Pensions killing NY

Cities across the nation are raising property taxes, largely citing rising pension and health-care costs for their employees and retirees.

In Pennsylvania, the township of Upper Moreland is bumping up property taxes for residents by 13.6% in 2011. Next door the city of Philadelphia this year increased the tax 9.9%. In New York, Saratoga Springs will collect 4.4% more in property taxes in 2011; Troy will increase taxes by 1.9%.

Local officials and government workers say a confluence of factors is driving the increases, including the need to make up for staggering investment losses from the financial crisis and rising costs as more workers retire. In addition, benefit increases promised in flush times are coming due as revenue flounders, and some cities have skipped payments to their pension funds over the years.

In Illinois, towns have been raising property taxes to keep up with pension and health-care costs for several years, but the scale and scope of the increases this year are unprecedented, said Joe McCoy, a lobbyist with the Illinois Municipal League.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704278404576037681933247842.html?mod=WSJ_hp_LEFTTopStories

This is my favorite part of the wsj article
--------------------------------------------------
Rolling Meadows has paid less than it should into its pension fund by relying on higher assumed rates of returns than those recommended by the Illinois Department of Insurance, Mr. Lee said. Lower annual contributions mean the fund has trouble staying abreast of ballooning costs, leading in part to the underfunding, Mr. Lee said. The city recently changed to the Department of Insurance's recommended annual contributions, Mr. Nelson said.
------------------------------------

So basically the same politicians who exchanged promises for higher pensions in exchange for votes did not even bother to fund with money them for fear of ticking off property owners, so they funded them with an assumed higher rate of return that never occurred and disregarded the advice of experts in the process.

Aren't NYC subway trains now staffed with two people- an operator and a motorman? And we can easily cut it to one with current technology, but the union is holding that up because it wants to suck taxypayers dry with unnecessary jobs.

Rather have 2, plus alert booth clerks. Safety is a concern and safety saves money.

Ridiculous. Install cameras and save taxpayers huge amounts of money. Safety is a police matter.

Riders wants better service, the MTA wants higher pay and benefits, and the nobody wants to pay for it. To not look toward technological improvements that help lower costs is asking for inefficient high price service. There's nothing to be gained by running a 1950's subway infrastructure in the 21 century.

Cameras with arms and legs? When was the last time a camera exercised judgment, stopped a crime, prevented an injury, or answered questions?

MTA workers are not able to apprehend criminals and don't deter crime the way a subway patrolman can. My two cents is the crime prevention argument put forth is more union P.R. than fact.

> Rather have 2, plus alert booth clerks. Safety is a concern and safety saves money.

Yes, I'd rather have human driver idiot texting.

Bring on the machines, sar.

" When was the last time a camera exercised judgment, stopped a crime, prevented an injury, or answered questions?"

I don't remeber the employees in the subway doing any of that.

"Ridiculous. Install cameras and save taxpayers huge amounts of money."

You mean these cameras?

MTA spent $20M on cameras that don't work, but a cheaper system have functioned for years

http://www.amny.com/urbanite-1.812039/mta-spent-20m-on-cameras-that-don-t-work-but-a-cheaper-system-have-functioned-for-years-1.1851584

"Aren't NYC subway trains now staffed with two people- an operator and a motorman? And we can easily cut it to one with current technology, but the union is holding that up because it wants to suck taxypayers dry with unnecessary jobs."

No, trains are staffed by 2 people so that when the doors close on you, you don't get dragged across the station by the train. When a train is in a curved station, the motorman can't see all the way back so if your being dragged, your out of luck.

Back to the topic of the WSJ article, did anyone else think that if 1.9% and 4.4% were the best the WSJ could come up with as examples of skyrocketing property taxes, they are probably blowing smoke? The eyebrow-raising percentages cited apply to the Philadelphia area. Either lazy reporting, or they're making a mountain out of a molehill.

My building has an elevator that has a complex system that does the same thing. Door opens back up.

In Pennsylvania, the township of Upper Moreland is bumping up property taxes for residents by 13.6% in 2011. Next door the city of Philadelphia this year increased the tax 9.9%

Seems to be more than 1.9%

How do you propose making an automated train smart enough not to run over track workers in the tracks? Instead of arm chair quarter backing, why don't you design such a system?

I view the whole automated subway system discussion as a red-herring for not dealing with out of control pension and retirement benefits for the city and state at large.

well, I was not the original person to bring up automated systems.

