Public pension insanity
Wow, this is pretty outrageous:
The New Fat Cats
The indefensible pensions of public-sector employees.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/new-fat-cats
Money quote:
In California, 9,111 retired government workers have pensions of more than $100,000. One retiree draws an annual pension of $509,664. Among retired teachers, 3,065 receive more than $100,000. One gets $285,460. Pensions for retired state workers and teachers will rise 2 percent this year, though Social Security recipients aren’t getting any cost-of-living increase. The hike in California isn’t tied to inflation.
Just who is that drawing $500k? Recalled former governor Gray Davis? He had just about every office in Sacramento before becoming governor.... Hmmm...???
Idea: maybe we should put pension payments in their own tax bracket.... The tax code treats capital gains and dividend income differently from earned income. Why not just tax pensions over, say, $150,000, at 75% or 80%? That ought to be more than enough money in retirement. Remember the idea of a pension was to provide financial security, not a life of luxury for civil servants. When unintended consequences (such as fiscal insolvency) arise, it's time to re-negotiate the social contract, and maybe employment contracts too. And since governments might not be able to re-negotiate previously committed pensions, they can raise taxes at any time... as has been done and will be done often in the coming years [cough, cough, health care reform.]
The only challenge would be if such a practice were treated as a Bill of Attainder, but my guess is that if govts can change estate or income taxes at any time, they can distinguish within the different types of income. There's some commentary on the AIG bonuses, an issue that seemed to have faded away about a year ago:
http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2009/03/18/would-an-aig-bonus-tax-pass-constitutional-muster-a-tribe-calls-yes/
Hacking up a few hackneyed phrases:
What Caesar giveth, Caesar taxeth away!
Something tells me I'm conflating a couple concepts there.
The New Fat Cats
The indefensible pensions of public-sector employees.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/new-fat-cats
Money quote:
In California, 9,111 retired government workers have pensions of more than $100,000. One retiree draws an annual pension of $509,664. Among retired teachers, 3,065 receive more than $100,000. One gets $285,460. Pensions for retired state workers and teachers will rise 2 percent this year, though Social Security recipients aren’t getting any cost-of-living increase. The hike in California isn’t tied to inflation.
Just who is that drawing $500k? Recalled former governor Gray Davis? He had just about every office in Sacramento before becoming governor.... Hmmm...???
Idea: maybe we should put pension payments in their own tax bracket.... The tax code treats capital gains and dividend income differently from earned income. Why not just tax pensions over, say, $150,000, at 75% or 80%? That ought to be more than enough money in retirement. Remember the idea of a pension was to provide financial security, not a life of luxury for civil servants. When unintended consequences (such as fiscal insolvency) arise, it's time to re-negotiate the social contract, and maybe employment contracts too. And since governments might not be able to re-negotiate previously committed pensions, they can raise taxes at any time... as has been done and will be done often in the coming years [cough, cough, health care reform.]
The only challenge would be if such a practice were treated as a Bill of Attainder, but my guess is that if govts can change estate or income taxes at any time, they can distinguish within the different types of income. There's some commentary on the AIG bonuses, an issue that seemed to have faded away about a year ago:
http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2009/03/18/would-an-aig-bonus-tax-pass-constitutional-muster-a-tribe-calls-yes/
Hacking up a few hackneyed phrases:
What Caesar giveth, Caesar taxeth away!
Something tells me I'm conflating a couple concepts there.