1. #1
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    23

    Default Alaska's Pension System and the current election

    Is it true that Alaska recently lost their pension system and that they are now in a 401k type deal? Was that under Pallin?

    Is it also true that McCain backed Arnold in 2005 to take away our pensions?

    Undecided on the 2008 election but answers to these 2 questions would sure make things interesting. Thanks guys.

  2. #2
    Forum Member
    scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    10,330

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gabriel76 View Post
    Is it true that Alaska recently lost their pension system and that they are now in a 401k type deal? Was that under Pallin?

    Is it also true that McCain backed Arnold in 2005 to take away our pensions?

    Undecided on the 2008 election but answers to these 2 questions would sure make things interesting. Thanks guys.
    Don't know about Alaska. But the backing of Arnold in '05 in support of pension reform (aka getting rid of defined benefit plans) is true.
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

  3. #3

    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    2

    Default Alaska

    Anchorage does not have a pension like other big cities, it is indeed a 401k type plan. However i am not sure if this was the doing of the current VP nominee.

  4. #4
    Banned

    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    8,677

    Default

    The pension systems do need reform. Those in "defined benefit plans" are not paying for all of the benefits that are dished out by SSI. In fact, they can also get SSI benefits for their disabled child, even though they never paid a dime. No person in (legal or illegal) should be exempt from SSI tax. And I do agree with Obama on this as well, there should be no top income level. Hopefully IF Obama gets in he will at least make these reforms.

  5. #5
    Forum Member
    scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    10,330

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ScareCrow57 View Post
    The pension systems do need reform. Those in "defined benefit plans" are not paying for all of the benefits that are dished out by SSI. In fact, they can also get SSI benefits for their disabled child, even though they never paid a dime. No person in (legal or illegal) should be exempt from SSI tax. And I do agree with Obama on this as well, there should be no top income level. Hopefully IF Obama gets in he will at least make these reforms.
    And those of us who were originally excluded from paying into SSI disagree.

    I'll believe the conservatives demanding an end to defined benefit plans (which was part of the goal championed by McCain in '05) are serious when they take away the military's DB program of 50% @ 20 years.
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

  6. #6
    Banned

    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    8,677

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by scfire86 View Post
    And those of us who were originally excluded from paying into SSI disagree.

    I'll believe the conservatives demanding an end to defined benefit plans (which was part of the goal championed by McCain in '05) are serious when they take away the military's DB program of 50% @ 20 years.
    Hell, if I was exemp0t from a tax I would object as well. However, no one is telling you can't have your defined benefit. All I ask is that you be responsible and step up to he table to pay your fair share of the taxes. If the SSI system were nothing more than a retirement system I might by the twisted logic. However, SS goes above and beyond. And even though you pay nothing into it, you can still receive befits under certain conditions.

    FYI, the Military pays SSI taxes. As do many other government employees to include paid fire fighters in other small towns and cities. This injustice needs to end and now. Start losing another 7% from your paycheck and then talk to me about how taxes aren't so bad.

  7. #7
    Forum Member
    DaSharkie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2000
    Posts
    4,713

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ScareCrow57 View Post
    Start losing another 7% from your paycheck and then talk to me about how taxes aren't so bad.
    No tax rate is too high for a tried and true, dyed in the wool liberal.
    "Too many people spend money they haven't earned, to buy things they don't want, to impress people they don't like." Will Rogers

    The borrower is slave to the lender. Proverbs 22:7 - Debt free since 10/5/2009.

    "No man's life, liberty, or property are safe while the legislature is in session." - New York Judge Gideon Tucker

    "As Americans we must always remember that we all have a common enemy, an enemy that is dangerous, powerful and relentless. I refer, of course, to the federal government." - Dave Barry

    www.daveramsey.com www.clarkhoward.com www.heritage.org

  8. #8
    Forum Member
    scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    10,330

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DaSharkie View Post
    No tax rate is too high for a tried and true, dyed in the wool liberal.
    Nor is borrowing another trillion dollars for a dyed in the wool fiscal conservative who is passing the buck off to someone else.
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

  9. #9
    Forum Member
    scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    10,330

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ScareCrow57 View Post
    FYI, the Military pays SSI taxes. As do many other government employees to include paid fire fighters in other small towns and cities. This injustice needs to end and now. Start losing another 7% from your paycheck and then talk to me about how taxes aren't so bad.
    They also have benefits the rest of us will never get. Like 50% @ 20 yrs, subsidized health care, subsidized housing, etc..

