Editor's note: John Feehery worked as a staffer for former House Speaker Dennis Hastert and other Republicans in Congress. He is president of Feehery Group, a Washington-based advocacy firm that has represented clients including News Corp., Ford Motor Company and the United States Chamber of Commerce. He formerly was a government relations executive vice president for the Motion Picture Association of America.
(CNN) -- I was talking to a close family friend during my vacation in Florida, and he was criticizing the governor there for taking the stimulus money that came from the federal government.
"Florida should just cut government spending, and not use the Feds as a crutch," he said with great vehemence.
Now, this family friend is not a wealthy guy, but he lives a comfortable life, made more comfortable by the fact that he gets a nice monthly pension check from the state. I didn't dare suggest to him that perhaps cutting back on his monthly pension might be one way to cut that spending, because if I had, I would have had a seven-iron flying at my head.
But what is most interesting to me about that conversation is how the attitude of this family friend reflects the attitudes of most Americans. Cut government spending, but don't touch my piece of the pie, the many cry out as one.
As federal policy makers grapple with the budget next week when Congress reconvenes, I challenge them to answer four uncomfortable questions that could bankrupt the country if unanswered:
First, why do we let people retire too early and then expect them to live so long without working? In 1910, the average retirement age in the United States was 74. In 2002, however, the average retirement age was 62. Average life expectancy in 1910 was around 55, while in 2002 it was 77.
Throughout most of our nation's history, people were expected to work regardless of their age. Only over the last several decades has that changed.
Now it is assumed even if you are completely able-bodied and able-minded, you don't need to work and indeed you shouldn't be required to do so if you reach a certain age and certain number of years at one job. But that is crazy. We can't afford it. As people live longer, they should work longer, be productive longer, pay taxes longer, and be full participants in our nation's economy longer.
Second, why do most Americans spend so much of their health care expenditures in the last three months of their life? Fully 27 percent of Medicare is devoted to spending on end-of-life health (in other words, health care that doesn't work), according to the Journal of the American Medical Association.
According to a Mayo Clinic study, "Older people with chronic illnesses have the highest rates of intensive-care-unit (ICU) use at the end of their lives. The country's aging population has an increased prevalence of chronic diseases, signaling that ICUs may treat more and more people in the years ahead. Intensive care costs comprise 30 to 40 percent of hospital spending and may continue to grow as the population ages."
In other words, we are paying a lot of money for health care that ends up with the patient dead. If we want to keep from going bankrupt, we have to have a more rational way to look at end-of-life care.
Third, why do so many people pay nothing in federal income taxes? According to the Tax Foundation, fully 32 percent of all Americans pay no federal income taxes while 42 percent of single Americans pay no federal income taxes. With President Obama's aggressive efforts to give more money to more Americans through tax credit refundability, many experts expect that over half of the people will owe nothing or may get back some money from the federal government.
Ironically, this trend started under George W. Bush, the president who supposedly ignored the poor. But taking so many people off the income tax rolls has two unfortunate consequences. First, it brings less revenue in to pay for a government that is already teetering on bankruptcy.
Second, it makes wholesale tax reform more difficult. Hey, if I ain't paying any taxes under the current system, why should I want to change it? But at some point in time, squeezing the so-called rich will become counterproductive to economic growth, and the pie will start to shrink. It is not fair that so many Americans pay nothing in income taxes to their government.
Fourth, why is it more profitable to work in the government than to work in the private sector? According to one study, public employees earned benefits worth an average of $13.38 an hour in December 2008, while private-sector workers got benefits worth $7.98 an hour. Overall, total compensation for state and local workers was $39.25 an hour, $11.90 more than in the private sector.
Democrats will argue this calls for more mandates from the government to increase the minimum wage. What it actually means is that government workers, who are paid by the taxpayers, are vastly overpaid, and with their benefits and their pensions, are risking the financial health of this country.
