Pensacola Discussion Forum
Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.

This is a forum based out of Pensacola Florida.


You are not connected. Please login or register

Pensacola Discussion Forum » General Discussion » Lets talk about GOV Pensions if we may

Lets talk about GOV Pensions if we may

+2
Nekochan
2seaoat
6 posters

Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

Go down  Message [Page 2 of 4]

Nekochan

Nekochan

I agree that those who started work on a particular system should keep the benefits that they started with--if at all possible. Especially for those employees over age 45 or so. I think there are a lot of cuts that can be made in federal government spending before we start cutting pensions of current employees. Cut the waste and failing programs before you go after pensions, that's my opinion, anyway. Changes in the pension system should be made for new employees.

Guest


Guest

PACEDOG#1 wrote:
Rogue wrote:ok, it seems that the pensions of fed employees is still unfair and not balanced. it appears rick scott took action to get fl's more balanced. I can appreciate that.

people who are working in gov positions, any, be it teacher, police, social worker, Congress..etc, need to have the same responsibility as I do on paying into retirement plans.

I know this will piss some people off, but why should working for the gov give you so much moe benefits? The pay scale is already better for gov workers, something needs to give so we can get this budget under control. but no one wants to give up thier freebies.

Now heres a real kicker. It seems dumb people make more money if they work for the gov and smart peple make less working for the gov. I think this explains a lot of our problems Neutral . heres a interesting article from cnn on the subject.

---

On average, the federal government spends 48% more on benefits for its employees than private employers do.

As for salaries, federal workers make just 2% more than private sector workers.

But there's a big difference when you break it down by education.

For example, for federal workers with only a high school diploma, their benefits are 72% higher, and their wages are 21% higher than they would be in the private sector.

On the other hand, workers with doctorates or professional degrees are worse off working for the government. Their benefits are about the same and they earn 23% less than those in the private sector.
http://caffertyfile.blogs.cnn.com/2012/01/31/do-federal-workers-deserve-better-benefits-and-higher-salaries-than-private-sector-employees/

You could have very well been a federal worker if you chose to be one. It is that plain and simple. You chose not to and now you want to turn the tables on the people who have been guaranteed their benefits under the idea that it is not fair. No, it is plenty fair.

I could have chose to teach in the Federal Prison System making $37,500 as a starting salary in 1995-1996. The problem with that was that when I was interviewed and "affirmative actioned" out of a job at Saufley Field, but offered one at a Medium-High Security facility in Estil, South Carolina, I said no. I didn't want to take the chance of getting gang raped, have my family threatened or the like. It would have been BANK too. Guaranteed GS-11 track minimum and retirement at 55 years of age (that is the age limit for those workers). Do I begrduge those folks? Nope, except for the female hired that had less qualifications, less experience, and sat in the waiting room for the interview telling racist jokes.

With Florida state workers, we were hired in under one set of rules and then Rick Scott decides to change those rules midstream in the game for most of us. It's already been established that state workers were hired under the contractual obligation of the state to pay the retirement 100%. Scott has appealed this decision and now realizes that he is probably going to lose this as well and that is why he is pushing to oust all of the judges in the state...he's pretty much pulling an FDR or attempting to stack the state Supreme Court so that he can get rulings favorable to his politics. The problem with that is he just can't do that according to has been decided. He's going to have to refund mine and my spouses 3% each soon. It was a tax on state workers and a pay cut for no reason. The FRS is solid. Last year the gains were 22% in the system. The year before that 14%. If it is not broke, it does not need fixing. Balancing the state budget on the backs of many state workers who have not had raises in 5+ years was a slap in the face. While we will most likely get a GOP POTUS, Florida is going the other way when Scott comes up for reelection.

I sympathize with your situation as a teacher. as I said i dont think teachers make enough. Teachers should look at acoss the nation why so many of them invest in unions which collect so much and leave them with such a low rate of pay. Its because the teachers unions have become a arm of the gov making themselves rich by making sure teachers pay stays low on a average.

And yes, i could have been a federal employee, still could if I choose. But I am preferring private practice these days due to economical reasons of the changing factors in healthcare now.

Dont take my stance as a personal attack on you. my stance is basic anti big gov conservatism. I was studying the gov budget and seen that pensions were extreme which I have already said a few times now that i later found out social security was in those numbers.

