Taxpayers don't actually pay union worker's pensions

[we vs us]

Actually under their contract, their wages were never reduced to implement the additional 5% "deferred," nor is the "deferral" voulentary.  Their wages were increased to match that amount, so the term "deferred income" has no value, except to idiots.

 

Cite?  

[Gaspar]

Why so mean?

The employees negotiate their salary and benefits and one year they didn't take pay raises instead agreeing to set up better pension plans.

By the way, look up deferred income on any search engine. It is a standard, well-recognized accounting practice. I guess that makes all accountants and tax professionals idiots in your eyes.

Oh yeah, you were the financial genius who told us the Dow was going to plummet 2,000 points right before it rose 2,000 points.

No, it's how the term is used.  If your boss came to you and said "We are going to take 5% of your income and defer it for your retirement."   You may not be too happy, because that's 5% that you would otherwise take home and feed your family.

Now. . .If your boss came to you and said, "I'm going to take 5% of your income and defer it for your retirement, but but to make up for it, I'm also giving you a 5% raise."  Most non-idiots would think "hey the boss is paying 5% into my retirement. Great!"  Now, if your boss is the government, again most non-idiots would conclude that the the government is paying the 5%.  Since the government has no money, that additional 5% raise/deferral comes from the people.

Beyond that, no matter how you analyse it 100 pennies of every dollar contributed to teacher's pensions come from tax payers.  Exactly 0 of 100 pennies of every dollar are contributed from any other source.  Therefore 100% of this article is false because it is based on a false premise.  That false premise is so painfully obvious that for someone to attempt to defend it, gives me pause to think.

I apologize for using the term idiot, but for the life of me, I can't find a more accurate term.

. . .and yes, again, I frequently humble myself with the stock market. 

[cannon_fodder]

+1 to gaspar for his argument.

1) 100% comes from the government.
2) deferred compensation is generally a bs tax term.  It can mean paying a retired partner, a sabatical, wages in the off season, or paying into retirement.  If it isn't money willingly deducted now in exchange for future payments the terms facial meaning is lost.
3) teachers do not fund their own pension.  If I made $50k a year and contributed 10% to my pension I don't say I make $45k a year - it is a fundamental difference in how we think.  The fx are the same, but the reality is different.  The teacher makes $45k and has a negotiated benefit where the state pays $5k to a pension.

How is a mandatory payment by the government directly to a teachers retirement account for the express purpose of funding retirement somehow not the government funding retirement?

That's like saying I don't have paid parking because I negotiated for parking to be included in my employment contract.

Also, is this a defined benefits plan?

[we vs us]

Beyond that, no matter how you analyse it 100 pennies of every dollar contributed to teacher's pensions come from tax payers. 

Are teachers paid dollar for dollar from certain tax buckets?  Do they get money from property tax levies only? 

Because to be honest, if their pay isn't allocated from one specific source, then it doesn't all necessarily come from taxpayers.  It comes from sale of property, or bond sales, or liens on property or whatever. 

My point is that saying it "all comes from taxpayers" is a statement designed to convey an ideological message.  In point of fact, it "all comes from the government," which has many funding sources. Saying that it all comes from taxpayers implies that the group is stealing directly from you, the beleaguered populace, to support their fancy lives.  Which is manifestly not true.  Look at the scholarship, the reporting, and the people around you.  There is plenty of evidence up and down the ladder showing plainly that public service unions are not living off the fat of the land, and are not sucking the state dry.  In cases where their contracts have been out of whack or "gold plated," they've by and large given concessions to allow the things to continue. 

[Gaspar]

Are teachers paid dollar for dollar from certain tax buckets?  Do they get money from property tax levies only? 

Because to be honest, if their pay isn't allocated from one specific source, then it doesn't all necessarily come from taxpayers.  It comes from sale of property, or bond sales, or liens on property or whatever. 

My point is that saying it "all comes from taxpayers" is a statement designed to convey an ideological message.  In point of fact, it "all comes from the government," which has many funding sources. Saying that it all comes from taxpayers implies that the group is stealing directly from you, the beleaguered populace, to support their fancy lives.  Which is manifestly not true.  Look at the scholarship, the reporting, and the people around you.  There is plenty of evidence up and down the ladder showing plainly that public service unions are not living off the fat of the land, and are not sucking the state dry.  In cases where their contracts have been out of whack or "gold plated," they've by and large given concessions to allow the things to continue. 