When Congress reconvenes next week, the talk will center on President Obama's budget, his plans to increase taxes on the wealthy and his ambition to spend more money on bigger government on programs that we can't afford. Let's hope that some courageous politicians somewhere will have the wherewithal to ask these kinds of uncomfortable questions so we can have an honest debate about what is really driving our nation over the cliff, fiscally speaking.
"Fourth, why is it more profitable to work in the government than to work in the private sector? According to one study, public employees earned benefits worth an average of $13.38 an hour in December 2008, while private-sector workers got benefits worth $7.98 an hour. Overall, total compensation for state and local workers was $39.25 an hour, $11.90 more than in the private sector.
Democrats will argue this calls for more mandates from the government to increase the minimum wage. What it actually means is that government workers, who are paid by the taxpayers, are vastly overpaid, and with their benefits and their pensions, are risking the financial health of this country."
***********************************************************************************************************************************
Sorry if I snicker and chortle over this snippet from the post! I would be most interested in where this incorrect information came from. Having worked in the federal government sector I can assure you that the vast majority of federal workers definitely DO NOT receive higher wages for comparable jobs in the private sector.
Secondly, there are also many full time workers in the private sector who have much better health benefits than one would expect from the government health plans where premiums are supposed to be more affordable the more employees a business entity has! One thing that does hold true which certainly has never made sense to me is why a family with one child pays the same premium as another family with multiple children! I found this to be the case in both the private as well as the government sector from personal experience. A family of 6 will surely cost more in healthcare issues than a family of 3 yet there is no difference in premium!
So you support the slashing of military pay and benefits? Because they are considered federal employees and what was it that was said in the article? "Over paid"???
You can see them if you want to...just go to usajobs.gov! I have seen many more state positions that pay much more than the federal sector. Remember also I said comparable jobs in the private sector.
Most people in their 50+ have grown children by the way.
and you are so right Jen! If it were not so there are many military families who would not need the food stamps they currently qualify for! Gotta love that "put your life on the line" and we'll make sure you get those food stamps for your family. A truly sad state of affairs.
I didn't mention a thing about military pay and neither did the author. Typical hysterics of this board.
+ + + + +
Most people in their 50+ have grown children by the way.
Yes, they do. I am one of them. What does that have to do with my point that the health care expense of older people is greater than that of children? You seem to think people should pay an increased premium for each additional child. My point: children's health care expenses are minimal compared to those of older citizens. It's not a negative comment toward older people. It's just a fact.
Why you would dismiss the thoughts of the author because he worked for a republican is telling. The issues he raised are not partisan ... early retirement? high medical expenditures during the life-ending period? no federal tax, at all, paid by 32%? Why would you see these as partisan directed?
This message has been edited by Carolyn826 on Apr 16, 2009 10:29 AM
Jen, perhaps you should query the jobs at usajob.gov. You need to defocus on self and consider the thousands of other federal jobs. IMO, if the author had intended to single out military pay, he would have done so.
He should have specified what he meant by "federal employees" carolyn. Because it includes military pay. I'm not turning it around on me. I'm wondering why the douch bag didn't specifically say "excluding military of course".
He gives opinions with nothing to back up his opinions. Does he really think it'll help in cutting federal employee incomes? What a great way to drive us further into the abyss. People who count on that income, should have their pay cut back. "sacrifice" is only ok when it comes out of a federal employee's check but not out of a rich man's check.
Because taxing the richest Americans is somehow going to throw us more into recession, slashing federal employee pay is some how good economics. You tell me how that works?
When it's the blue collar , lower incomed individuals that make up the majority in the US AND actually are the ones that drive the economy. Slash their pay, but don't ever ever tax the ultra rich - because it'll make the recession worse.
squeezing the so-called rich will become counterproductive to economic growth,
Yet squeezing the middle class and lower income is some how "better".
There was no comment that the rich should not be taxed. There is an implied opinion that no one should be excused from paying some tax. I agree with that. It it not healthy for citizens to have an attitude that it is someone else's job to provide for them (with obvious exceptions, of course, for those that are physically or mentally disabled).
squeezing the so-called rich will become counterproductive to economic growth,
-------
This comment, Carolyn. "Squeezing the 'so-called' rich" yet, a few paragraphs down he's talking about Federal employees being paid "too much".......don't you find that a wee bit odd?