Its a delicate situation and imagine that it will get ignored untill the bill cant be paid.

because who ever tackles it, wont be in politics very long, so I could care less if rick stays or goes to be honest.

budgets do need to be balanced at the end of the day, no matter who is in office of whatever office. No one wants thiers touched.

You talk about having 3% takin from you over that. Your not alone, people out here in non gov jobs have had to take a hit too. Ive had my annual raises cut do to cut backs. Ive had to not hire people and do the job of 2-3 people do to cut backs for the last few years. Not only that do to gov regulations and obamacare im watching my profession focus on hiring younger people with less experiance so they can get them cheaper and this has made the pay scale go down. So I know what its like to feel the brunt of budget problems.

Perhaps we just need to do like Neko said and cut all these unessary social programs so the people who are hard working core backbone of america dont have to bare the whole burden. seems like to me politicians, unions and social workers are making out like bandits.

Thats the best half assed apology i can come up with What a Face

Guest


Guest

There won't be protections when we hit the cliff... see eu countries.

This is a bit of a reach... but it's something to take into consideration... FDR was against public unions and wrote eloquently about it. I don't think his perspective was as an individual citizen... but he made those points nonetheless.

A key ingredient that we should recognize is that we don't have a fair position at the table when these deals are made... we do elect the politician... but that servitude is nearly over after election because we aren't observent enough or hold them accountable enough.

The other point is simple math... no matter the contribution from a public employee... all of those dollars come from us.

Nekochan

Nekochan

PkrBum wrote:There won't be protections when we hit the cliff... see eu countries.

This is a bit of a reach... but it's something to take into consideration... FDR was against public unions and wrote eloquently about it. I don't think his perspective was as an individual citizen... but he made those points nonetheless.

A key ingredient that we should recognize is that we don't have a fair position at the table when these deals are made... we do elect the politician... but that servitude is nearly over after election because we aren't observent enough or hold them accountable enough.

The other point is simple math... no matter the contribution from a public employee... all of those dollars come from us.

I think FDR was onto something. I am against public employees being able to strike. I think they should be able to negotiate on some terms, but I am totally against them striking.

Guest


Guest

There would have to be an honest examination of inflation and govt policies...

That won't happen.

ZVUGKTUBM

ZVUGKTUBM

None of this talk is going to matter when the Millenial Generation starts getting hold of the levers of power in government in the next 10-15 years. They are going to look at how badly the Baby Boomers ran things (yes, we voted in all of the deficit-spenders and enjoyed the free ride from all of it), and they are going to radically alter things in order to save the nation and future generations. They are going to make the hard choices, the radical cuts in spending that are necessary, and many people, especially from the Baby Boom generation are not going to be happy about it.

My daughter and I were talking about this at length last night. She is a liberal-Democrat and worries about how the looming Social Security cuts are going to effect old people (the pensions will also be reformed in the same fashion). I told her I expect this to happen in my lifetime, after the fiscal cliff can no longer be avoided.

Those Millenial Congress-folk will simply make the cuts and grandma will have to make due.

http://www.best-electric-barbecue-grills.com

Guest


Guest

ZVUGKTUBM wrote:None of this talk is going to matter when the Millenial Generation starts getting hold of the levers of power in government in the next 10-15 years. They are going to look at how badly the Baby Boomers ran things (yes, we voted in all of the deficit-spenders and enjoyed the free ride from all of it), and they are going to radically alter things in order to save the nation and future generations. They are going to make the hard choices, the radical cuts in spending that are necessary, and many people, especially from the Baby Boom generation are not going to be happy about it.

My daughter and I were talking about this at length last night. She is a liberal-Democrat and worries about how the looming Social Security cuts are going to effect old people (the pensions will also be reformed in the same fashion). I told her I expect this to happen in my lifetime, after the fiscal cliff can no longer be avoided.

Those Millenial Congress-folk will simply make the cuts and grandma will have to make due.

Yes Z

Gen Y is going to kill us off.

They are children of the boomers and my gen X .

They are the most selfish generation of us all

This generation of people will be extreme bean counters, they will move swift, a concious is not thier best atribute as they grew up in a video game technology world.

Perhaps if we are all lucky the world will end and we wont have to face them as our controllers.