"We've been putting in what we're required to put in, but the unfunded liability keeps growing," McCrady said.

In 2001, about 30 percent of the city's property tax levy went into paying down the pensions of its retired police and firefighters. In 2011, 70 percent of it will go toward pensions, even as recent years have seen cuts to other services that draw their funds from the same source, including the Decatur Public Library

"It's to the point now where taxpayers can't sustain a property tax levy to the point where we can fund these out of the property taxes," McCrady said. "We're starting to draw from other operations to pay for these obligations."

"Governments can't sustain pension programs," McCrady said. "Private industry has gotten out of the pension business, and the best long-term solution is for government to get out of the pension business."

http://herald-review.com/news/local/article_7950f4d4-d789-50b4-987b-ef8b58f7080d.html

Public pension costs in New York are mushrooming—just when taxpayers can least afford it. Over the next five years, tax-funded annual contributions to the New York State Teachers’ Retirement System (NYSTRS) will more than quadruple, while contributions to the New York State and Local Retirement System (NYSLRS) will more than double, according to estimates presented in this report. New York City’s budgeted pension costs, which already have increased tenfold in the past decade, will rise by at least 20 percent more in the next three years, according to the city’s financial plan projections.

http://www.empirecenter.org/Special-Reports/2010/12/pensionexplosion120710.cfm

Look at the inane intellectual contortions Socialist has to go through to try to defend his support of keeping unnecessary jobs on government payroll. Sad, sad, sad.

And arguing against defined contribution plans is a loser. People should be paid as an incentive to work, not vice versa.

How are 401ks good? How many people have enough money in them to retire? This thread made me curious so I did some research by asking my parents. My father is retired from the MTA and has a $36k a year pension. My mother is younger and is still working. She's close to 50. Know how much is in her 401k? About $12,000. How is she supposed to retired on that?

I don't wnat my important question to get missed in my post above, so I am going to ask it again:

How many people have enough money in their 401k to retire?

"The 401(k) will turn out to be the greatest systemic financial hoax ever perpetrated on an unsuspecting public."

http://books.google.com/books?id=7p3AiaXLLGoC&pg=PA10&lpg=PA10&dq=The+401(k)+will+turn+out+to+be+the+greatest+systemic+financial+hoax+ever+perpetrated+on+an+unsuspecting+public&source=bl&ots=sIrH66gAlW&sig=Dw494RmUvi4PRU5w2cflj5Yt2QM&hl=en&ei=wLoXTcTVMcaAlAf45cysDA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CBgQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=The%20401(k)%20will%20turn%20out%20to%20be%20the%20greatest%20systemic%20financial%20hoax%20ever%20perpetrated%20on%20an%20unsuspecting%20public&f=false

12,000 in a 401k?

You'll need to do better than than that. You'll need to include how much she contributed and what the investment's were or at least investment classes.

I've invested in IRA & 401K accounts for years and the investment returns were very competitive with the indicies of the various investment classes.
------------------------------

Socialist you seem to be ignoring one very important point. To deliver returns pensions hire money managers or invest in the same investment classes the rest of us go into when choosing a 401k. So is it you want the performance without the risk? or that you believe the money managers pensions chose are superior to the ones private citizens can take advantage of.

If I had to guess your mother began contributing to her 401k late in life.

"How many people have enough money in their 401k to retire?"

Socialist, I love the link to that book. I'll have to pick it up.

I've been saying for years that the 401(k) was bottle of snake oil sold to the American public during the Reagan years. Even while companies scoffed at the notion of the "outdated" and "old-fashioned' defined benefit pension plans, it was interesting how they still quietly offered those "outdated" pension plans to their most senior management staffs.

Do I have enough in MY 401(k) to retire? Hell no. Neither do ... or WILL ... most people.

Money magazine just published a sobering article this past summer on how even TWO million dollars in the bank upon retirement won't be enough to carry a couple through their retirement, maintaining their lifestyle at ... get this ... only $50,000 a year!

Assuming the median household income is $50,000/year, it is actually mathematically impossible for the Middle Class to accumulate $2 million over the course of their working years, even if they start maxing out their 401(k)s beginning at age 18, AND tossing HALF of their paychecks into the bank and NEVER touching them until retirement, they STILL won't reach that magic $2 million number.

Socialist think of the 401k as part of a triad.