He should have specified what he meant by "federal employees" carolyn. Because it includes military pay. I'm not turning it around on me. I'm wondering why the douch bag didn't specifically say "excluding military of course".
Oh stop it... Nobody but a self-centered goober looking for a fight lumps soldier pay into "federal employees". Defense spending is a totally seperate, and independant part of any budget, and always has been.
He gives opinions with nothing to back up his opinions. Does he really think it'll help in cutting federal employee incomes? What a great way to drive us further into the abyss. People who count on that income, should have their pay cut back. "sacrifice" is only ok when it comes out of a federal employee's check but not out of a rich's man's check.
Federal employees are all but exempt from the ups and downs of the marketplace. Uncle Sugar is unlikely to go out of business, file for bankruptcy, or lose a big contract and be forced into layoffs. Is that "fair"? Do private sector workers who actually *produce* something not "count on that income"? "Rich men" *hire* employees, and provide the income that they "count on". Unlike the career beurocrat "rich men" who are set for life with *your* money.
But at some point in time, squeezing the so-called rich will become counterproductive to economic growth
-------------
What it actually means is that government workers, who are paid by the taxpayers, are vastly overpaid, and with their benefits and their pensions, are risking the financial health of this country.
----------------------------------
poor poor rich people...taxing them too much is counterproductive. Whereas paying federal employees "too much" (at $11 an hour which is "too much") is totally reasonable and would be "productive" in regaining control of this recession....I dun geddit
The quotes around "so called rich" are appropriate. The government is defining rich as those making over $250K. Families living in Connecticut, NYC, San Fran, or a host of other "high rent" areas, raising a family, perhaps caring for an aging parent, saving for their children's education, paying for their business investments, perhaps paying employees and employee health care premiums, putting away money for their own eventual retirements are not rich. They are hard working citizens just as those in the $40-$50K income bracket are.
You and I and the author agree ... no one should be exempt from some type of income tax.
So federal employes don't "produce anything"????????????
Defense spending includes separation pay, combat duty pay, bonuses, and other extra pay. However, military members are considered "federal employees" as they are paid "by the taxpayers". The author should have excluded military pay from his "slash the $11 an hour federal employees" (which includes teachers who are already not paid enough, police, fire fighters, postal workers, social security reps, CNAs, Nurses, Doctors, hospital workers, people who pick up YOUR garbage, sanitary workers, road maintenance, school bus drivers, transit workers, shit, I could go on) but of course, they don't "produce anything" so why the fuck should you care, right?
The quotes around "so called rich" are appropriate. The government is defining rich as those making over $250K. Families living in Connecticut, NYC, San Fran, or a host of other "high rent" areas, raising a family, perhaps caring for an aging parent, saving for their children's education, paying for their business investments, perhaps paying employees and employee health care premiums, putting away money for their own eventual retirements are not rich. They are hard working citizens just as those in the $40-$50K income bracket are.
You and I and the author agree ... no one should be exempt from some type of income tax.
----------
Let's turn this around then, Carolyn: I've heard it over and over again - if they can't afford the homes they are in, they should move to a home they can afford. They are hard working citizens, but the thing is, there are equally less expensive areas they can move to. They don't HAVE to have the BMW with the $800 a month payment. Just like everyone else, they can sacrifice for the good of the country rather than be the "poor victims" of the tax-boogey man.
I rather thought that republicans were against victimology. I don't get how it's "poor people who make 250, they can't pay anymore in taxes because they'll lose their 5th car"
then turn around and say "those federal employees are getting MY MONEY dammit, they don't produce anything and can afford a pay slash"
Yes, all should pay something into the pot. I think our tax system needs a huge overhaul right now.