Nekochan

Nekochan

OK, fill me in--what age group consists of Gen x, y and z...or whatever. I am getting too old to keep track of the youngsters!

Guest


Guest

Nekochan wrote:OK, fill me in--what age group consists of Gen x, y and z...or whatever. I am getting too old to keep track of the youngsters!

Heres a quick rundown.

http://suite101.com/article/veterans-baby-boomers-gen-x-gen-y-and-gen-z-a185353

Its interesting to look this stuff up. Ive had it shoved in my head not of my own will lol

Nekochan

Nekochan

OK, good website.
I and hubby are both the 2nd part of the baby boomers.
Our kids, although 8 years apart in age, are both Gen Y.
I think a lot of the Gen Y kids are selfish but I also think that a lot of them are good kids. I feel very fortunate in that both of my kids have a strong work ethic. Both of them had much more in the way of material things while growing up than I had when I was growing up but hubby and I didn't just give, give, give everything to them, either. I also do think many in their generation have had to downsize their expectations of salary, material goods, etc over the past 5 years. My son is starting to realize that he is on his own when it comes to planning for his future and retirement--he cannot count on Social Security....he will be 30 in about a year--unbelievable that I have an almost 30 year old kid. But anyway, he told me recently that he had upped his contribution to his company's 401K plan from 5% to 10%. He's taking his future seriously. I'm glad that he gets it that he has to be responsible for himself. I just hope the government doesn't tax the hell out of his 401K at some point in the future...and the future really concerns me for my kids and my future grandkids.

Guest


Guest

Nekochan wrote:OK, good website.
I and hubby are both the 2nd part of the baby boomers.
Our kids, although 8 years apart in age, are both Gen Y.
I think a lot of the Gen Y kids are selfish but I also think that a lot of them are good kids. I feel very fortunate in that both of my kids have a strong work ethic. Both of them had much more in the way of material things while growing up than I had when I was growing up but hubby and I didn't just give, give, give everything to them, either. I also do think many in their generation have had to downsize their expectations of salary, material goods, etc over the past 5 years. My son is starting to realize that he is on his own when it comes to planning for his future and retirement--he cannot count on Social Security....he will be 30 in about a year--unbelievable that I have an almost 30 year old kid. But anyway, he told me recently that he had upped his contribution to his company's 401K plan from 5% to 10%. He's taking his future seriously. I'm glad that he gets it that he has to be responsible for himself. I just hope the government doesn't tax the hell out of his 401K at some point in the future...and the future really concerns me for my kids and my future grandkids.

our kids are simular. I worry for the same reasons you do about the future.
Sounds like your son knows what hes doing. I know that makes you proud Smile

ZVUGKTUBM

ZVUGKTUBM

Rogue wrote:Yes Z

Gen Y is going to kill us off.

They are children of the boomers and my gen X .

They are the most selfish generation of us all

This generation of people will be extreme bean counters, they will move swift, a concious is not thier best atribute as they grew up in a video game technology world.

Perhaps if we are all lucky the world will end and we wont have to face them as our controllers.


I think the Millenials are those born between 1980 and 1995. Generation Y constitutes those born after 1995.

Millenials are really different. Corporate America is having fits trying to market to them. Millenials don't require the material things that Boomers longed for. They don't aspire to own huge homes, and many don't even aspire to own cars. The latter has Detroit extremely worried. They are more socially aware, likely more liberal. They would be ones who would be more likely to vote for high-speed rail, public transportation, and lots of things that many from previous generations deem superfluous.

We can't forget that Millenials have paid their dues--several thousands of them have served abroad in combat zones in the last few years, and many have given their lives in the line of duty.

I am thinking they are going to change the direction and focus of government when they assume power. I think they will look back on their experiences in Iraq and Afghanistan and use their power to steer the nation away from being the world's policeman. This will go hand-in-hand with navigating the fiscal cliff, which will also include the government reducing the size and scope of the military and breaking many promises to people expecting payments from the government (they are going to reduce spending across the board). The latter will include cutting Social Security for their parents. I also don't think they will be averse to taxation, either. The national debt will either be defaulted on or it will be paid back--if it is the latter, the Millenials are not going to pussy-foot around over taxes--they are going to tax people; including those who helped build the national debt to where it is today (Boomers).

