Rob brought up an interesting question the other day. One that I have seen thrown around the last few years when typical Liberal Femocrats start attempting to justify public sector pensions.
It appears that many public pensioners did not pay into social security and they claim if a municipality goes bankrupt it will leave these pensioners with out a dime and no backstop. So this afternoon I did a little checking.
Here's the scoop I was able to dig up. Yes many municipalities did indeed remove their employees from social security taxes, most of them were in fact Femocrat run municipalities and the main advantage for this move was that it saved the municipality in question a major chunk of change since an employer pays as much or more into the SS fund as the employee. Now the subtle little behind the scenes maneuvering that allowed this hasn't been documented that I could find but the main justification for it was that these employees would retire before 62 anyway and should not have to wait for Social Security.
Sorry but these people traded a shot at social security to live the retired life at 45, 50 etc. They in a real sense have already drawn their social security. And then Some.
Of course when they were arguing for this they specifically mentioned fire fighters and LEO's as not being able to make it to 62 in their current positions. Yet interestingly enough these sectors are not the ones that have the highest payout are they?.... All the other government employees managed to get this little perk as well by the 90's. From teachers to the run of the mill clerk.
I also would like to point out that no one seems the least bit worried about denying or changing the rules for those private sector slobs that are in high labor intensive jobs that will not physically make it to 62 or 67 doing them. Those who had to fund their own retirements and need social security will more than likely not get it now or be forced to wait until 67 or even 72.
Now I don't know about you but I have had the occasion a few times in my life to deal with employers who were not following the laws exactly. Specifically when a business changed hands and the new owners wanted to pay under the table or something. Of course a private company would not be able to get away with saying they offer a pension so their employees shouldn't pay into social security so why were public sector employees allowed so much leeway?
My point is I had a decision to make when employers began screwing around with the tax laws and I always chose to go somewhere else.
These people took a gamble on something that they knew was wrong and should have known was too good to be true anyway and knowing it was going to be at someone else's expense.
Don't feel one bit sorry for them.
Keep Prepping Everyone!!!
All I can say is that when I turn 62 they better give me my social security. I have paid into it most of my life. I figure it isn't anything but getting back some of my own money.
ReplyDeleteBesides, I'm going to need the jing!
HF - Ya by the time I can get it it will be gone anyway so I am sure not going to shed a tear for the public pensioners.
DeleteThey have no one to blame but themselves. They elected these folks into office time and time again. They all believe that the Feds bailed out the auto makers and should bail them out too.
ReplyDeleteI still can't understand how they got away with not paying into S.S.
I don't know. Nobody has every asked me my opinion of which way the employee retirement fund should be managed, and it's not like you always have a lot of choices in where you work.
ReplyDeleteSome local governments did remove themselves from the system. When the stock market was really booming (as it did for a long time) it was a much better deal than social security. The early retirement I presume is for people who put in their years, and were in jobs where physical condition mattered. Do you really want a bunch of 66 year old fire fighters?