Would you now respect this Sheriff?

[targus]

I repeat my question - should the civil service retirement system be changed?

It appears that it was already changed. From the OP article....

"State law allows public servants who took office before July 26, 1995, to “retire” and continue working — with salary and pension — for as long as they are able."

Or are you suggesting that the rules for an employee's pension should be changed after the fact?

Is that fair?

What if the government were to now change the 401k rules by saying that you can't withdraw your money until you retire instead of at age 59 1/2 ?

Would you go along with that?

 

[sag38]

Yep, the entitlement mentality is alive and well and we wonder why we are going into the can. When is it going to stop? The man didn't pay into this "so called" retirement. He's on the government dole and he and many others should be ashamed for getting rich at the tax payers' expense.

 

[matt wade]

Yep, the entitlement mentality is alive and well and we wonder why we are going into the can. When is it going to stop? The man didn't pay into this "so called" retirement. He's on the government dole and he and many others should be ashamed for getting rich at the tax payers' expense.

I assume you feel the same about people that collect on their 401k's when their company made a contribution to the 401k, right? They shouldn't be allowed to work and draw from the their 401k, right?

You people seem to think that he is stealing tax payer dollars. The man worked a job and part of his compensation with this pension fund. He has every right to collect on his wages (this pension being part of his wages).

 

[matt wade]

I repeat my question - should the civil service retirement system be changed?

and I repeat my questions:

To those of you that have a problem with this, would have a problem with him taking his 401k payments (if he had any)?

If not, why not?

 

[targus]

Yep, the entitlement mentality is alive and well and we wonder why we are going into the can. When is it going to stop? The man didn't pay into this "so called" retirement. He's on the government dole and he and many others should be ashamed for getting rich at the tax payers' expense.

Perhaps not in dollars out of pocket - but he did provide labor in exchange for the contribution that his employer made to the system.

It was part of his employment contract.

Are you in favor of now retro-actively changing the employment agreement that provided wages and benefits for his years of service?

How is that justified?

How would you feel if the IRS retro-actively changed the tax rates for the past ten years and sent you a bill for unpaid taxes?

Wouldn't seem fair would it?

 

[Gina B]

Yep, the entitlement mentality is alive and well and we wonder why we are going into the can. When is it going to stop? The man didn't pay into this "so called" retirement. He's on the government dole and he and many others should be ashamed for getting rich at the tax payers' expense.

The government doesn't do anything that we, the citizens, do not allow either by condoning, approving, voting for, keeping silent, or refusing to take action against.

Foreign AND domestic enemies...if you honestly feel that they're forcefully doing wrong to citizens, it's the citizens to blame for allowing it.
There's a lot more citizens than government employees.

So don't be mad at him because we gave it to him. Be mad at those of us who approved this, approved the pay, voted him in, etc etc forever and ever amen. Or something like that...certainly don't claim someone has a sense of entitlement for claiming what they were contracted to receive. That's illogical. Very illogical. Crazy, one might say!

 

[targus]

Yep, the entitlement mentality is alive and well...

Actually in this case he IS entitled to the money. :laugh:

 

[Salty]

and I repeat my questions:

To those of you that have a problem with this, would have a problem with him taking his 401k payments (if he had any)?

If not, why not?

:BangHead: :BangHead: :BangHead:

 

[freeatlast]

Do you think the retirement system needs to be changed?

yes I do but that is not the issue in this case.

 

[matt wade]

:BangHead: :BangHead: :BangHead:

How about I answer your question:

Do you think the retirement system needs to be changed?

No I don't think it needs to be changed.

Now, how about answering mine instead of posting silly smilies?

 

[Gina B]

Poor Salty. We killed your question, buried it, and paved a parking lot over its grave!

Okay, yes, it looks like there's a slight possibility he may not have given complete disclosure.

Was it because he wanted to maintain appearances in a time when people are suffering economically or was it because he really didn't know at the time?

Only he knows.

It just kinda surprises me that you're surprised at the possibility of someone in politics throwing out a non-committal comment answer to a unsure question that may or may not bother some voters.

I mean come on. Worse things have happened in politics. I get the feeling this one bothers you mostly because he's a Republican and you feel betrayed. Behind the scenes, neither major party is very different. The goal is to get to the top and regardless of the platform they stand on, the climb still involves a lot of slander, racism, idiocy, and corruption.

I've lost the desire to claim any political affiliation. I will vote for whoever seems to best fit the concept of someone who fears God.

That's it.