    When I see conservatives attacking the DoD pension plan I'll know they're serious. Until then it is nothing more than the usual "government employees are all lazy, overpaid, and underworked" BS. I always enjoy reading the writings of those criticizing my profession (FF get paid for sleeping) when they haven't spent one day on a fire engine. But somehow they know all about my job.
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

  10. #10
    the 4-1-4
    Jasper 45's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    ...A great place, on a Great Lake
    Posts
    2,784

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ScareCrow57 View Post
    FYI, the Military pays SSI taxes. As do many other government employees to include paid fire fighters in other small towns and cities. This injustice needs to end and now. Start losing another 7% from your paycheck and then talk to me about how taxes aren't so bad.
    Why do you insist on talking so stupid? It is not an injustice, go back and look at the history of the issue, please.

    When Social Security was instituted, firefighters were intentionally left out. It could be argued that we were discriminated against. Remember, please, that it wasn't until 1993 or so, that joining Social Security was even an option for us. This is not an "injustice", and our inclusion into the system will not do anything except be more of a drain on the system. The contributions that we would make would hardly be of any benefit.
    In fact, you're much better off money-wise, by not having us participate. The guys who have part-time jobs that do contribute barely receive any of the benefit they are eligible for, because of our pension plans. The fact that they pay a full share into the system is proof enough, with a minimal of research. Change the other factors involved, like our total inclusion, every firefighter will now collect a much bigger benefit.
    We don't earn that much money, so the amount that would be added would be very small, in the whole scheme of things.

    We weren't included in the original plan, and we were forced to fend for ourselves on a salary that was only a step or two above broke. They didn't want us in then, by letter of the law, why should we be forced into it now? It wasn't fair then, it isn't fair now. We'll stick on our own, as we seem to be doing a very good job at it, thank you very much for your concern.

    You actually have it pretty good right now. Guys who work part-time contribute in far more than they will ever receive back in the benefit.

    And so what if they have a special needs child who will collect this benefit? And without ever paying in? That already happens with plenty of people who are disabled and have never paid.
    I am familiar with cases of people who are non-hearing, who received SSI as children, who never contributed into the system. Thats part of why the system is there, as it is an entitlement program.

  11. #11
    Forum Member
    MTKROUSH's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Hernando MS USA
    Posts
    558

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by scfire86 View Post
    They also have benefits the rest of us will never get. Like 50% @ 20 yrs, subsidized health care, subsidized housing, etc..

    When I see conservatives attacking the DoD pension plan I'll know they're serious. Until then it is nothing more than the usual "government employees are all lazy, overpaid, and underworked" BS. I always enjoy reading the writings of those criticizing my profession (FF get paid for sleeping) when they haven't spent one day on a fire engine. But somehow they know all about my job.
    I don't know about you but I get 50% @ 20 years. None of that other good stuff but I get the 50. If I read my plan right
    To err is human, To forgive divine and at times I am as much of both as you will ever find

  12. #12
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    SW MO
    Posts
    4,249

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MTKROUSH View Post
    I don't know about you but I get 50% @ 20 years. None of that other good stuff but I get the 50. If I read my plan right
    I get the same, 50% after 20, 1% longevity on top of that for every year after 20 up to 65%. I also get a lump-sum buyback, which is every dime I put into the pension for the duration of my employment (18.08% after taxes).

    Basically, I get $150-200K (estimated right now) when I retire, plus a pension check of 50% of the average of the best 3 of the last 5 years. That's a helluva lot better than I'll ever see out of social security.

  13. #13
    Forum Member
    FireCapt1951retired's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2000
    Location
    Between here and there
    Posts
    790

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Catch22 View Post
    I get the same, 50% after 20, 1% longevity on top of that for every year after 20 up to 65%. I also get a lump-sum buyback, which is every dime I put into the pension for the duration of my employment (18.08% after taxes).