"The quotes around "so called rich" are appropriate. The government is defining rich as those making over $250K. Families living in Connecticut, NYC, San Fran, or a host of other "high rent" areas, raising a family, perhaps caring for an aging parent, saving for their children's education, paying for their business investments, perhaps paying employees and employee health care premiums, putting away money for their own eventual retirements are not rich. They are hard working citizens just as those in the $40-$50K income bracket are."
and there certainly are tax shelters and tax exemptions for all of those things you have listed here. I would also not be the least bit surprised if the military was included in the author's discussion of overpaid government employees wage info he discusses and just did not mention it. They are a very "secretive" group about the right of the public to know and that is a fact.
Remember the government never used Social Security trust funds too but we know that isn't true either!
"First, why do we let people retire too early and then expect them to live so long without working? In 1910, the average retirement age in the United States was 74. In 2002, however, the average retirement age was 62. Average life expectancy in 1910 was around 55, while in 2002 it was 77.
Throughout most of our nation's history, people were expected to work regardless of their age. Only over the last several decades has that changed."
and BTW as recent as a year and 1/2 ago I had many inquiries from 80+ seniors inquiring as to how much they could make without affecting their SSA! The only issue they would have had would have been IRS tax liablity if they exceeded $25,000 for single and $32,000 for couples including 1/2 of their SSA and all other taxable income. I don't know about you but it distressed me to find these 80 somethings needing to work in this "rich" country! They should recheck those figures and bring them up to date and then give us the truth as it is now!
First, why do we let people retire too early and then expect them to live so long without working?
I couldn't agree more. I really don't see why an able-bodied, able-minded person in their 70's shouldn't work.
Second, why do most Americans spend so much of their health care expenditures in the last three months of their life?
Another good point, but as soon as one brings this up people start screaming about "rationing" of healthcare (as if we don't have de-facto rationing now) and braying about how you want to destroy the "best helthcare system in the world." Any proposed reforms that would actually address pthis problem are argrily labeled "socialism" etc.
The insurance industry and the healthcare industry have a huge stake in preserving our screwed-up system and they have plenty of money to spend on propaganda to destroy any serious attempt at reform.
Third, why do so many people pay nothing in federal income taxes?
Simple: because we don't believe in taxing people into destitution. Note that these people do pay taxes - sales taxes, property tax (either directly or indirectly as part of their rent) etc.
Fourth, why is it more profitable to work in the government than to work in the private sector?
I'd like to see the details of this study. The cops, firefighters, teachers etc. that I know don't seem to be living that large.
Cops, firefighters and teachers aren't federal employees, for the most part.
Your original post refers to "public employees" not "federal employees." And cops, firefighters, public school teachers etc. are indeed "public employees."
The quote is: Fourth, why is it more profitable to work in the government than to work in the private sector? According to one study, public employees earned benefits worth an average of $13.38 an hour in December 2008, while private-sector workers got benefits worth $7.98 an hour. Overall, total compensation for state and local workers was $39.25 an hour, $11.90 more than in the private sector.
It does say public employees, not federal. Then it mentions overall compensation of state and local workers with no mention of federal. His statement is very confusing to say the least. It is more like trash talk with nothing to back it up.
and I can tell you that there are many public employees who make way more than federal employees for same positions! I guess one has to be smothered in the GOP cloak to take so much as gospel with this informative piece! smirk...chortle....guffaw
You're right. It does say public employees. I thought it was federal. You're also right, the article does not provide all of the background research used for the opinion. I won't bother again, unless I have the entire book of research to back up a simple commentary.
Geez.
I will give your President more respect than you gave mine ...
Posts like that do inflame people to think just what Carolyn thought that federal employees make way more than employees in the private sector. This is what Rush does. People react to half truths and that is what is driving the U.S. over a cliff.
All of us need to try to find the facts first. If we post opinion, we should not make others think it is fact.
If you actively search and apply for jobs with the state or federal government, you will see the disparity between the wages. I was considering changing jobs, and a similar job with the state would have paid approximately 15% more, which does not even consider benefits. The competition for the jobs is pretty great, of course the most difficult thing to overcome for most people, being the 5-10 point veterans preference. The state also makes concessions for experience in lieu of education.
