Is Forbes being controlled by Obama?

[comptr6]

Check out this crap they made up to cover up for their selfish America hating socialist greed.

Pulitzer Prize winning tax reporter, David Cay Johnston, has written a brilliant piece for tax.com exposing the truth about who really pays for the pension and benefits for public employees in Wisconsin.

Gov. Scott Walker says he wants state workers covered by collective bargaining agreements to “contribute more” to their pension and health insurance plans. Accepting Gov. Walker’ s assertions as fact, and failing to check, creates the impression that somehow the workers are getting something extra, a gift from taxpayers. They are not. Out of every dollar that funds Wisconsin’ s pension and health insurance plans for state workers, 100 cents comes from the state workers.

How can this be possible?


Simple. The pension plan is the direct result of deferred compensation- money that employees would have been paid as cash salary but choose, instead, to have placed in the state operated pension fund where the money can be professionally invested (at a lower cost of management) for the future.


Many of us are familiar with the concept of deferred compensation from reading about the latest multi-million dollar deal with some professional athlete. As a means of allowing their ball club to have enough money to operate, lowering their own tax obligations and for other benefits, ball players often defer payment of money they are to be paid to a later date. In the meantime, that money is invested for the ball player’s benefit and then paid over at the time and in the manner agreed to in the contract between the parties.


Does anyone believe that, in the case of the ball player, the deferred money belongs to the club owner rather than the ball player? Is the owner simply providing this money to the athlete as some sort of gift? Of course not. The money is salary to be paid to the ball player, deferred for receipt at a later date.


A review of the state’s collective bargaining agreements – many of which are available for review at the Wisconsin Office of State Employees web site - bears out that it is no different for state employees. The numbers are just lower.


Check out section 13 of the Wisconsin Association of State Prosecutors collective bargaining agreement – “For the duration of this Agreement, the Employer will contribute on behalf of the employee five percent (5%) of the employee’s earnings paid by the State. ”


Johnston goes on to point out that Governor Walker has gotten away with this false narrative because journalists have failed to look closely at how employee pension plans work and have simply accepted the Governor’s word for it. Because of this, those who wish the unions ill have been able to seize on that narrative to score points by running ads and spreading the word that state employees pay next to nothing for their pensions and that it is all a big taxpayer give-away.

http://blogs.forbes.com/rickungar/2011/02/

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

The pension plan is the direct result of deferred compensation- money that employees would have been paid as cash salary but choose, instead, to have placed in the state operated pension fund where the money can be professionally invested (at a lower cost of management) for the future.

It's like a 401k. Instead of taking the money in your paycheck, you put it into a fund.

In other words it belongs to no one but the workers.


It appears you are adopting a nonsensical position in order to gain support for the union members. In that case, please carry on.

 

[Throckmorton]

It's like a 401k. Instead of taking the money in your paycheck, you put it into a fund.

In other words it belongs to no one but the workers.


It appears you are adopting a nonsensical position in order to gain support for the union members. In that case, please carry on.

What? That's exactly the point... Making them "pay a greater percentage" is nonsense, because they already pay 100%. It's a tricky way of saying "pay cut".

 

[Jhhnn]

It appears you are adopting a nonsensical position in order to gain support for the union members. In that case, please carry on.

Not at all. If my employer cuts their contribution to the fund by $200/mo, That's a pay cut. If they demand that I make up that $200/mo, that another cut, this time to my take home pay.

They save $200/mo just on me, I give up $200/mo, hoping they manage it better than the housing bubble. And I don't even get to negotiate, now or ever again, because they change the rules so I can't negotiate.

Such a Deal!

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

What? That's exactly the point... Making them "pay a greater percentage" is nonsense, because they already pay 100%. It's a tricky way of saying "pay cut".

What? That's what I said. Note "it's their money".

What part of my post didn't you understand?

 

[Fenixgoon]

What? That's exactly the point... Making them "pay a greater percentage" is nonsense, because they already pay 100%. It's a tricky way of saying "pay cut".

it sounds like the state equivalent of the federally run Thrift Savings Plan (TSP) for federal employees...basically a 401k

 

[Perknose]

What? That's what I said. Note "it's their money".

What part of my post didn't you understand?

Dunno about him, but I don't understand the part where you say:

It appears you are adopting a nonsensical position in order to gain support for the union members.

