cobalt124 said:
I still take issue with this, personally. I sympathise with the "no one could begrudge you" argument for gaining financially from a poor system. I don't see how whether it's taxpayers money or not changes the principle of what is being done, whichever side of the principle you land on.
Perhaps we have different definitions of a pension. I've always looked at it as: something you received for years of contributing to public service; almost as a thank you for being a good steward of the system. Children take care of their parents when the time comes; and so should society take care of its workers.
But when you retire, you usually only get a small percentage annually anyway, of what you would be making, had you kept your position. My grandfather, for example, was a policeman with the NYPD between 1947-1972; and I think he only got 30% at retirement. If you get hurt, then you might get 3/4.
Normally, this is inadequate to survive however; so then you are confronted with the problem of staying on board and continuing to work, literally until you are too feeble; or try seeking a supplement to maintain your standard of living, in the private sector (or perhaps, in some other field entirely).
Most likely, you would be working part time, if elsewhere. And if you're old and have developed health issues, you may not be able to work in any respect. So that means you would become very poor (living on 30%), unless you struggle at least part time somewhere else.
Quite a "thank you" for years of getting stabbed and shot at for 25 years.
Sometimes they actually force you out too--because it would be more expensive for the state, keeping you on.
From one perspective: you'd be doing a disservice then to the State; and in several respects. Firstly, you would not be vacating the position, so that a younger person my fill it (and usually at lower salary); and secondly, the longer you work (unless there is a ceiling to begin with), the greater the pension owed to you when you finally do retire.
Part of the problem we are experiencing in the United States, is that the Baby Boom generation actually CANNOT retire. Many people--who got talked into 401(k)'s in lieu of an actual pension--have since gotten wiped out by the stock market crash, stemming from the financial sector.
And reasonably: that has only made baby boomers want to CLING to their current employment positions, for dear life--and maybe also THEIR SPOUSE'S PENSIONS!
But that of course only leaves my demographic rather out in the cold, so to speak. Unemployment will continue to grow, so long as the older generations cannot retire.But I digress..If you "retired" from a public position (meaning you reached the eligible age for collecting a pension, and did so), but then continued to work at this same job--taking, in addition, a 2nd check from the same source--well, that's the very definition of double dipping.
But if, however, you "retired" (literally left and did not return) from your public service position, in order to collect your pension; and then worked in the private sector (for whatever reason--whether you can't make ends meet otherwise; or you just like working and earning money); that is NOT double dipping, because you are not receiving it from the same source. One is private, and one is paid for my tax payers.
But YES, even still: if a person has really any work ethic at all, then they most certainly deserve something (namely money) for doing something (at least while they're doing it).
However, if you AGREED under contract, 20 years before: that you would actually leave, when the time came, in order to collect the pension; well then you simply must. Sticking around, in an elaborate scheme to milk the system--by getting paid TWICE by that system--is frankly unethical. I would also expect it to be breech of contract.
cobalt124 said:
IMO, a lot of these problems can be solved by calling a spade a spade. So to my mind, a pension is a fund you contribute to over a lifetime of working, so that you can receive payments when you no longer work. Why does it have to be made so complicated?
It really shouldn't be. No one ever said Americans were smart though. Believe me: I've seen statistics that expound us for being stupid, actually.
cobalt124 said:
I suspect here that you are doing work on "good will", which presumably is unpaid, but has intangible benefits to yourself in your job, your colleagues, your employer, and in the case of teaching, to pupils. I think good will is fine, as long as it works both ways. From my experience, many government functions would not, without the presence of good will. Employers and unions who trample on this cause a lot of damage.
What can I add but more cliches: too often the bottom line rules here. And maybe sometimes not enough. It usually depends on who your friends are.
But as long as we're getting out the chopping block and cleaver: I again suggest that we start from the top down. Why doesn't somebody in Wisconsin pull together a portfolio of their elected official's perks and benefits, and see how much fat they could shave off their asses.
Do it in the name of fiscal conservatism! Tally-ho!
The truth is though: what a politician makes in public service, is a mere bag of shells in comparison to what they could making as a lobbyist. And many lobbyists do become politicians; and many politicians do become lobbyists. In that respect at least, perhaps becoming governor is just a stepping stone toward making more money in the private sector.
This is politics. Where might we be if a politician couldn't simultaneously use dirty tactics while lambasting his opponent for doing that exact thing?