And you know what? Life has been a lot better ever since. It's very peaceful to give up all that and rest in knowing that what God expects is really easy.

 

[sag38]

So non of you seem to get it. It's these kind of practices that are tanking our government economy. When is it going to end? I know. It's going to end in the same kind of mess that Greece is experiencing right now.

 

[targus]

So non of you seem to get it. It's these kind of practices that are tanking our government economy. When is it going to end? I know. It's going to end in the same kind of mess that Greece is experiencing right now.

Yes, we get it.

The point that we are making is that you change something like this going forward.

You do not take away something that has already been agreed to and earned under a prior employment contract.

And as it has been pointed out earlier - it has already been changed years ago - for new hires from that date going forward.

 

[billwald]

I get it. You all demand to be "a country run according to the words of the laws" but when the words of the laws yield unintended consequences then you don't want to be governed by the words of the laws.

 

[targus]

I get it. You all demand to be "a country run according to the words of the laws" but when the words of the laws yield unintended consequences then you don't want to be governed by the words of the laws.

Do you even bother to read the posts?

If you were to do so then perhaps you would be aware that the vast majority of the opinons expressed in this discussion is in agreement with your own.

Who exactly do you believe "you all" to be?

 

[Salty]

I get it. You all demand to be "a country run according to the words of the laws" but when the words of the laws yield unintended consequences then you don't want to be governed by the words of the laws.

The keyword in the article is "loophole" Yes, the law does not prohibit the Sheriff or other govt "retirees" to draw both retired and active pay. But, and this is a big BUT - was that the intent of the law? I do not know, if I get time, I would like to research it some.

Bill, I do agree that we should be a nation of laws - but I think that common sense should also have a place.
Let me give a quick story (and it is true) I had a salesman come to my apt, when I lived in military housing (cold sales were not permitted) I asked to see his authorization to conduct business on post (which was supposed to be by apt only). He showed to me. I asked to take it so I could read it. Once in my possession, I retained it and informed he was not authorized to conduct cold sales. I told him to come to my office the next day to pick it up after he spoke to the officer in charge. I immediately took it to the MP's and filed a report. Here is the clincher - the MP asked me how I obtained it - (see above) but they also needed to know which hand of mine and his did the actually exchange! Yes, all this for legal reasons - a bit ridiculous.

Its been said that you can look at a church constitution and be able to tell what kind of problems they have had in the past.

Bottom line, the Sheriff is legally allowed the retirement and active pay.
Is it moral NO -
is he leading by example - NO!
I like what Sag said "When is it going to end? I know. It's going to end in the same kind of mess that Greece is experiencing right now."

 

[matt wade]

Salty, would have a problem with him taking his 401k payments (if he had any) and continuing to work?

 

[targus]

The keyword in the article is "loophole" Yes, the law does not prohibit the Sheriff or other govt "retirees" to draw both retired and active pay. But, and this is a big BUT - was that the intent of the law?

Most likely it was the specific intent to allow retirees to both collect their retirement benefits and to work if they so choose.

My wife is a teacher and her contract allows the same. She is allowed to collect her retirement and work in a job that is associated with the State employees retirement system at the same time. If she earns more than 30% of her prior earnings then her retirement benefits are reduced while she works.

If she works a job which does not participate in the State employees retirement system then she is permitted to earn as much as she wishes with no reduction of retirement benefits.

The principal at the school where she currently works is collecting on his full retirement benefits - without reduction - and holding a full time principal position as a contract employee. This was specifically allowed by the employment contract - because it does save the school district money.

 

[billwald]

>But, and this is a big BUT - was that the intent of the law?

BUT don't most of the people in this list argue that only (original meaning of) the words of the law matter? Why in Constitution matters only the original intent and meaning of the words matters but in this case the original intent of each law should not rule?

How does/should the law of unintended consequences come into play? Scalia's comments on woman's rights and the Constitution?

 

[targus]

BUT don't most of the people in this list argue that only (original meaning of) the words of the law matter? Why in Constitution matters only the original intent and meaning of the words matters but in this case the original intent of each law should not rule?

How does/should the law of unintended consequences come into play? Scalia's comments on woman's rights and the Constitution?

It would be really interesting if you were able to follow along with the discussion with the rest of us.

First of all this is not a question of LAW - it is a question of the employment contract.

Your "most of the people in this list" comment is opposite of the opinions expressed by the majority of participants in this discussion.

If you were to read the other posts in the discussion with any degree of care you should become aware that most here support this Sheriff's right to collect his pension and work.

PLEASE - try reading the prior posts before derailing the discussion.