You got social security.
You got personal savings outside of tax advantaged accounts
You got tax deferred retirement savings.

And yes, I believe the 401k will perform its role. But due to the bubble stock market and low bond yields I believe that over the next ten years it will be lucky to achieve 5-7% annualized returns. But that's the same environment the City and State operate in to fund those very same benefits.

Matt, It's not snake oil. The money has to come from somewhere. So if investment's can't generate the returns, you want the tax payers to fund the difference which means higher taxes for the middle class, and the cycle gets worse.

5-7% tax deferred growth is not snake oil? You want certainty go with a 2% treasury, GIC or AAA annuity. Either way, someone has to take the risk and reward.

Perhaps if the pensions were defined contribution, not defined benefit, and the pension laws required full contribution, we'd have less of this mess. Companies though were perhaps following the example of the government's own Social Security which doesn't fund the future obligations, only the current benefit payments.

Corporate and Government pensions use totally different rules. In my opinion the corporate rules are better. Harry Wilson in NY campaign was based on bringing those rules to public pensions, but with politicians come sweet heart deals.

-Managed fund can't beat a passive index--You're fired!
-State should be required to apply a discount the obligation instead of imagine an 8% return when nobody is achieving that.

But at the end of the day, public pensioners will have to accept some combination of
-later retirement age
-greater use of 401k style component
-reduced benefits.

401k is the way to go. Remember the corporate raiders and the over-funded pension plan? Every worker should want full control over their retirement funds. The 401k does that. Want more? Get the job provider to do matching funds.

There are no overfunded pension plans if it is a defined contribution plan. Nor are there underfunded plans.

Every worker doesn't want full control over their retirement funds. Privatizing social security would be a disaster. Most people have no idea how to invest their money, nor the time and resources to be able to do so.

What does that mean "get the job provider to do matching funds"? You mean ask for matching funds of a certain amount instead of current wages of that equivalent amount?

In many companies the employer matches 50% of every dollar invested with some cap. For an MTA worker earning 35K maybe the ratio could be higher, for a gov't worker earning a six figure salary, lower. I think you get the idea...

I hear you on some not understanding this stuff, that's where education comes in. The unions and employers could allot money toward third party independent advisers and educational literature.

If the municipality offering the pension goes bankrupt, the worker is worse off.

"the ratio could be higher ... , lower." You write like this money comes out of the air.

" that's where education comes in" ... give me a break.

The basic premises of defined contribution plans like 401(k) plans are that individual pensioners are better able than professional, diversified, long term funds to (1) absorb the risk of their own mortality -- that they will live longer than average, (2) absorb the risk of market movements -- that they will save during a period of poor returns or retire just after a crash, and (3) make sensible and well-diversified investment decisions.

Obviously all three of these premises are completely false. Consider claim 1. A group plan needs to save enough to cover the average life span of its pensioners. But an individual can't do that -- an individual has to save for the longest life span. So individuals will, collectively, have to save far more under a 401(k) type plan than would be necessary if they had the same benefits from a real pension.

401(k) plans have been used as an excuse to gut the (deeply problematic) employer-based system instituted after WWII. But they will lead to a generation of extremely impoverished elderly unless we significantly increase social security benefits.

Cutting the few remaining real pensions, as Riversider proposes, is a nice Procrustean solution to the private sector pension disaster, apparently based in envy and hatred of the American people: it would bring public sector working conditions down to the same Dickensian level that the union-busters have created in the private sector, leaving public retirees as impoverished and dependent as private sector ones are going to be when the 401(k) generation can no longer work.

For thirty years, the right wing has told us that we cannot afford the minimum accutrements of civilization -- living wages, medical care for those who need it, retirement security, a fully funded educational system, functioning mass transit, effective regulators ensuring the safety and sensibility of economic production. All we can afford, apparently, is more prisons and more wars and more tax cuts for the richest -- even the wealthiest of the dead.

But we are still the richest country in the world. And we are still more or less a self-governing democratic republic, not entirely enthralled to the large corporations and finance markets. All we need is to decide that we want to use the national wealth for something more useful than investment banking bonuses and overpriced real estate. National health insurance modeled on Medicare and/or the VA, and national pensions modeled on social security but at a level that average people can live on, and massive investment in energy technologies that will slow global climate change, would be an excellent start in returning the US to civilized norms and our own ideals.