I developed a lot of this thinking after reading a book earlier this year that was written in 1997 (The Fourth Turning) that predicted with stark accuracy much of the malaise we have found ourselves in since the early 00s (warfare and finacial crisis). There is still a bigger crisis to come in the next 10-12 years (which may include a big war), and the authors of this book have predicted that the Millenials will be crucial to successfully seeing the nation through the crisis, and re-establishing a new social order afterward.

http://www.best-electric-barbecue-grills.com

knothead

knothead

[quote="PACEDOG#1"]
Rogue wrote:ok, it seems that the pensions of fed employees is still unfair and not balanced. it appears rick scott took action to get fl's more balanced. I can appreciate that.

people who are working in gov positions, any, be it teacher, police, social worker, Congress..etc, need to have the same responsibility as I do on paying into retirement plans.

I know this will piss some people off, but why should working for the gov give you so much moe benefits? The pay scale is already better for gov workers, something needs to give so we can get this budget under control. but no one wants to give up thier freebies.

Now heres a real kicker. It seems dumb people make more money if they work for the gov and smart peple make less working for the gov. I think this explains a lot of our problems Neutral . heres a interesting article from cnn on the subject.

---

On average, the federal government spends 48% more on benefits for its employees than private employers do.

As for salaries, federal workers make just 2% more than private sector workers.

But there's a big difference when you break it down by education.

For example, for federal workers with only a high school diploma, their benefits are 72% higher, and their wages are 21% higher than they would be in the private sector.

On the other hand, workers with doctorates or professional degrees are worse off working for the government. Their benefits are about the same and they earn 23% less than those in the private sector.
http://caffertyfile.blogs.cnn.com/2012/01/31/do-federal-workers-deserve-better-benefits-and-higher-salaries-than-private-sector-employees/

Scott is an arse. There was no need for state workers to kick in 3% when the FRS is the most solvent of all state retirement systems in the United States. He has lost the lawsuit regarding this as well. I think he may have appealed it, but we are awaiting an answer.

Plenty of people were making fun of state workers for taking those jobs that pay quite less than what the private sector is paying for the same work. Everyone was laughing and yucking it up over our pay and now that they see our trade off for a below market salary was a decent, but no bank breaking retirement, they get all butt hurt.


Florida Supreme Court to hear oral arguments on FEA lawsuit over pension “contribution”

September 6, 2012

TALLAHASSEE – This Friday, September 7, the Florida Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in Scott vs. Williams, the appeal of Circuit Judge Jackie Fulford’s ruling earlier this year that the 2011 pension law changes were unconstitutional.

When current public employees were hired, the state entered into a contractual agreement. It made a promise to teachers, law-enforcement officers, firefighters, nurses and other public-service workers that their retirement plan would be funded by the state. Mandating a 3-percent “contribution” breaks that promise and unfairly targets only public employees for a 3-percent tax increase.

FEA challenged the pension tax on state workers and won a ruling in FEA’s favor. Last March, Leon County Circuit Judge Jackie Fulford struck down the mandatory retirement contributions imposed since July 2011. She ordered refunds with interest for all employees enrolled in the FRS prior to July 2011. Governor Scott and legislative leaders were unhappy with the court ruling and decided to spend more taxpayer money for an appeal. The state spent over 500,000 on the first case.

The Circuit judge also ruled on the state’s efforts to impose a reduction in the cost-of-living adjustments for those retiring after July 1, 2011. Florida law requires a 3 percent cost-of-living increase during retirement regardless of years of service or dates of service. The trial judge agreed that the changes made by the legislature and the governor violated this contract with current state employees in the Florida Retirement System and also constituted taking private property without full compensation.

The Legislature broke its promise and broke its contract with current public employees. Legislative leaders deliberately chose to disregard the Florida Constitution and ignored constitutional law. The law says that the state had a contract with all current participants in the Florida Retirement System and could not just take away benefits from participants in the plan.

The Florida Retirement System (FRS) has been shown to be one of the most actuarially sound state retirement systems in the country. The money derived from the 3-percent tax is not needed to shore up the strength of the system, but was used by the governor and legislative leadership to make up a budget shortfall on the backs of teachers, law-enforcement officers, firefighters, nurses and other state workers. And it came at the same time the governor and legislative leaders reduced the government’s contribution to the retirement system by more than 3 percent and lowered taxes for wealthy corporations.