The language you use always delights me.  You betray your own message in most cases based on your lexicon and usage.

First the green:
These funding sources, are they based on the work, transactions, investments or production of the taxpayer?

Now the red:
What if they are stealing indirectly?  Is there a difference?  Why would I or anyone else consider it stealing?

Now the Orange:
No, they are not "living off the fat of the land," that would imply production.  Instead, they are "living off the fat of the people," and the hard work of the individuals they claim to serve.  They are parasitic.

As for concessions, in the next 12-24 hours a decision must be made to lay off up to 1,000 state workers in Wisconsin, or to vote on the budget amendments that will force members of the teacher's union to pay a very small percentage (far less then most private sector jobs) into their pensions and healthcare plans.  They will also give up the privilege granted them to collectively bargain for benefits (not wages).  Very soon, we will have definitive answers on the will and spirit of this labor union.

[Red Arrow]

The language you use always delights me.  You betray your own message in most cases based on your lexicon and usage.

Wevsus could be a radio talk show host.  (Left side, of course)

[we vs us]

Wevsus could be a radio talk show host.  (Left side, of course)

Well geez I'm flattered.  Sadly, Air America isn't returning my calls these days. 

Because they're out of business. *rimshot*

Gassy: If your thinking all springs from the assumption that government is a version of original sin, then of course these public employees will be twice or three-times damned.  But let's be clear: that's where it comes from . . . a hostility not just to our system but to any system. The union critique is just a branch on that tree. 

And in case you haven't been watching the hollowing out of our manufacturing sector over the last several decades, we're no longer really a nation of producers, anyway.  We're a nation of RNs, of waiters and waitresses, of data entry clerks, and janitors.  Is it any wonder that one of the last most powerful union shops is based on service sector jobs?  It's the only kind of job we as a nation do anymore.   

[TeeDub]

And the majority of people seem to agree that the public pensions need to be reduced and collective bargaining needs to go.

I just don't see why police and fire get a pass.

[Townsend]

I just don't see why police and fire get a pass.

Bad for politics.

[Red Arrow]

Well geez I'm flattered. 

It was more a comment on your style than a compliment.  Don't break your arm patting yourself on the back.

[we vs us]

It was more a comment on your style than a compliment.  Don't break your arm patting yourself on the back.

Oh don't worry, I won't.

[nathanm]

These funding sources, are they based on the work, transactions, investments or production of the taxpayer?

Fees charged for services rendered can't fairly be called taxes in the general sense. There are, however, some (or even many) fees that ought to be called taxes. Nonetheless, in general, it is possible for government to have revenue other than taxes. Pre-semiprivatization, the Post Office would have been a good example of a revenue source. Fees for copies of maps or for deed recording or court filing fees also ought not be considered taxes. Nor should your utility bills, even when the service is provisioned by a government agency, as it is in many areas.

You seem to be arguing that all government revenue is morally suspect, even when it is charging a fee for services rendered just as a private company would.

[Gaspar]

the Post Office would have been a good example of a revenue source.

You seem to be arguing that all government revenue is morally suspect, even when it is charging a fee for services rendered just as a private company would.

Wonder how much the Post Office made last year? 
Oh, yeah!  Negative $8.5 Billion.

Ok, you've got me.  The huge amounts of "Government Revenue" generated by making copies, or filing papers related to private transactions should more than cover any outlay.

Get real. 

[guido911]

Nate is arguing for the sake of arguing again.

[RecycleMichael]

Let me try to help nathan...these guys can't be that dense.

There are other government revenues besides tax dollars.

Here is my example. The city of Tulsa has a split system of residential trash pickup. North of I-244 and west of Yale avenue has one level of trash service and it is picked up weekly by city of Tulsa crews that are members of the AFSCME Union. They work hard and recent surveys show 95% of their customers are satisfied with their service. 

The remainder of the city is picked up by a consortium of dozens of private haulers, none of whom are unionized. Recent surveys show 93% of their customers are satified with their service.

The northwest quadrant of the city has union workers who have pensions due upon retirement. Their salaries have been paid by ratepayers, not taxpayers, and only by the collected rates of their customers. If you lived in an apartment, you paid nothing toward their salary or their retirement. If you lived in the biggest two/thirds of the city, your rates went to a private company who may have used pensioned employees or more likely temps.

Both of these examples contribute government revenue.

Show me where your definition of taxpayer money pays the union workers (who, by the way pick up almost the same amount of trash per household for three dollars less per month).