And if that requires making the rich pay their fair share of taxes, that would be a good thing, too. Less inequality would improve the job market for average Americans, increase the probability of our democracy functioning and generally promote both justice and the General welfare in these United States.

The socialists should learn about 401Ks and retirement investing before spouting off with more nonsense.

If someone can contribute, between themselves and whatever matching they get, $500 per month to a 401K, and they average 8% over the life of the plan, they will have over $1 million at retirement.

You make it sound like if you are a government worker with a pension, the government just grabs the money off of trees to pay it. If the pension investments don't deliver as promised, taxypayers have to make it up. Why should everyone pay more for some government workers, who didn't have to contribute a thing, to have risk-free lifetime retirement payments? How about individual responsibility to save for your own retirement?

Socialists love to take other peoples' money like they are entitled to it.

financeguy, you talk about making the rich pay their fair share of taxes. Can you help to quantify that?

Cutting the few remaining real pensions, as Riversider proposes, is a nice Procrustean solution to the private sector pension disaster, apparently based in envy and hatred of the American people
-------------------
What a load of crap! What special powers give you this insight?
And maybe everyone else is just realistic and believes benefits need to be funded, and that the best way to protect workers is to give them control over their destiny.
--------------------
What did public pensions in New York get us? Alan Hebesi.
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/million_in_city_pension_investments_3shDdr64sF9K1F2DvCKFGL

Alan Hevesi is a nice example, but almost like pointing to the June recall of Corn Pops by Kellogg this summer to say that people should farm their own food and the J&J recall of Children's Tylenol to say that people should create their own medicine.

The average person does not have the education, tools, or time to appropriately manage his own investments to prepare for retirement.

That's really sad, but how come these same people are smart enough to
1) Get a H.S. and/or 2/4 year degree
2) pass the driving test
3) operate a gun, sanitation vehicle, operate a high speed subway
4) purchase insurance
5) buy a house
6) obtain a mortgage
7) raise a child
8) operate the microwave

"So is it you want the performance without the risk?"

YES, I want peformance without risk, just like the Wall St. bigshots have. Heads they win, tails we bail them out.

I've said this before. a 401k does not mean becoming a stock picker. It could be something as simple as buying
cd's to treasuries to plain vanilla index funds or conservative managed funds. Corporations have selection committees that pre-select investment choices and then workers choose from amongst these options. I don't see why you are assuming otherwise.

All those things can be completed by the age of 21. Remove the 4 year degree, and a new enlistee in the Army could have the rest covered, at the age of 17, or 18 with the mortgage. That is your standard for managing money and preparing for 30 years down the road for the subsequent 30 years?

YES, I want peformance without risk,

Sorry only a few rich guys connected to the Federal Reserve get that.

"Every worker should want full control over their retirement funds."

I don't beleive that people should have full control over their retirement money. Look at all the people who bought gold at huge markups from places like Goldline and have little to show it for.

"In many companies the employer matches 50% of every dollar invested with some cap."

At my mother's compnay, they match up until $750. Isn't that great? I'm sure that $750 will go a LONG way in funding her retirement.

A good gauge I've always used is you need to put away 10% just to retire. 15% will allow you some fun. 20% will allow you to live a life of travel and fun.

Notice I didn't use numbers like two million. Everyone is different. Someone who makes 50k a year doesn't need thwe same amount someone who makes 250 to retire, because they live different lives.

For the masses, save a couple hundred (5?) and roll it into a variable annuity for guaranteed income. That, and social security, plus some tax free bonds from your non retirement assets should be enough.

This isn't rocket science.

If you aren't able to put away at least 10 percent of your gross income, maybe you shouldn't be living in a doorman building in Manhattan, or obsessing about real estate at streeteasy on a Sunday night.

I hate to use him as a reference, but the rich dad guy is right. Screw your bills. Pay yourself first. Saving for later should be number one. If you can't do it, reduce expenses (helllllllllloooo queens!)

I don't beleive that people should have full control over their retirement money. Look at all the people who bought gold at huge markups from places like Goldline and have little to show it for.

This is not what people saving for retirement are doing, and certainly not even remotely typical of any 401k plans I've heard of. You seem to believe that people gaining control of their retirement plans will head out to Atlantic city, when most would invest in GNMA's GICs or CD'S.

Apparently IBM's CEO dislikes pensions, except for his own:

CEOs cut pensions, pad their own

When International Business Machines froze its pension plan in early January, thousands of its employees suddenly felt a lot less certain about their retirement security.