The biggest complaint I have about government employees is the number of employees it takes to do one job.
I have worked for both the federal and local governments, the education system, AND the private sector. The differences are astounding. Naturally the private companies are the best at managing the money, and saving. The education system is always broke. They look for ways to save money...but not because it is in their best interests...it is simply because there never is enough. The federal government is based on ever-increasing budgets. God forbid you should have money left over at the end of the FY...that is the biggest sin there is.
~~life isn't about how to survive the storm but how to dance in the rain~~
When the character of a man is not clear to you, look at his friends.
Japanese Proverb
Moon and Beastmom chose to focus on only one of the points he made. Jan at least considered all of them. When I read the article, I considered all of his suggestions. I should have known that wouldn't be done here.
First, why do we let people retire too early and then expect them to live so long without working?
Second, why do most Americans spend so much of their health care expenditures in the last three months of their life?
Third, why do so many people pay nothing in federal income taxes?
Fourth, why is it more profitable to work in the government than to work in the private sector?
I will give your President more respect than you gave mine ...
First, why do we let people retire too early and then expect them to live so long without working?
**********************************************
Well, I'm not sure we "let" people retire too early. Not sure what that means. If they have the means to retire, why not "let" them? otoh, so much as it pertains to Social Security, I would have no problem upping the retirement age, except of course, in cases of disability.
That is probably a function of when we most need it, and also a function of the insurance companies doing their best to delay life prolonging and/or wellness programs, so that all their costs are predicated on you dying before they lose their profit on you. [And, I know, I've been working with health insurance/benefit programs for 38 years. I know how they study the actuarial tables.
Fourth, why is it more profitable to work in the government than to work in the private sector?
*********************************************
I didn't know it was. In forty years of professional employment, I've worked about 60% in private and 40% in public.. There is, and has been, in my experience nothing more "profitable" in public service as compared to private employment. There is a bit more stability in public employment, there is usually less chance for serious advancement due to talent though.
A Tax Foundation survey found 56% of Americans think the amount of federal income tax they pay is too high. Those most likely to feel that way, according to the survey, include those making between $35,000 and $50,000.
But once the various tax breaks to which they're entitled are counted, the burdens of low- and middle-income tax filers as a group has been fairly low.
The Tax Policy Center estimates that for 2009, 43% of tax units (most of which are lower income households that may or may not file a return) will have no income tax liability or will have a negative income tax liability, meaning the government will actually pay them.
When measuring the tax burdens from income tax and payroll tax combined, the Tax Policy Center estimates nearly 12% of tax units will have zero or negative liability.
Why won't you post whole articles Carolyn? As usual, you only post excerpts that happen to correspond with your own biases. Well, here you go, all biases aside.
Jim..
Who pays taxes - and how much?
The federal tax burden varies widely across income groups, but a surprising number owe little if anything in income taxes.
By Jeanne Sahadi, CNNMoney.com senior writer
Last Updated: April 16, 2009: 3:06 PM ET
NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- For most Americans, Wednesday is the day they have to make sure they're square with the tax man.
It's also a day that focuses the mind on those perennial questions about the fairness of the U.S. tax system. Are higher-income people paying enough - or would raising their taxes depress their incentive to work? Are the poor getting gouged - or do too many get off without paying a penny? Are those in the vast middle getting squeezed?
The questions are particularly relevant these days, as deficits pile up, demands for government spending soar and many of the past decade's tax cuts near their expiration in 2010.
Going forward, the White House has said it wants to cut taxes for families making less than $250,000, while at the same time start collecting more from families with bigger incomes in 2011.
Of course, the burden of funding the federal government isn't designed to be spread equally. The U.S. tax code is progressive, meaning that higher-income tax filers pay more in taxes than those lower down the income scale.
But just how much more?
The highest earners pay the lion's share of the dollars Uncle Sam collects.
The top fifth of households made 56% of pre-tax income in 2006 but paid 86% of all individual income tax revenue collected, according to the most recent data available from the Congressional Budget Office.
