothing to do with teacher's union. Teacher's union contribute part of the problem, but they are not the whole problem.
They did not cause the entire problem but they are resisting any effort to fix the problems.
If you are upset that ALL public employees are taking too much in salary and benefit, then I can safely say you are probably brainwashed. MOST common public employees takes lower salaries compared to their private sector counter parts. Benefits are better, but it's the tradeoff for taking a lower salary, more restraint in daily work, and putting up with more than their fair share of ignorant people. Those that have high salaries are usually elected officials, appointees, and high level managers who are friends of elected officials and appointees. And all the people spouting FUD that public employee salary and benefits needs to be cut are using these decidedly NOT common employees as example.
The number of government employees, the cumulative size of the salries and benefits, and the level of service they provide is absolutely atrocious in some states. I live in NY, where there is no doubt that the people with real jobs pay more per person to support public workers than at least 48 other states. The growth in the number of public workers has far outstripped the growth in state population. Their salaries have grown faster than private sector wages, their benefits have grown WAY faster than private sector benefits. They miss almost 4 times as many days of work due to "illness" and "disability" than private industry workers. They often deliver crap service and are rarely held accountible. Not all of them are earning high salaries, but as a group they are costing far far far too much for what they do for us. There is no rational argument to support the high growth in public sector expense in contrast to the low population growth of the state.
If you are really angry about how public money's been wasted, start questioning why it's always people who make middle of road income who needs to feel the pain, while the richest of the rich needs to get tax cuts. yeah, yeah, we all heard the theory that we need to lower tax for those people so they can wisely invest the money. But taking that theory to extrem, why not get rid of their tax all together? If lower their tax by a few percentage help the economy, then completely eliminating it must do wonders to the economy, right?
Well, at least that makes filling tax easier for everyone, so at least there's one benefit.
You dont understand economics. You can tax a business, you can tax a rich doctor, you can tax a set of products. No matter what you do, the middle class ALWAYS pays the biggest price for it. When states like NY tried to tax the rich, guess what happened? We suddenly have a lot less rich. They either moved or reduced their taxable incomes. The ones that moved did take jobs with them. That is not a theory, it is a fact. That is why our even our DEMOCRATIC governer wants to reverse the tax hikes. Idiots like you who have bought into the years of left wing class warefare rhetoric keep insisting we punish all of our employers, even though it has proven to be a failed policy and is costing our country countless jobs. Tax the rich causes a lot of pain on the poor and middle class but you keep asking for more.
We had a billionaire in our community who used to contribute many millions to local charities. He also invested 10's of millions in local businesses, creating thousands of local jobs and supporting research and education at several local universities. A couple years ago, the state raised his tax rate one too many times and he simply left. Now he lives in another state and another community is now benefiting from his philanthropy, investments and support. And the state no longer collects a penny in taxes from him. We are WINNING with your strategy, just like Charlie Sheen is WINNING.
To answer your last stupid question, there is an optimum tax rate that will maximize tax revenue and economic growth. If taxes go above the optimal rate, collections go down because of reduced economic activity. If they go below, the increase in economic activity is not enough to make up for the lower rate, and tax collections go down. It is not all that hard to set the rates appropriately, except the masses in the US have been duped with an emotional plea to believe we need to use our tax system to punish the rich and coporations and there is no longer any logical discourse on taxation.