Samuel Palmisano, IBM chief executive, has no such worries. Palmisano, according to IBM's (IBM, news, msgs) regulatory filings, will receive an annual pension of $4 million when he retires at age 65. That works out to $75,000 a week -- or more than $10,000 a day, including weekends.

It's becoming a familiar theme, as witnessed by this week's announcement by Alcoa (AA, news, msgs) that it will not offer pensions to new hires. And as traditional pension plans disappear and are replaced by less-generous 401(k) plans, the very executives who cut those pensions are keeping their guarantees of retirement luxury.

http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Investing/CompanyFocus/CEOsCutPensionsPadTheirOwn.aspx

Socialism for the rich, capitalism for everyone else.

Another good rule is to allocate 100 minus( your age) in the stock market. As you get older and have less time to recoup you increase the allocation to conservative fixed income investments.

When International Business Machines froze its pension plan in early January, thousands of its employees suddenly felt a lot less certain about their retirement security.

Yes, a guaranteed return is a good thing, if you can get it. I think the point is the model is broken. If my company gave me a guaranteed 8% return on my investments I would take that too.

Socialist,

How old was your dad when he retired?

Some major companies are boosting the value of retirement plans for top executives by using a generous formula when converting a pension into a single lump-sum payment.

The practice, which remained largely unknown until a recent change in federal disclosure requirements, can increase the value of a CEO's pension by 10% to 40%, sometimes amounting to millions of extra dollars. The additional sums aren't always fully reflected in annual pension-benefit tables included in proxy statements, or in company financial statements, due to the complexities of accounting and disclosure rules.

One potential beneficiary is Ramani Ayer, the 61-year-old chairman and CEO of insurance giant Hartford Financial Services Group Inc. He hasn't yet retired, and company filings show his accumulated pension was valued at about $27 million as of the end of 2007, if paid out on an annual basis after he leaves.

However, according to Hartford's regulatory filings, Mr. Ayer plans to take the bulk of his pension in a lump sum when he eventually retires. Because of the way Hartford calculates lump sums, that boosted the value of his pension by more than a third, to $37 million, according to the filings.

John Hammergren, chief executive of drug wholesaler McKesson Corp., is another potential beneficiary. McKesson's formula increased the value of his lump-sum pension as of last March by at least $11 million, to almost $85 million, compared with a more conservative calculation, company filings show.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jonathan-tasini/ceos-boosting-their-pensi_b_160812.html

He was 50.

Who cares what the ceo of IBM is going to get when he retires? If they kick butt and the stock goes up, then shareholders will be happy. What percentage of IBM's annual revenue is $4 Million?

Stop bitching about what others have and take care of yourself. It's your retirement. Do your homework.

"less time to recoup".

Recoup? Meaning there's a not insignificant risk of losing? But the ability to "operate a gun, sanitation vehicle, operate a high speed subway" should help mitigate that, right?

While Worker Pensions Fail, CEOs Get Rich

(CBS) The traditional pension is quickly becoming an endangered species. But today, a government report found some executives have gotten huge retirement packages, even as their companies were dumping employee pension plans onto taxpayers as CBS News correspondent Sharyl Attkisson reports.

At the very same time pensions were drying up for 122,000 United Airlines workers, its top executives were cutting deals to make their own golden years comfortable and secure.

CEO Glenn Tilton, CFO Frederic Brace and COO Peter McDonald together got $7.6 million worth of retirement benefits in four years - from 2002 to 2006 - and earned a combined $55.5 million compensation, with perks like a car and driver and country club memberships.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/11/19/eveningnews/main5714036.shtml

There are dozens of other articles like this, but I'm sure everyoen gets the point. Pensions for CEOs, and 401ks for everyone else. So when Riversider and LICC brag about how 401ks have worked so well in the private sector, they are not telling the whole truth.

50 years old is an absurd retirement age. If you are healthy work. There are many in society that are work for decades past that point. Some by choice, many by necessity, but in an age where life expectancies have many of us living past 80 or 90 years of age, 50 makes no sense.

Here's an interesting statistic:

At the end of 1998, the average 401(k) balance was $47,004. By the end of 2008, the average balance was down to $45,519.

http://www.myloansconsolidated.com/2010/03/12/is-the-401k-really-the-biggest-scam-ever/

I guess that answers my question about how many people hae enough in their 401k to retire.