The Florida Retirement System (FRS) pension plan gained $19 billion in the fiscal year that ended on June 30, 2012. The 22-percent gain is the biggest in 25 years, reports the State Board of Administration, and larger than the 14-percent gain from last year. The total value of the pension plan has soared to $128.4 billion. Does that sound like a pension system in financial trouble?

The 3 percent mandate is essentially an income tax levied only on state workers belonging to the Florida Retirement System. For teachers and other public school employees, it is a salary cut that’s compounded by years of budget cuts, layoffs, increasing healthcare premiums and five years without a raise. The stark budget cuts pushed by Gov. Rick Scott and the Legislature only deepened those losses. The additional loss of 3 percent of their salary is an insult to hard working Floridians who have dedicated their lives to state employment.

The leaders in the Legislature chose this irresponsible, reckless and unconstitutional way of balancing the state budget instead of properly addressing the shortfall they created. Over the past decade, the Legislature has chosen to provide tax giveaways to investors and corporations that have accumulated to billions and billions of dollars. If those tax breaks had not been enacted, there would have been no budget shortfall.

In fact, the Legislature approved further tax breaks for corporations without any public debate during the final hours of 2011 legislative session, while they cut the salaries of hard-working families and enacted severe budget cuts on our public schools. Those tax breaks continued during the 2012 legislative session.

Legislative leaders have a number of avenues available to address any state budget shortfall, including closing sales-tax loopholes, aggressively collecting sales tax on Internet sales, or repealing the tax giveaways for investors and corporations. Those tax giveaways were widely touted as ways to create jobs and grow the state’s economy, but after billions and billions of dollars’ worth of tax giveaways over the past 14 years under Republican leadership, Florida has one of the highest unemployment rates, and its economy is one of the weakest in the nation.


Correct me if I am wrong, if the state workers are required to pay a 3% tax for their retirement benefit but get a 3% increase in pay, WTF? Your thoughts?

Guest


Guest

Correct me if I am wrong, if the state workers are required to pay a 3% tax for their retirement benefit but get a 3% increase in pay, WTF? Your thoughts?

seems like they break even and come out on top to me. They are being paid to pay it.

was that what you were asking?

Guest


Guest

The cut off to get a federal job is 37 years old.

Guest


Guest

Nekochan wrote:
Damaged Eagle wrote:
Nekochan wrote:My husband would take that, Damaged Eagle. With his time served and experience--and with the housing allowance and all that, he'd be making considerably more money on the military pay scale.

Lets talk about GOV Pensions if we may - Page 2 Is?VDJ2l2i8gra_pmNrj8B8z1eAzqpaTT83lA10BpqRt9Q

That's not what you said last time I suggested that all government employees should be on the military pay scale. As I recall a couple people became aggressive about where they should fall on the pay scale because they had a college degree and thought that made them more deserving and rated officer pay.

No one ever said that a person would or should get rich working for the government.

*****SMILE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U5X_Dd_6Czk

Smile

That's because you said that a teacher with a college degree should start as an E-5, which is ridiculous.

No one ever said you'd get rich working for the government...

http://www.militaryfactory.com/2013-military-pay-chart.asp

I'm sorry that $2,000 a month (E-5 starting pay), plus BAQ, COMRATS, COLA, and health care isn't enough for you to live on as a starting teacher. Two grand a month is more than a starting teacher makes at the private school in this county without all the extras I just stated every month they make about $18,000 a year without benefits because I know a couple of them. Which means those private school teachers are paying for all those extras out of their own pocket... Isn't the public school union stance that they want comparible wages to the private sector?... Hm.m..m... Sounds like I'm overcompensating the public emplyees here also. Maybe I should start those public school teachers as E-3's!