    Basically, I get $150-200K (estimated right now) when I retire, plus a pension check of 50% of the average of the best 3 of the last 5 years. That's a helluva lot better than I'll ever see out of social security.
    Catch,

    If you chose to just take the cash out before 59 1/2 are you required to roll it over into an IRA or a qualified annuity without paying the immediate penalties (10%) and regular taxes due (becomes a big time tax bill, would have been 44% with state and fed taxes) or were your pension payments pre-taxed (not sure if that's what you meant by after taxes)? My pension system is very smilar in the annuity portion (not pre-taxed). On the roll over I was allowed to draw a certain percentage from the qualified annuity/IRA until age 59 1/2 without paying the 10% penalty, plus my tax percentage is less by drawing on it every month versus the whole.

    As for social security, I will never draw a dime from them nor will I be eligible for medicaid or any other benefit.
    Last edited by FireLt1951; 09-11-2008 at 04:23 PM.

  14. #14
    Forum Member
    scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    10,330

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MTKROUSH View Post
    I don't know about you but I get 50% @ 20 years. None of that other good stuff but I get the 50. If I read my plan right
    That sounds like a good plan.

    My point is that McCain and other conservatives attack defined benefit plans (even though McCain draws his Navy pension) of public employees as being too expensive, out of touch with the civilian sector etc.

    Yet they never lump the military's DB program into those attacks. I believe that if McCain were that serious about getting rid of DB plans (which he campaigned for in CA back in 2005) he should start by addressing the DoD's pension plan. Especially since he is a federal legislator and the DoD is a federal department.

    Yet he decided to attack the choices available to local government.
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

  15. #15
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    SW MO
    Posts
    4,249

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FireLt1951 View Post
    Catch,

    If you chose to just take the cash out before 59 1/2 are you required to roll it over into an IRA or a qualified annuity without paying the immediate penalties (10%) and regular taxes due (becomes a big time tax bill, would have been 44% with state and fed taxes) or were your pension payments pre-taxed (not sure if that's what you meant by after taxes)? My pension system is very smilar in the annuity portion (not pre-taxed). On the roll over I was allowed to draw a certain percentage from the qualified annuity/IRA until age 59 1/2 without paying the 10% penalty, plus my tax percentage is less by drawing on it every month versus the whole.

    As for social security, I will never draw a dime from them nor will I be eligible for medicaid or any other benefit.
    Our contribution is taken out after taxes, so my lump sum won't be taxed, no matter what age (I'll be 48, well below 50.5). They're basically using it for interest to keep the fund solvent, along with our city's 17% match.

  16. #16
    Forum Member
    DaSharkie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2000
    Posts
    4,713

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by scfire86 View Post
    Nor is borrowing another trillion dollars for a dyed in the wool fiscal conservative who is passing the buck off to someone else.
    Actually it is. But at least I will admit borrowing more than taking in is wrong. You admit that you would tax everything that is made and take it all. Yet you say that there is no difference between Liberalism and Communism/Socialism.

    Love your hypocracy.
    "Too many people spend money they haven't earned, to buy things they don't want, to impress people they don't like." Will Rogers

    The borrower is slave to the lender. Proverbs 22:7 - Debt free since 10/5/2009.

    "No man's life, liberty, or property are safe while the legislature is in session." - New York Judge Gideon Tucker

    "As Americans we must always remember that we all have a common enemy, an enemy that is dangerous, powerful and relentless. I refer, of course, to the federal government." - Dave Barry

    www.daveramsey.com www.clarkhoward.com www.heritage.org

  17. #17
    Banned

    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    8,677

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jasper45 View Post
    Why do you insist on talking so stupid? It is not an injustice, go back and look at the history of the issue, please.

    When Social Security was instituted, firefighters were intentionally left out. It could be argued that we were discriminated against. Remember, please, that it wasn't until 1993 or so, that joining Social Security was even an option for us. This is not an "injustice", and our inclusion into the system will not do anything except be more of a drain on the system. The contributions that we would make would hardly be of any benefit.
    In fact, you're much better off money-wise, by not having us participate. The guys who have part-time jobs that do contribute barely receive any of the benefit they are eligible for, because of our pension plans. The fact that they pay a full share into the system is proof enough, with a minimal of research. Change the other factors involved, like our total inclusion, every firefighter will now collect a much bigger benefit.
    We don't earn that much money, so the amount that would be added would be very small, in the whole scheme of things.

