NM Leon
New member
Quote:"It wouldn't be a budget problem if the state was "matching" 6% like a normal employer instead of paying 90-100%"
Ok what you are saying is the teachers should pay into their own penisions?
Ok if thats what you are stating, then they would still be paying it in with tax money. And then the state would turn around and match 6% of that with what?????? MORE TAX MONEY!!!!!!!
So your logic has no rhyme or reason. It is still all tax money you would just like to see it wrote up a different way or what????
Let's see, the state provides a pension that equals 80% of the average of the employee's last three year's pay. Lets say that average was 50k (pretty low). Assuming the employee retires at 50 and lives to 80, the state would be on the hook for 1.2 million over 30 years.
On the other hand, the state matches 6% of the employees wages in a 401k until retirement. Assuming a 25 yr career at an average of 40k, the state pays 60k over 25 years.
That example doesn't even begin to take into account the "Cadillac" medical insurance that's typically provided even after retirement.
Do you really not see the difference from a budgetary standpoint?
I have no problem with public employees getting wages and benefits in line with "civilians", my problem is when I as a taxpayer have to pay for wages and benefits that I could only drool over, and then to add insult to injury have the employee's mandatory dues spent to advance people and policies I vehemently disagree with.
Quote
eople are quick to spit things out without using their brains!!!!!!!
Apparently.
Ok what you are saying is the teachers should pay into their own penisions?
Ok if thats what you are stating, then they would still be paying it in with tax money. And then the state would turn around and match 6% of that with what?????? MORE TAX MONEY!!!!!!!
So your logic has no rhyme or reason. It is still all tax money you would just like to see it wrote up a different way or what????
Let's see, the state provides a pension that equals 80% of the average of the employee's last three year's pay. Lets say that average was 50k (pretty low). Assuming the employee retires at 50 and lives to 80, the state would be on the hook for 1.2 million over 30 years.
On the other hand, the state matches 6% of the employees wages in a 401k until retirement. Assuming a 25 yr career at an average of 40k, the state pays 60k over 25 years.
That example doesn't even begin to take into account the "Cadillac" medical insurance that's typically provided even after retirement.
Do you really not see the difference from a budgetary standpoint?
I have no problem with public employees getting wages and benefits in line with "civilians", my problem is when I as a taxpayer have to pay for wages and benefits that I could only drool over, and then to add insult to injury have the employee's mandatory dues spent to advance people and policies I vehemently disagree with.
Quote
eople are quick to spit things out without using their brains!!!!!!!Apparently.
