Double Dipping

[Samnospam]

The way to do it red is the way its been always been done, build a multi-generational business. The parents take care of the kids, give them a leg up in life, and the favor is returned.

[Red Steele]

well, genius, if you find out the bank has used the $500 you deposited to pay part of it's utilitiy bill, or the bank director bought some earrings for his girlfriend with your money, and left you an iou , maybe then you would get a little concerned, too. The social security money has been spent as it came in, to pay bills. it only exists as a paper ledger entry.

[hobbyfarm2145365]

Hexx, Red the're giving it to you all ready its called direct payt..........most SS monthly check amount to around 1000.00  per month much the same as your DP deposit.   Is that not true.

[Red Steele]

the direct payments follow the land, and are quickly capitalized into either land values or rents. So either the landlords really get the money, or the sellers.  That is how it works in the real world, anyways. Getting plenty of snow and ice today? I was out in the snow running an errand and barely made it home...had so stop a while in the whiteout to try to get enough visibility to see the road. Winter sucks.

[KNAPPer]

I think you need a better definition of "double dipping." What I am against, and this happens some on school positions in Arkansas, is when someone retires and is hired right back into the same position at the same pay while collecting their pension. What is OK are a couple of scenarios: Someone quits and is rehired at entry level pay, whether in the same or a different position while collecting their pension. In Arkansas, there is a mandatory 30 day time when a state employee quits before they can be rehired. This is to prevent the very scenario I mentioned.

Another scenario is a program called DROP (deferred retirement option plan) where a state employee agrees to quit in seven years or less and begins to draw their pension. The pension has to be rolled into a retirement account or it is heavily taxed. Most employees do this during their last years as a state employee and it can only be drawn when they reach 28 or more years of service. The rate they draw their pension on is frozen at the time they begin drop. If the employee gets a raise or COLA (cost of living increase), their pension is still paid at the rate they were paid when they went on DROP.

Maybe some state have made bad choices and given out too liberal of a plan or don't have good rehire policy in place, I don't know. I think our pension is about half our salary. I wonder if you have really checked into what these pensions you are talking about actually pay? Might be worth checking into. I know about Arkansas' and not about other states.

[Red Steele]

If you sincerely do not see anything intrinsically wrong with a government employee retiring on a pension, and then taking another government job for additional salary, you really have a warped sense of what should go on in life.

This would be true in any era, but these times when 10% ( according to the official government stats)  or somewhere near 20% (according to reality) of American workers need to find work, it is ridiculous to give a government job to a person already retired on a government pension.

No wonder this is turning into a war between public employees and private citizens if this is the kind of thinking that is prevalent in your circles.

God help us all.

[kraft-t]

It's borrowed and spent like anyother government bond. To suggest it is just gone is ludicrous.

BTW if the bank uses my money for business operations, that does not free them up from their obligation to me. Besides my deposit is guaranteed by the same folks that will pay back the trust fund debt. If you're that worried I wouldn't deposit in a bank either.

[KNAPPer]

Well, maybe they should all just be Wal Mart greeters then or never retire, LOL! First, if a state employee starts drawing their retirement, they draw it. Second, if someone is hired, they get paid. The cost to a state government is the same whether or not a person already drawing retirement is hired in a position or a person who has never worked for state government is hired in a position. So I assume your objection is something like "Step aside and give someone else a chance for once."

Then we get into whether it is better to hire the most qualified person or hire someone who needs a job but may be less qualified. Perhaps the state employee who has worked 28 or so years in state government and knows the ropes, has the right training certificates and is efficient may somehow be "better" than someone who needs lots of training and will need a learning curve?

I'm not for buddy buddy stuff or sweetheart deals of that's what you suspect. If your position is simply that people who are unemployed need jobs, then you need to ask yourself what are their qualifications? Do you believe in hiring less qualified people just because they are unemployed? I doubt it. You simply distrust government. That's OK. You are in good company with lots of other people here.

Besides, most state employees spend a good number of years with a state, get trained well and then go to work for the private sector where the pay is a lot, lot better. Only a few of the fools with specialized public service experinece are fools enough to go back to work with a state.

[Milligan Hay - Iowa d:^)]

Ben, I do agree with you.  It is earned, and it is due him.  The dems are just trying to make "hay" just to make a point.   In Iowa, over 7,000 retired State employees are back working for the State once again.   In one case that I know of, a teacher retired after 40 years of teaching school, and decided that he wanted to drive a school bus for the district.  Why the heck should he be denied driving kids that he obviously knows how to deal with just because he would be "double dipping"??  I see no problem with it, what-so-ever.

What I do have a problem with, is a lot of congress-critters and senators pimping their spouses off as lobbyists, making obscene piles of money because of their connections to someone who controls the federal purse-strings.

[tomtoolbag]

  Knapper, you have a point. If people weren't penalized to retire at a younger age, they would retire sooner. Which is worse, continuing to pay a high wage for a long time employee, and discourage them from retiring and probably spending a greater amount of their retirement income because they are active and healthy, not to mention their incoming replacement is sooner and more than likely cheaper in wage terms, instead of paying a higher wage for people that MAY be in their least productive years???

  If states played it out right, and catered (somewhat)to retirees, and try to keep them from relocating in the good weather/cheap states(that high wage earning states with pensions subsidize)that retirement income could have a changing effect upon communities throughout many states. Most people eventually come back to the states that they spent the majority of their life in, or were born in, and when they do(at the risk of sounding morbid) they contribute to a lot of the states' GDP because of their health care spending. It's just one way that IL. comes out somewhat ahead, even though those health care entities are taxed at a very low rate along with the health care professionals.

  If the taxpayers are going to contribute (indirectly)to the retirement wealth of public sector workers, at least devise a way to re-capture it to benefit the local or states' economy.