    We weren't included in the original plan, and we were forced to fend for ourselves on a salary that was only a step or two above broke. They didn't want us in then, by letter of the law, why should we be forced into it now? It wasn't fair then, it isn't fair now. We'll stick on our own, as we seem to be doing a very good job at it, thank you very much for your concern.

    You actually have it pretty good right now. Guys who work part-time contribute in far more than they will ever receive back in the benefit.

    And so what if they have a special needs child who will collect this benefit? And without ever paying in? That already happens with plenty of people who are disabled and have never paid.
    I am familiar with cases of people who are non-hearing, who received SSI as children, who never contributed into the system. Thats part of why the system is there, as it is an entitlement program.
    In the beginning it was a retirement system and one only contributed 2%. Since then it has become just another POS government entitlement plan. No one should be exempt from paying for the illegals and the disabled.

  18. #18
    the 4-1-4
    Jasper 45's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    ...A great place, on a Great Lake
    Posts
    2,784

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ScareCrow57 View Post
    No one should be exempt from paying for the illegals and the disabled.
    Well tough. We weren't included in the beginning, nor should we have to help out your mess now.
    After all, that's only fair.

  19. #19
    Forum Member
    scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    10,330

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DaSharkie View Post
    Actually it is. But at least I will admit borrowing more than taking in is wrong. You admit that you would tax everything that is made and take it all. Yet you say that there is no difference between Liberalism and Communism/Socialism.

    Love your hypocracy.
    How so? All that borrowing done by conservatives is the same thing. All those borrowed dollars have to get re-paid from the US Treasury. All conservatives have done is push off the bill to a different group.
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

  20. #20
    Forum Member
    DaSharkie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2000
    Posts
    4,713

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by scfire86 View Post
    How so? All that borrowing done by conservatives is the same thing. All those borrowed dollars have to get re-paid from the US Treasury. All conservatives have done is push off the bill to a different group.
    With the help of innumerable Democrats who voted for the same budgets as the Republicans.

    Then again, you could never blame a Democrat for doing the same thing as a Republican.

    You are such a freaking hypocrate. It takes more than just one party to bankrupt the country, yet you only blame the one party. I hold out hope that one day you may find a cure for your rectal-cranial inversion.
    "Too many people spend money they haven't earned, to buy things they don't want, to impress people they don't like." Will Rogers

    The borrower is slave to the lender. Proverbs 22:7 - Debt free since 10/5/2009.

    "No man's life, liberty, or property are safe while the legislature is in session." - New York Judge Gideon Tucker

    "As Americans we must always remember that we all have a common enemy, an enemy that is dangerous, powerful and relentless. I refer, of course, to the federal government." - Dave Barry

    www.daveramsey.com www.clarkhoward.com www.heritage.org

  21. #21
    Forum Member
    MTKROUSH's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Hernando MS USA
    Posts
    558

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ScareCrow57 View Post
    In the beginning it was a retirement system and one only contributed 2%. Since then it has become just another POS government entitlement plan. No one should be exempt from paying for the illegals and the disabled.
    we agree on almost everything except this. Illegals should be deported not paid by Social Security and the truly disabled deserve any assistance they can get. Those deadbeats that refuse to work and draw a "crazy check" should be drug out in the street and shot
    To err is human, To forgive divine and at times I am as much of both as you will ever find

  22. #22
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    SW MO
    Posts
    4,249

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ScareCrow57 View Post
    In the beginning it was a retirement system and one only contributed 2%. Since then it has become just another POS government entitlement plan. No one should be exempt from paying for the illegals and the disabled.
    Actually, in the beginning it was a means to help with the financial burden put upon families who took in their elderly or disable family members. It has since been turned into a "retirement system." The inherent problem is that the gov't can effectively run their own business, how in the hell should anyone expect them to run a retirement system?

    I've said it once, I'll say it again. Get rid of SSI all together and require a certain percentage of your pay (regardless of income) to go towards some type of privatized retirement program and rid our country of one of our government's slush fund.