If he didn't work after retired, then shame on him.

My parents helped put me and my siblings partially (we all took student loans) through college, then worked until their 70's. You are responsible for you. This is America. Toughen up soldier.

Invented nearly 30 years ago as an executive perk — one more way to dodge Uncle Sam — the 401(k) was never meant to replace the employer-guaranteed pension fund, supplemented by Social Security, as the cornerstone of our nation's retirement system. But propelled by a combination of companies looking to cut costs and consumers who wanted control of their retirement destiny, that's exactly what happened.

The ugly truth, though, is that the 401(k) is a lousy idea, a financial flop, a rotten repository for our retirement reserves.

Read more: http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1929119,00.html#ixzz19GiukMMk

Socialist, that's another nice piece of outrage. This time from CBS, controlled by billionaire Sumner Redstone. Before from Huffington Post, whose owner had enough money to run for governor of California. And before that MSN, controlled by billionaire Bill Gates and slightly less billionaire Steve Ballmer. What's next, an article from the NY Daily News? Mort Zuckerman? Or the NY Post? Rupert Murdoch?

Shouldn't there be credible articles from the Communist People's Daily that you can quote?

It's all nice and good to hear about United Airlines CEO and CFO getting $55 million and a BRAND NEW CAR!! But the problem is a lot bigger than rhetoric over $7.6 million of retirement benefits to two pepole at one company. Step up with something in the billions and we'll start to pay attention.

Socialist,

No, your last stat doesn't answer your question. What you need to look at is what the average value of a 401k for someone who retired. Your number shows everyone, including people with 1 year on the job. Duh.

This would almost be funny if it weren't so sad. Subway worker puts in what 25 years on the job and is supposed to have retirement benefits that extend 40 years of retirement?

Socialist,

If you knew anything about history, you would know social security was given the age of 65 as a distribution age because no one lived that long! If we adjusted it according to life expectancy when it was created, you probably wouldn't get it until you were 90.

My father has diabetes, a bad back, a bladder problem, and lost 50% of his hearing. But I guess he should work for another 30 years to please Riversider.

Riversider,

There is no doubt in my mind we're going to have Greece and UK style protests when we have to tell the pension class they are getting benefits cut.

I would say the 401k doesn't go far enough. The government should repeal taxes on our savings, eliminate mortgage deductions and institute a flat income tax. Encourage savings instead of penalizing it and everyone is better off.

Positivecarry,

maybe....but then it's not all or none, and a previous poster talked about creating additional classes of workers, increasing the retirement age or having workers contribute part of their pension benefits. It's not all or none here.

My father has diabetes, a bad back, a bladder problem, and lost 50% of his hearing. But I guess he should work for another 30 years to please Riversider.

No, he goes on long term disability.

The only person he should be pleasing is himself. People deal with every single thing you mentioned and still make it to work. Your mother is still working, right? Why isn't she putting more $ into the 401k? Why doesn't your dad get a part time job? Mine is bored out of his mine, and is thinking of getting a part time job at the home depot. This is a man who sat at a desk his whole life. Nothing should be "beneath" you.

I agree with Riversider (for once), if you can work, work. Another 20 years for him, and he can get another pension! Has he worked for the MTA yet? ;-)

By the way, I know many people who have diabetes, take medication and work.
Diabetes is a sad thing, but it's not necessarily the end of the world either. It can be managed and many people with the disease continue to work.

Deaf people work, and it seems only union people have bad backs.

I think the best course of action to take is, instead of dumping the pension completely, amend it so that it is less financially draining. First, politicians don't need pensions. Second, crack down on disability payments. At the LIRR, 97% of workers go out on disability. Either working at the LIRR is super dangerous, or there is a scam going on.

What I hate is the whole idea of a retirement age. Work hard, don't be stupid with your money (like buying overpriced NYC real estate) and you'll be able to pick your retirement age.

When a two bedroom on riverside blvd is 1.8 million and your monthly nut is over 11 grand, yet it costs 6 grand to rent, you know we're still in idiot valuation land.

Either working at the LIRR is super dangerous, or there is a scam going on.

ya think?

Positive carry,
I have a far bigger problem with people who max out on cable bills, lease cars, eat out several times a week.
Real Estate over long periods of time "should" generate 1-2% above inflation. Buying stuff one doesn't need generates far worse returns and provides no housing.