*****SMILE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wQzUCO7rG0M

Smile



Guest


Guest

Nekochan wrote:What you have read about federal salaries is correct. The lower level federal workers make a lot more working for the federal government than they would in the private market. Someone who might make 20K in the private market can make 30K+ working for the federal government. But the higher skilled and educated federal workers make the same or less than they would in the private sector. My husband is an aerospace engineer and he has worked in both the private sector and for the federal government and his pay has been on average about the same whether with the federal government or private sector. I say this because the private companies he worked for may have paid him a little higher salary, but the federal government benefits are generous, so it has pretty much has evened out. (However, I should note that federal workers have been under a pay freeze for the last 2 years.) Most companies do not today offer pension plans, other than 401K plans. But federal workers have a pension plan that they pay into plus a 401 type plan they can contribute to. l think they need to contribute more to their pensions and there needs to be another round of federal pension reform. So all in all--when it comes to benefits, most federal workers come out ahead when they start collecting their pensions. But for doctors, scientists and other highly skilled workers--I do not believe that they are being overpaid by the federal government compared to the civilian market.

No. My conterparts in the private sector were making 5-6 times more than I did at the same job in the military.

Unless you're now saying that the military is underpaid and should be allowed to unionize.

*****SMILE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wQzUCO7rG0M

Smile

Guest


Guest

Rogue wrote:Yes Z

Gen Y is going to kill us off.

They are children of the boomers and my gen X .

They are the most selfish generation of us all

This generation of people will be extreme bean counters, they will move swift, a concious is not thier best atribute as they grew up in a video game technology world.

Perhaps if we are all lucky the world will end and we wont have to face them as our controllers.


Lets talk about GOV Pensions if we may - Page 2 Is?xZrOz2o2aQnUfNFAT37PttGYhMPho7bkkomqeoMn8fg

It's only a matter of...

*****SMILE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ntm1YfehK7U

Smile

gulfbeachbandit

gulfbeachbandit

Dreamsglore wrote:The cut off to get a federal job is 37 years old.

That's not true. No age limit on federal jobs but there is one on joining the military. You may be confused, misinformed, or just telling another lie, as usual.

Nekochan

Nekochan

Damaged Eagle wrote:
Nekochan wrote:What you have read about federal salaries is correct. The lower level federal workers make a lot more working for the federal government than they would in the private market. Someone who might make 20K in the private market can make 30K+ working for the federal government. But the higher skilled and educated federal workers make the same or less than they would in the private sector. My husband is an aerospace engineer and he has worked in both the private sector and for the federal government and his pay has been on average about the same whether with the federal government or private sector. I say this because the private companies he worked for may have paid him a little higher salary, but the federal government benefits are generous, so it has pretty much has evened out. (However, I should note that federal workers have been under a pay freeze for the last 2 years.) Most companies do not today offer pension plans, other than 401K plans. But federal workers have a pension plan that they pay into plus a 401 type plan they can contribute to. l think they need to contribute more to their pensions and there needs to be another round of federal pension reform. So all in all--when it comes to benefits, most federal workers come out ahead when they start collecting their pensions. But for doctors, scientists and other highly skilled workers--I do not believe that they are being overpaid by the federal government compared to the civilian market.

No. My conterparts in the private sector were making 5-6 times more than I did at the same job in the military.

Unless you're now saying that the military is underpaid and should be allowed to unionize.

*****SMILE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wQzUCO7rG0M

Smile

I wasn't talking about military, I was talking about federal civilian employees....but anyway--

Most civilians work for 35+ years in the civilian workforce. Most military people retire at 20 years. Military pay charts increase in pay by number of years served. Most active duty people never reach the 30+ year mark in the military. If my husband were active duty now, he'd have over 30 years of service and his base pay would be over 100K. His housing pay would be nearly $2000 a month, most places in the US. Of course, he'd be away from home half the time, but he'd be well compensated. And he'd be looking at a damn good pension ahead of him, as well.


Most civilian employees do not receive free housing or free health care or any of the other allowances that military people get. My family has been on both sides of the coin as well--there are pros and cons on both sides. Military people earn every penny of their pay but looking at base pay only tells half the story about military pay.

I think the military is pretty well compensated, with all the allowances they receive, but then how much is enough money for someone who's sent out to be shot at?



Last edited by Nekochan on 10/27/2012, 1:45 am; edited 2 times in total

Nekochan

Nekochan

Damaged Eagle wrote:
Nekochan wrote:
Damaged Eagle wrote:
Nekochan wrote:My husband would take that, Damaged Eagle. With his time served and experience--and with the housing allowance and all that, he'd be making considerably more money on the military pay scale.