The OP, and the Forbes article, made sense. You appeared to have agreed with him. Then you call his position nonsensical and seem to claim that it's pro-union propaganda.

Perhaps you could clear this up for us.

 

[Pulsar]

1. Government workers get paid from our taxes.
2. Government workers are making more than they should be.

Saying that it's their money that funds their benefit system is a clever turn-around. It's still our tax dollars paying them.

Forbes was certainly kissing someone's ass in a thinly veiled manner.

 

[Patranus]

LOL at the deferred compensation argument.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Dunno about him, but I don't understand the part where you say:



The OP, and the Forbes article, made sense. You appeared to have agreed with him. Then you call his position nonsensical and seem to claim that it's pro-union propaganda.

Perhaps you could clear this up for us.

Ahh, I see.

If someone takes a position that's remarkably absurd it makes the premise ridiculous as well. Consequently the effect is "Look at the crap used to justify his position. He's so full of it his statements backfired on him". That leads many (myself included) to dismiss the initial claims out of hand.

In this case

Check out this crap they made up to cover up for their selfish America hating socialist greed.

is the premise. What the facts are is that the money is retirement given in place of wages. It's part of the total compensation and it therefore the property of the union members. Saying that people enjoying the fruits of their labor is socialism? It's ridiculous. It appears that the OP is a plant by using the outlandish to justify his contention. In other words, how could someone be sincere and that dumb at the same time?

I wasn't complimenting him on his shrewd analysis. It makes the point that there is trollage or idiocy here, neither of which is mutually exclusive.

Make a little more sense now?

 

[nyker96]

Check out this crap they made up to cover up for their selfish America hating socialist greed.

Most definitely my lad! I heard OB uses a special kind of Voodoo mind controll spell he learn from the Darth Vader of the 4th dimension. He is putting everyone under his spell, whatever you do, don't look at his eyes .... even on TV, avoid eye contact or ... the next time we see you, you 'll be singing praises of him!! God save us all!

 

[CallMeJoe]

LOL at the deferred compensation argument.

I always appreciate your erudite and detailed critiques, but must you be so verbose?

 

[LegendKiller]

Saying that they "pay" for their retirement funds is bullshit. They put a certain amount of money in and are guaranteed an virtually unlimited amount of money out in terms of length, inflation, and economic performance.

That 5% they put in could be worthless due to poor investment performance over the next 30 years but at the end of the 30 years the state is still on the hook for every cent of the funds over the entire life of the retiree, including step-ups for inflation.

Thus, categorizing this as a "we too" argument by juxtaposition to 401ks and the "common man" is utter bullshit. w

 

[umbrella39]

Damn that Obama and his control of Forbes!!!

 

[CADsortaGUY]

I don't get the OP/title. An opinion column talking about a liberal buffoon trying to claim BS doesn't a BHO control make.

 

[YoungGun21]

He's the President, he controls everything.

 

[IronWing]

A worker costs the employer $100.

One scenario could look like this.

$10 goes to the pension fund.
$20 goes to cover health insurance.
$8.65 goes to SS/Medicare
$61.35 goes to net salary.

Or it might look like this:

$0 goes to the pension fund.
$20 goes to cover health insurance.
$8.65 goes to SS/Medicare
$71.35 goes to net salary.

Or even like this:

$0 goes to the pension fund.
$0 goes to cover health insurance.
$8.65 goes to SS/Medicare
$91.35 goes to net salary.

In all three cases the worker is being compensated for the work performed. Whether that compensation is in the form of benefits or salary doesn't matter.

Now what LegendKiller says is, while a bit overstated, is close enough to accurate for discussion. The focus is misplaced though. The state, like any other employer, knew what was in the employment contracts it was signing when the contracts were signed and determined the contracts to be in the interests of the state and therefore signed them. What the state then failed to do was adaquately fund their known future obligations, again much like other employers. When times were good, the politicians pushed tax cuts while ignoring future pension obligations. When times are bad, the politicians still push tax cuts and then cry poverty when it comes time to fulfill the obligations made. This isn't a story of greedy unions, it is a story of utterly irresponsible politician/employers trying to screw over their employees in order to cover for asinine tax policies.

Ultimately I think we will see the states move solely to 403b plans or maybe hybrid plans like the feds did with the TSP/FERS. But until they do, the state owe these workers what is agreed to in the contracts and if they need to raise taxes to cover these obligations so be it.