Narrowing in further:The top 1% of households, which made 19% of pre-tax income, paid 39% of all individual income taxes.
The trend is similar if you count income taxes, social insurance taxes, excise taxes and corporate income taxes (such as capital gains) combined. The top fifth of households paid 69% of all federal taxes. The top 1% paid 28%.
But researchers also note that the highest income taxpayers derive the most benefits from the tax cuts put in place since 2001.
Next year, as a result of all those tax cuts, filers making more than $1 million will enjoy a 7.7% average boost in their after-tax income relative to what they would have if the tax cuts weren't in place, according to the Tax Policy Center. Middle-income households, by comparison, will see an average boost of 2.6%.
Many pay no income tax or very little
A Tax Foundation survey found 56% of Americans think the amount of federal income tax they pay is too high. Those most likely to feel that way, according to the survey, include those making between $35,000 and $50,000.
But once the various tax breaks to which they're entitled are counted, the burdens of low- and middle-income tax filers as a group has been fairly low.
The Tax Policy Center estimates that for 2009, 43% of tax units (most ofwhich are lower income households that may or may not file a return) will have no income tax liability or will have a negative income tax liability, meaning the government will actually pay them.
When measuring the tax burdens from income tax and payroll tax combined, the Tax Policy Center estimates nearly 12% of tax units will have zero or negative liability.
As for everyone else, it's likely their net income tax burden will not be high.
For example, in 2005, just under one in 10 filers owed more than 15% of their income in federal income tax, said Roberton Williams, senior fellow at the Tax Policy Center. Roughly 70% of them had incomes over $100,000.
First, why do we let people retire too early and then expect them to live so long without working?
The reason is that when FDR set up Social Security, very few people reached the age of 65. Life expectancy has increased, but the laws were not changed. There was a time when people retired from the military after 20 years, worked for the Post Office 20 years, and worked on Social Security long enough to qualify for Medicare. Laws should have been changed long ago .
Second, why do most Americans spend so much of their health care expenditures in the last three months of their life?
Young and generally healthy people recover faster from various ailments. The older people have weakened immune systems and more medication is needed to fight off various diseases. In addition, more life sustaining equipment is needed to to help them survive.
Third, why do so many people pay nothing in federal income taxes?
It is the way the government has defined the poverty level and qualifications for various aid programs. Many people earn a minimal wage and qualify for the earned income credit. Generally the reasoning is that it requires a given amount for each individual to maintain his food, clothing an shelter for the period of one year. Originally, the amount for each exemption was $600. Of course the exemptions have increased. In addition the Standard deduction is granted so that the exemption and standard deduction is the estimate for individuals to live for one year.
People who do not exceed that limit pay no income tax; however the may qualify for the earned income credit.
If you mean rich people not paying taxes, it is largely due to the way the receive income. There are tax free municipal bonds, empowerment zones, and many other ivvestments that produce tax-free income
Fourth, why is it more profitable to work in the government than to work in the private sector?
I suspect that the article is separating Civil Service workers from the Military, teachers, etc. With that in mind, Civil Service workers have far more benefits than the average private sector employee. Remember when making the comparison, you should note that Wal Mart workers and many non union workers are included in the private sector. Those workers would tend to lower the private sector workers at entry level as compared with Civil Service workers at entry level. As you move up the ladder, you will find that the large corporations pay more than government. But generally when the comparison is made with Civil Service workers and the private sector, government workers make more
Ya know here is my personal experience working for the public and private sectors. I made more annnnnddddd had better benefits in the private sector...........however the job stability and opportunities were more profound in the public sector! so therefore I gave up a bit to work for the federal government and in addition I have to say it provided one of the most rewarding experiences of my working career. and now I am back to working in the private sector as a self employed individual with an opportunity for immense growth and personal satisfaction in a business due to the training and positions I held in the public sector!
