Posted:
#1
https://www.dallasnews.com/news/local-news/20160827-dallas-voters-will-be-asked-to-cut-city-pensions.-but-will-it-be-enough.ece
rough times
rough times
bye bye pensions
...
Views: 993
Posts: 17
Posted:
#2
"About 7,500 city employees contribute to the ERF. It pays about 6,700 retirees, who make an average of $35,000 annually. City employees and pensioners neither pay into nor benefit from federal Social Security — at least for the years they worked for the city".
I never knew that. These people are skrewed. $35K a year for retirees is poverty level. Unless they were smart enough to keep up a decent 401K or other retirement investment. At any rate, you can not and should not depend on Federal Social Security. It's a house of cards.
~~~~~ZOSO~~~~~
Posted:
#3
Quote Originally Posted by TheGoldenGoose:
"About 7,500 city employees contribute to the ERF. It pays about 6,700 retirees, who make an average of $35,000 annually. City employees and pensioners neither pay into nor benefit from federal Social Security — at least for the years they worked for the city".
I never knew that. These people are skrewed. $35K a year for retirees is poverty level. Unless they were smart enough to keep up a decent 401K or other retirement investment. At any rate, you can not and should not depend on Federal Social Security. It's a house of cards.
"About 7,500 city employees contribute to the ERF. It pays about 6,700 retirees, who make an average of $35,000 annually. City employees and pensioners neither pay into nor benefit from federal Social Security — at least for the years they worked for the city".
I never knew that. These people are skrewed. $35K a year for retirees is poverty level. Unless they were smart enough to keep up a decent 401K or other retirement investment. At any rate, you can not and should not depend on Federal Social Security. It's a house of cards.
Do they get Medicare at 65...looks to me that no one has to live up to a contract any more there pensions were extensions of there wages, I'm sure the PBPG will be happy to take them and what's left of there trust fund
Posted:
#4
Quote Originally Posted by joe pockets:
Do they get Medicare at 65...looks to me that no one has to live up to a contract any more there pensions were extensions of there wages, I'm sure the PBPG will be happy to take them and what's left of there trust fund
From Wikipedia:
"A number of state and local employers and their employees in the states of Alaska, California, Colorado, Illinois, Louisiana, Maine, Massachusetts, Nevada, Ohio and Texas are currently exempt from paying the Social Security portion of FICA taxes. They provide alternative retirement and pension plans to their employees. FICA initially did not apply to state and local governments, which were later given the option of participating. Over time, most have elected to participate, but a substantial number remain outside the system"
~~~~~ZOSO~~~~~
Posted:
#5
Quote Originally Posted by TheGoldenGoose:
From Wikipedia:
"A number of state and local employers and their employees in the states of Alaska, California, Colorado, Illinois, Louisiana, Maine, Massachusetts, Nevada, Ohio and Texas are currently exempt from paying the Social Security portion of FICA taxes. They provide alternative retirement and pension plans to their employees. FICA initially did not apply to state and local governments, which were later given the option of participating. Over time, most have elected to participate, but a substantial number remain outside the system"
From Wikipedia:
"A number of state and local employers and their employees in the states of Alaska, California, Colorado, Illinois, Louisiana, Maine, Massachusetts, Nevada, Ohio and Texas are currently exempt from paying the Social Security portion of FICA taxes. They provide alternative retirement and pension plans to their employees. FICA initially did not apply to state and local governments, which were later given the option of participating. Over time, most have elected to participate, but a substantial number remain outside the system"
I think the railroad was same till the late 70s
Posted:
#6
So what happened to the "texas is better than the rest of the country and should be its own country" garbage?
Texas is mainly a one trick pony, when oil is high then Texas and their citizens like to act as if they are full of cash and self sufficient..no need for anything from anyone outside their borders.
Oil gets smacked around and that state probably more than any other in the country gets decimated economically.
Posted:
#7
Texas isn't the only state in trouble..Billions in unfunded obligations in the South Carolina pension funds for
state and local government workers, teachers and police officers are “a
freight train out of control,” a state representative said Tuesday.
https://www.independentmail.com/story/news/politics/2016/08/31/unfunded-sc-pensions-out-control/89648012/
That red ink is expected to grow to $18.2 billion in the next budget year.
