jpo183
Ultimate Member
Well he should have thought out his line first before posting. And he should also be told what no one else has said yet. And that is... Such pensions are not paid solely from the gubbamint budget... If he knew what he was talking about then he would have known that the individual LEO pays a portion of his/her salary into that fund during their career. And the LEO takes a low paying position in a field where they invest their life at a low rate of pay. Much lower in many respects than that of comparable industry. This is known on the front end of the career and accepted because of the potential to receive a decent retirement pay on the back end of that career. Take that away and you will not be able to compete with private industry for the more qualified applicant.
So pay them... Pay them an anual salary that reflects the mean average life style of those who work and live in their district, The tax payers... The representative should NOT make more money than those they represent. That is how you remove the hypocrites from the Office. That is how to deal with those who have no skin in the game.
Incorrectomundo, what I said was when your pension is tied to government funding of any type you will be least likely to address any issue that could come up that would affect your funding. I am not talking about someones "401k type contributions or employer matching". Those are VERY different then a pension.
Just to make sure RoadDawg completely understands:
This past week congress voted NOT to remove their "employer contribution" to health care which is 75%. The proposal was to send all government employees (including congress) to the exchange and to remove the 75% employer contribution to the employees health insurance. Many big businesses are doing this.
It was voted "NO".
This is why I have that opinion that when you have ANY candidate that is receiving ANY TYPE of government benefits or funding that they will not cut it when the time comes.