Third: Stop double dipping. Nobody should be getting 2 pensions.

Fourth: Crack down on fraud. Each year hundreds, if not thousands, of pension checks made out to dead people get cashed. Link the pension databse to the Social Security databse so that we know when a retiree has died.

Fifth: Pension funds should be allowed to sue Wall St. just like individuals can in cases of fraud.

Politicians don't need pensions?

Socialist, this is where I sign off for the night.

You are a complete idiot to make such broad comments. Not everyone is John Corzine. One of my clients is a widow of a politician and her share of his govt pension puts food on the table and keeps the lights on. Does she have investment assets? Of course, but those are earmarked for the next generation. I always thought socialists were dumb, but you're giving socialists a bad name.

Disagree with third
agree with fourth
agree with fifth.

Actually riversider, search nytimes for Shiller's index of Amsterdam real estate. 400 years, and he found prices rose with inflation. Take that Jonathan Miller! Hahahaha

" and it seems only union people have bad backs."

That's pretty funny. Good one.

Actually positivecarry, NY state legislators in Albany are considered "part time" workers. I don't know of any PT state workers who get a pension.

"Real Estate over long periods of time "should" generate 1-2% above inflation. Buying stuff one doesn't need generates far worse returns and provides no housing."

But what if we had a run up in real estate and so the past 10 years, real estate generated more than 10% above inflation annually? How does the next 10 years factor in?

"Politicians don't need pensions? "

To be clear, is this elected officials only, or all government employees?

Only politicians who work part time.

"Fourth: Crack down on fraud. Each year hundreds, if not thousands, of pension checks made out to dead people get cashed. Link the pension databse to the Social Security databse so that we know when a retiree has died. "

It's a good thing, but "cutting fraud and waste" is not going to solve any problems on their own.

We should also substantially reduce administrative and professional jobs. These are most patronage jobs that add nothing to productivity. Instead of cutting service, for instance, the MTA can dump some of their accountants and lawyers.

Won't that add to unemployment?

And finally, we need to reform higher education. There's no reason why a college president, public college or private, should make more than the president of the U.S. And professors need to work more than 15 hours a week. We have no business paying PT professors $200k and $300k a year.

"Won't that add to unemployment?"

You could reduce most or all of the payroll by not replacing workers who leave.

Why are you worried about the salary of a college president from a private institution?

Because I am paying that president's salary through the US funded student loan system. When a borrower defaults, guess who is left holding the bag. I am. And so are you.

And while I generally disagree with PEter Schiff, I actually agree with him that the govt. subsdized student loans increase the cost of college and, along with it, outlandish salaries. He makes some great points in this clip where he interviews a recent grad with $200k in debt:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PljbdfPRWis

Is she going to pay off her $200k debt to her private college? Sure she is, just as soon as I single handedly pay off the entire federal deficit. But when she defaults, guess who has to pay that $200k...

Eliminate financial aid, right?

what does it say that you are riversider?

financeguy, you left us with these words, "And if that requires making the rich pay their fair share of taxes, that would be a good thing, too. Less inequality would improve the job market for average Americans, increase the probability of our democracy functioning and generally promote both justice and the General welfare in these United States."

but still no specificity on what should be done on the tax issue. What $ are we talking about and who is it applied to?

I mean, I'm all for the "less inequality" and "improved the job market" and "democracy functioning" and "justic and the General welfare", but of course none of those were intended as a concrete suggestion, right, and after all, you are finance guy which I think must mean at least being able to quantify the tax matter, right?

huntersburg, since I think you're new on here, be aware that financeguy deals in blizzards of "analysis" (including gems such as justifying rent controls...or equating leases to ownership), so trying to engage on the particulars either requires that you respond in kind, or just go away and wonder how so many deem him , a brilliant commentator....

so...now three of you?

Interesting bb

Of course rc in a limited context serves some purposes. And it is limited since you had to live in a place since 1971.

And equating leases to ownership, of course a leaseholder may enter into a deal that gives it the majorithy of the value of the ownership. I think some years ago when the Empire State Building changed hands, the leasehold was worth more than the residual ownership.

Topics for another day. I just never heard back from financeguy on another issue he brought up.

nutso.

fg---don't bother responding to this sicko.

Something is happening with my settings tonight, columbiacounty and lilboi got ignored but I don't remember doing anything.

not to worry. its intentional.

i don't want you to see what i say.

hfscomm1