Time for another government stimulus package............
https://www.independentmail.com/story/news/politics/2016/08/31/unfunded-sc-pensions-out-control/89648012/
That red ink is expected to grow to $18.2 billion in the next budget year.
Time for another government stimulus package............
Posted:
#11
Quote Originally Posted by Rush51:
That's right... It's a pretty similar premise ; they think (correctly) that less government is better.
I think you are omitting a bit of info..
They think when their coffers are full that less government is better, but they also do not understand that the coffers are full because of taxation on the oil industry which when times are good makes budget balancing easier..
It also helps that they are scraping the bottom of the bucket when it comes to education spending and funding.
A relative of mine got an education degree in good ole Texas, went to work at a local public school with 30 plus kids per class and made Arizona-esque wages of middle 30k.
Then they moved to a horrible democrat state where people actually pay property taxes and their salary for a smaller class size and better funded classrooms was almost triple what it was in good ole Texas..
Then they moved to a horrible democrat state where people actually pay property taxes and their salary for a smaller class size and better funded classrooms was almost triple what it was in good ole Texas..
Then they moved back to Texas and returned to the middle 30k wages and massive classrooms.
Texas is far from being a model of anything positive from a government standpoint, but they sure love to whine and complain loudly.
Posted:
#14
Quote Originally Posted by Johnzimbo34:
You are saying a teacher new on the job in this "Democratic" state start at 100K per year?
You are saying a teacher new on the job in this "Democratic" state start at 100K per year?
I guess if you didnt understand what I read?
I said they got an education in Texas, worked in Texas..that means not new to the profession, but yes new to the area and to THAT position.
We lived in PA for several years and the K teacher at the school our kiddo attended made over 100k and that was also at a public school.
It is pretty easy to find out median salary ranges for teachers, the info is out there. Texas and Arizona are horrible at education spending because property taxes are artificially low and down here when they passed a 1 cent sales tax increase to fund education, the moronic state legislature decreased funding from the general state side to match what was generated from the sales tax increase.
Gotta love paying teachers horrid wages and stuffing the classrooms full so people dont have to pay more than 3k a year in property taxes.
Posted:
#15
Ok so you said your friend made mid 30's in Texas, moved to a Democratic state and make "almost triple" so that would be 100K, then moved back to Texas and went back to making mid-30's.
I doubt your story bro. Unless again I am misreading what you wrote.
BTW, I pay WAY more in property taxes in Texas then I ever did in Democratic California
Posted:
#16
Quote Originally Posted by Johnzimbo34:
Ok so you said your friend made mid 30's in Texas, moved to a Democratic state and make "almost triple" so that would be 100K, then moved back to Texas and went back to making mid-30's.
Ok so you said your friend made mid 30's in Texas, moved to a Democratic state and make "almost triple" so that would be 100K, then moved back to Texas and went back to making mid-30's.
I doubt your story bro. Unless again I am misreading what you wrote.
BTW, I pay WAY more in property taxes in Texas then I ever did in Democratic California
Yes that is the truth regarding pay from Texas to the second location.
I think your information is again lacking, California has a huge loophole for property taxes that is unlike any state in the country, they allow this silly grandfathering garbage so prop taxes are not raised until a buyer steps in who does not qualify for the exemption.
To blindly say Calif is dem so property taxes are always higher than in Texas is silly...
You could live in a gated community in Plano Texas and compare it to a dustbowl Anza mobile home as far as I am concerned.
So if you are trying to make a point, try a little harder.
Posted:
#17
top household incomes are usually dem states (maryland, calif, new jersery etc)
bottom eight household incomes are republican states. (new mexico, alabama, mississippi, etc)
texas is 25th in household income.
top 7 of 8 household income states are dem.
the democrat states take all the smart kids from the small town rural republican states and convert them to democrat.
bottom eight household incomes are republican states. (new mexico, alabama, mississippi, etc)
texas is 25th in household income.
top 7 of 8 household income states are dem.
the democrat states take all the smart kids from the small town rural republican states and convert them to democrat.
Hot Forum Topics