  23. #23
    Forum Member
    DaSharkie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2000
    Posts
    4,713

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by scfire86 View Post
    How so? All that borrowing done by conservatives is the same thing. All those borrowed dollars have to get re-paid from the US Treasury. All conservatives have done is push off the bill to a different group.
    Because you only blame the Conservatives for increased spending. It could not have been done without yes votes from Democrats. Including your Chosen One, John Kerry, Ted Kennedy, Nancy Pelosi, Charles Schumer, Hillary Clinton, Charles (I don't pay my own taxes but want you to) Rangel, and the rest of your high and mighty Liberal elite.

    I disagree with the indebted spending, but you only blame one group, not everyone. That is what makes you a hypocrate. Your Democrats and Liberals can do not wrong. Ever.
    "Too many people spend money they haven't earned, to buy things they don't want, to impress people they don't like." Will Rogers

    The borrower is slave to the lender. Proverbs 22:7 - Debt free since 10/5/2009.

    "No man's life, liberty, or property are safe while the legislature is in session." - New York Judge Gideon Tucker

    "As Americans we must always remember that we all have a common enemy, an enemy that is dangerous, powerful and relentless. I refer, of course, to the federal government." - Dave Barry

    www.daveramsey.com www.clarkhoward.com www.heritage.org

  24. #24
    Banned

    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    8,677

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MTKROUSH View Post
    we agree on almost everything except this. Illegals should be deported not paid by Social Security and the truly disabled deserve any assistance they can get. Those deadbeats that refuse to work and draw a "crazy check" should be drug out in the street and shot
    I believe we agree that his is wrong. I too say you find an illegal and back to your homeland for you. And those deadbeats you speak of are exactly the problem. We have generations of leaches who just live off of the welfare system because they have learned how to beat the system. The welfare system needs to be a TEMPORARY help, not a way of life. I have always said, the first time you use the system you get a nice helping hand with little hassle. But after 6 months you start to make things more and more difficult. I feel that anybody who is been sucking off the system for more than 12 months, without good reason (and these should be the exception) should have to report to a facility every day at 7:00 am and hang out for 8 hours. No show, no pay.

    Liberals believe in Give a man a fish to feed him for a day,
    Conservatives believe if you teach a man to fish you will feed him for life.

    The remaining problem is that after you teach him to fish you must force him to fish, you can't keep giving him the fish.

  25. #25
    Banned

    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    8,677

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Catch22 View Post
    Actually, in the beginning it was a means to help with the financial burden put upon families who took in their elderly or disable family members. It has since been turned into a "retirement system." The inherent problem is that the gov't can effectively run their own business, how in the hell should anyone expect them to run a retirement system?

    I've said it once, I'll say it again. Get rid of SSI all together and require a certain percentage of your pay (regardless of income) to go towards some type of privatized retirement program and rid our country of one of our government's slush fund.
    Take a look at this WIKI article Social Security. You can also do a Google search on it as well and find other sources.
    The original Social Security Act and the current version of the Act, as amended encompass several social welfare or social insurance programs. The larger and better known initiatives of the program are:

    * Federal Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance
    * Unemployment Insurance
    * Temporary Assistance to Needy Families
    * Health Insurance for Aged and Disabled (Medicare)
    * Grants to States for Medical Assistance Programs (Medicaid)
    * State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP)
    * Supplemental Security Income (SSI)
    The Social Security Act was drafted by President Roosevelt's committee on economic security, under Edwin Witte, and passed by Congress as part of the New Deal. The act was an attempt to limit what were seen as dangers in the modern American life, including old age poverty, unemployment, and the burdens of widows and fatherless children. By passing this act, President Roosevelt became the first president to advocate the protection of the elderly.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Presidential election
    By FFYagour88 in forum The Off Duty Forums
    Replies: 605
    Last Post: 09-25-2008, 09:05 PM
  2. I.A.C.O.J. Election results
    By 1835Wayne in forum The Off Duty Forums
    Replies: 71
    Last Post: 09-18-2008, 08:35 AM
  3. Provo FD Election MUD
    By UTFFEMT in forum Utah
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 11-01-2005, 02:54 PM
  4. NJ Election
    By Stingray69ZL1 in forum Firefighters Forum
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 10-24-2002, 10:58 PM
  5. Need opinions about Election issue
    By FemFF&EMT in forum Firefighters Forum
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: 04-16-2002, 12:23 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts

Log in

Click here to log in or register