Lets talk about GOV Pensions if we may - Page 2 Is?VDJ2l2i8gra_pmNrj8B8z1eAzqpaTT83lA10BpqRt9Q

That's not what you said last time I suggested that all government employees should be on the military pay scale. As I recall a couple people became aggressive about where they should fall on the pay scale because they had a college degree and thought that made them more deserving and rated officer pay.

No one ever said that a person would or should get rich working for the government.

*****SMILE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U5X_Dd_6Czk

Smile

That's because you said that a teacher with a college degree should start as an E-5, which is ridiculous.

No one ever said you'd get rich working for the government...

http://www.militaryfactory.com/2013-military-pay-chart.asp

I'm sorry that $2,000 a month (E-5 starting pay), plus BAQ, COMRATS, COLA, and health care isn't enough for you to live on as a starting teacher. Two grand a month is more than a starting teacher makes at the private school in this county without all the extras I just stated every month they make about $18,000 a year without benefits because I know a couple of them. Which means those private school teachers are paying for all those extras out of their own pocket... Isn't the public school union stance that they want comparible wages to the private sector?... Hm.m..m... Sounds like I'm overcompensating the public emplyees here also. Maybe I should start those public school teachers as E-3's!

*****SMILE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wQzUCO7rG0M

Smile




One post you're talking about how well E -5s are paid, the next post you're saying that civilian counterparts make 5 times more.
scratch

Nekochan

Nekochan

Damaged Eagle wrote:
Nekochan wrote:
Damaged Eagle wrote:
Nekochan wrote:My husband would take that, Damaged Eagle. With his time served and experience--and with the housing allowance and all that, he'd be making considerably more money on the military pay scale.

Lets talk about GOV Pensions if we may - Page 2 Is?VDJ2l2i8gra_pmNrj8B8z1eAzqpaTT83lA10BpqRt9Q

That's not what you said last time I suggested that all government employees should be on the military pay scale. As I recall a couple people became aggressive about where they should fall on the pay scale because they had a college degree and thought that made them more deserving and rated officer pay.

No one ever said that a person would or should get rich working for the government.

*****SMILE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U5X_Dd_6Czk

Smile

That's because you said that a teacher with a college degree should start as an E-5, which is ridiculous.

No one ever said you'd get rich working for the government...

http://www.militaryfactory.com/2013-military-pay-chart.asp

I'm sorry that $2,000 a month (E-5 starting pay), plus BAQ, COMRATS, COLA, and health care isn't enough for you to live on as a starting teacher. Two grand a month is more than a starting teacher makes at the private school in this county without all the extras I just stated every month they make about $18,000 a year without benefits because I know a couple of them. Which means those private school teachers are paying for all those extras out of their own pocket... Isn't the public school union stance that they want comparible wages to the private sector?... Hm.m..m... Sounds like I'm overcompensating the public emplyees here also. Maybe I should start those public school teachers as E-3's!

*****SMILE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wQzUCO7rG0M

Smile




$18,000 for a teacher--after 4 years of making little/no money and paying a lot of money to go to school.....is little more than min wage. They would have been better off taking a job straight out of high school and they likely would be doing better after 4 years of working. Or they could have gone to trade school for a year.

Guest


Guest

The free market would and does pay much more for very good education... the govt just dumbs us down.

Nekochan

Nekochan

Well, the whole idea of treating federal civilian workers or state workers the same as the military is silly. There is a reason why the military has many allowances and why they have a special retirement plan. Serving in the military is not the same as working as a civilian.

Perhaps Damaged Eagle agrees with Obama when Obama said that he wants to hire teachers....the federal government doesn't hire teachers for State schools but maybe the Federal government should take schooling over from the States and in fact federalize all government jobs at local and state levels...

Guest


Guest

ghandi wrote:
Dreamsglore wrote:The cut off to get a federal job is 37 years old.

That's not true. No age limit on federal jobs but there is one on joining the military. You may be confused, misinformed, or just telling another lie, as usual.

Well we do agree on at least one thing. My brother went to work for the feds after he retired from the Army and he was 42 years old at the time.

Sponsored content



Back to top  Message [Page 2 of 4]

Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

Pensacola Discussion Forum » General Discussion » Lets talk about GOV Pensions if we may

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum