Capt. Al Haynes sorta OT.

Jay Honeck wrote:

Of course, "retirement pay" comes out of a different bucket of cash in the
state's budget then "teacher's salary", so ON PAPER they LOOK like they
"saved the taxpayers some money"...

Typically, retirement pay doesn't come out of current taxes at all. The employer
sets a certain amount of money aside every year as a retirement account. Typically,
this money is invested in stock and bond accounts and will grow at the rate of
between 5% and 15% a year. Some government and education system pensions are keyed
to the market even after retirement - my mother's pension payments go up and down
with the stock market, and she has not tired of complaining about it for the last
three years.

In any case, salaries and benefits for those still working are paid for out of
tax revenue. This includes payments into the retirement account from which their
pensions will eventually come. Pension payments for retired people are not - they
are paid out of withdrawals from the pension funds. In part, they are pre-paid by
taxes that were paid during their period of employment, but the majority comes
from interest on the account.

George Patterson
Great discoveries are not announced with "Eureka!". What's usually said is
"Hummmmm... That's interesting...."

G.R. Patterson III wrote:

Jay Honeck wrote:

Of course, "retirement pay" comes out of a different bucket of cash in the
state's budget then "teacher's salary", so ON PAPER they LOOK like they
"saved the taxpayers some money"...


Typically, retirement pay doesn't come out of current taxes at all. The employer
sets a certain amount of money aside every year as a retirement account. Typically,
this money is invested in stock and bond accounts and will grow at the rate of
between 5% and 15% a year. Some government and education system pensions are keyed
to the market even after retirement - my mother's pension payments go up and down
with the stock market, and she has not tired of complaining about it for the last
three years.

Where does this "certain amount of money" to be set aside every year
come from if note from current tax revenues?


In any case, salaries and benefits for those still working are paid for out of
tax revenue. This includes payments into the retirement account from which their
pensions will eventually come. Pension payments for retired people are not - they
are paid out of withdrawals from the pension funds. In part, they are pre-paid by
taxes that were paid during their period of employment, but the majority comes
from interest on the account.

Not necessarily. Just look at all of the corporations that are now
having to pour hundreds of millions into their pension funds to keep
them solvent.


Matt

Tom Sixkiller wrote:
"Matthew S. Whiting" wrote in message
...

Tom Sixkiller wrote:

"Matthew S. Whiting" wrote in message
...


Richard Hertz wrote:


Yeah, but they only have to work 180 days out of the year and work only

7


hour days and then get retirement plans that are killing the tax

payers.

And how much teaching experience do you have? I'm guessing none by your
response.


Why not answer his question, Matthew?

Answer this one, too: Why is it that over 3/4ths of teachers come from

the

bottom quartile of their graduating classes?



Because he didn't ask a question. He made a statement. The only
question in the above is the one I asked.


Matt





Gee, Tom, this "reply" is even more interesting than your last one! :-)


Matt

Tom Sixkiller wrote:

Government retirement DOES come out of current revenue.

At the Federal level. Teachers are typically State or local employees, and these
pensions are frequently funded by investment in the markets. Although not a teacher,
my mother was an employee of the University of Tennessee. Her pension comes from
the proceeds of stock/bond accounts, and the amount of the monthly payments varies
with the performance of the market. The financial crisis in California has impacted
Tennessee State pensions because a large portion of the funds are invested in
California State bonds.

It seems you are using "revenue" and "tax revenue" interchangeably between
private and civil service pension funds. Can you clarify?

I was speaking exclusively of personal experience with pensions in the education
system. In the systems with which I am familiar, tax revenues fund the salaries
and pension plans of current employees. If the system were to close tomorrow,
retired employees would still receive their pensions - the payments do not come
from taxes being levied today.

George Patterson
Great discoveries are not announced with "Eureka!". What's usually said is
"Hummmmm... That's interesting...."

"Matthew S. Whiting" wrote:

Where does this "certain amount of money" to be set aside every year
come from if note from current tax revenues?

That comes out of tax revenues. When the employee is working. Retirement pay does
not come out of current tax revenues in the education systems with which I am
familiar.

Not necessarily. Just look at all of the corporations that are now
having to pour hundreds of millions into their pension funds to keep
them solvent.

We were discussing education system pensions. The corporate solvency issue is
primarily caused by the fact that the Federal government changed the requirements
to increase the amount of money that must be retained for each employee in a
standard retirement package plan. Some companies simply reacted by abandoning
these plans for new employees and providing strong incentives (as in "change or
get fired") to current employees to transfer over to what is called a "cash
balance payout" plan. The increased limit requirements were instituted in
reaction to the Enron scam.

George Patterson
Great discoveries are not announced with "Eureka!". What's usually said is
"Hummmmm... That's interesting...."

G.R. Patterson III wrote:

"Matthew S. Whiting" wrote:

Where does this "certain amount of money" to be set aside every year
come from if note from current tax revenues?


That comes out of tax revenues. When the employee is working. Retirement pay does
not come out of current tax revenues in the education systems with which I am
familiar.

It doesn't come out directly, but it still comes from tax revenues. And
if you have more retirees, you have to more heavily fund the pension
fund and that means setting aside more each year into the fund, which
comes from tax revenues. To say that tax revenue doesn't pay the
pensioners is ridiculous.


Not necessarily. Just look at all of the corporations that are now
having to pour hundreds of millions into their pension funds to keep
them solvent.


We were discussing education system pensions. The corporate solvency issue is
primarily caused by the fact that the Federal government changed the requirements
to increase the amount of money that must be retained for each employee in a
standard retirement package plan. Some companies simply reacted by abandoning
these plans for new employees and providing strong incentives (as in "change or
get fired") to current employees to transfer over to what is called a "cash
balance payout" plan. The increased limit requirements were instituted in
reaction to the Enron scam.

I think the larger part was that investment returns dropped well below
the assumptions needed to keep the funds solvent. That has had a huge
impact, at least at my company as was the reason given by top management
for putting in much more money this year and last.

That may also be the reason that Capt. Haynes is not in a good position
financially to help fund his daughters medical care.

Matt

wrote in message .. .
I think we are missing the real issue here. It's not whether Capt. Haynes
could or should be able to pay for his daughter's treatment. Rather, it is
that our broken health insurance system has once again failed to meet
reasonable expectations. This sort of catastrophically expensive but
nonetheless essential treatment is in fact exactly why we need health
insurance. But the scenario here is, tragically, all too common. It
wouldn't even make the news if not for Capt. Haynes's (well deserved) fame.
The victim, insured through his or her employer, gets too sick to work.
Eventually he or she loses insurance coverage and cannot get a new policy
that will cover the pre-existing condition. It's win-win for the insurance
companies (who help propagate this outrage with massive campaign
contributions to corrupt politicians) and lose-lose for working Americans.

Hear, hear! Aside from adding in, that many people who lack
health insurance wind up in hospital, at public expense, for
severe complications of easily-treatable conditions whose
(much cheaper) treatment wasn't covered.

It's definately a broken system. What makes me spit is that
every time someone suggests changing it, we hear "then we'll
get triage! we'll get delays!" Well folks we get triage and
delays now, they're just usually not in the public eye.

My $0.02
Sydney

Henry Kisor wrote:

One of the reasons -- maybe the primary reasons -- states like teachers in
their 50s to retire is that they can be replaced by fresh new teachers just
out of college at starting salaries much less than those the veterans were
getting. It actually saves the states money.

Jay Honeck responded:

Hmmm. Not sure I see the math here.

While the state may save, say, half of the older teacher's salary (let's say
my sister was making $45,000 -- so they'll cut it by half in retirement, to
$22.5K) they then have to pay a new teacher what, $25K to start, plus
benefits?

Thus, we've lost a few grand in the mix.

Of course, "retirement pay" comes out of a different bucket of cash in the
state's budget then "teacher's salary", so ON PAPER they LOOK like they
"saved the taxpayers some money"...

More typical gubmint accounting, is my hunch.

I suspect that they make up a substantial portion of that perceived "lost few
grand" in the medical benefits payments. It's my impression that older worker's
(as a class) medical outlays greatly exceed those of younger workers, and the
retiree medical plan generally is funded more by the retiree than the state,
unlike the active employee medical plan.

Russell Kent

Russell Kent wrote:

Henry Kisor wrote:


One of the reasons -- maybe the primary reasons -- states like teachers in
their 50s to retire is that they can be replaced by fresh new teachers just
out of college at starting salaries much less than those the veterans were
getting. It actually saves the states money.


Jay Honeck responded:


Hmmm. Not sure I see the math here.

While the state may save, say, half of the older teacher's salary (let's say
my sister was making $45,000 -- so they'll cut it by half in retirement, to
$22.5K) they then have to pay a new teacher what, $25K to start, plus
benefits?

Thus, we've lost a few grand in the mix.

Of course, "retirement pay" comes out of a different bucket of cash in the
state's budget then "teacher's salary", so ON PAPER they LOOK like they
"saved the taxpayers some money"...

More typical gubmint accounting, is my hunch.

It ain't just gubmint accounting. Why do you think so many corporations
give early retirement incentives whenever they want to downsize? Same
principle, pensions come out of a different bucket (usually a bucket
already accounted for by pension contributions made years ago by the
employer so "free" on the balance sheet, at least until the pension plan
becomes underfunded by corporate raiding and/or accounting manipulations).

I'll try to refrain from commenting on the kind of attitude that makes
one think this move, which is very widespread in private industry, is
some kind of "gubmint accounting."

I'll try to refrain from commenting on the kind of attitude that makes
one think this move, which is very widespread in private industry, is
some kind of "gubmint accounting."

Well, maybe this kind of "voodoo economics" is widespread in big business,
too -- but big mega-firms continue to represent a smaller and smaller
percentage of American jobs. I can assure you that this kind numbers game
is NOT prevalent in the small to mid-sized businesses I'm used to dealing
with.

As far as my "attitude" indicating anything, I guess it's because I've spent
my lifetime paying, and paying, and paying taxes, yet all I see is the
economic waste and fraud that means we "need to raise taxes" again. Thus, I
equate bad business practices with Big Gubmint LONG before I equate it with
Big Business.

Why? Well, other than this past year (when I actually received a check from
my Federal Gubmint,thanks to GW), I've never received one damned nickel for
my troubles. Yet my Federal, State and Local taxes have continued to spiral
upward each and every year. Given that kind of performance, it's pretty
hard to NOT be cynical about our government.

Meanwhile, Big Business can screw the accounting pooch all they want, as far
as I'm concerned. At least they actually provide me with goods and
services I want and need, and if I don't like 'em, I can take my business
elsewhere.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"