It all boils down to choice....but believe me. The majority of jobs do not come close to the "flaming" commentary that started all this. Remember the types of jobs.....do you really think the psychiatrists and doctors choose to do this for the job? I think many of their motives in working for the government at a far less rate of pay than they would be earning in the private sector speaks volumes.....they do it because they like the work and they like to make a difference as well. Many of them are probably also learning a lot that will help them when they do return to the private sector and many will eventually I bet.
When one posts such a post, one cannot sit on their haunches and expect no discourse or discussion and then cry foul when it happens.
How long ago did you work in the private sector? For a company?
I worked for BP from 1976 to 1983; I worked for Marine Management from 1984 to 1987; I worked for UniSea from 1989 to 1993; I worked for MEA from 1997 to 2004..
Her post was directly above mine. She was the one partipating in the conversation at the moment. She posted at 9:43; I asked the question at 9:46. I didn't think it was that difficult to follow.
Her post was directly above mine. She was the one partipating in the conversation at the moment. She posted at 9:43; I asked the question at 9:46. I didn't think it was that difficult to follow.
****************************
Yep.. You are without defect. We always know what you are referring to. If we misconstrue, it is entirely the fault of those of us who refuse to embrace your thoughts.
Yes Carolyn....I worked for companies in the private sector. One was a multi-state corporation that sold to a foreign company (Germans) who decided there was more money to be had in the real estate market than the business which was operating in the black. Another would lay off employees (although I wasn't affected) during the holidays every year. I also worked for a couple of government contractors and contract negotiations and awards to a new contractor left much to be desired. The final straw with the private sector for me was when I had to turn in my employer for fraud and they were prosecuted successfully. However, all that happens whether convicted or bankrupt it seems that all one has to do is begin the same practices again with a new company under a different name!
My own experiences in addition to what I observed occurring in the private sector as far as stability was a major factor in my making the decision to go federal! It turns out to have been an excellent choice and helped shape where I am now! I certainly did not get rich working for the federal government...my benefits were always much better in the private sector than what I had in the federal but they were sufficient although more spendy.
My question to you beastmom was how long ago did you work for a company in the private sector. You said your benefits were great. Things have changed and are continuing to change. GM employees HAD great benefits too ... once upon a time.
Well let's see here.....22 years ago I stopped working in the private sector to go federal....and now I am once more in the private sector but under my own terms. If you were hoping to jump in and say things were not as bad then as now....in some aspects that is true but during the Reagan years we saw the beginnings of the same thing we are experiencing now. I know that you will more than likely disagree....that my dear is YOUR problem! Dissent away....This was my experience and shared by many others! I just chose to take a different path and have no regrets with that!
I don't blame you one bit for what you did and I'm glad it turned out well for you. I am simply refuting your comment that pay and benefits are better in the private sector than they are in the public sector. That is changing.
Carolyn....I was not blind to the private sector...I still have had and do have many friends who work in the private sector during my federal years and they had many benefits and higher pay than I did during those years.
Maybe if a survey were taken of the the entire private sector to also include doctors, lawyers, engineers etc which is what was used for this "flaming" commentary you and others would not be so quick to jump on the bandwagon of overpaid public employees! I would surely like to see the same type of survey to include all those high paying private jobs and it would also have to include the CEO's of course. So as moonie said earlier apples to oranges....it is a very VERY misleading commentary meant for the gullible and meant to inflame....you seem to have fell for it and I'm sure you are not alone in that!
I retired at age 45, thankfully my husband has been willing to carry me on his ins. and support me through the years. My (older than me) husband thought about retiring last May at the ripe old age of 57 but decided to wait another year. He is 58 years old and thinking about retiring but seriously considering waiting until next April 2010 when he will be 59 1/2. I keep telling him it's his choice. One question, to whom should he ask permission before retiring?
edited to add; he works in the private sector
This message has been edited by cjgrill on Apr 17, 2009 2:36 PM
I should add, I believe the author felt that early retirees stop contributing to support of social security by retiring early. Fewer people paying in to any and all government funded programs means less money to support those programs.
Current Topic - What's driving the U.S. over a cliff?
![[linked image]](http://www.network54.com/Realm/JansRealm/wfelix.gif)
