Are you kidding?

Reader comment on: Underfunded State Pension Plans

Submitted by David Moran (United States), Oct 4, 2010 17:12

The guy works for the state! What do you think he would say? The whole point is that the state cannot fund these promised benefits, and so 401ks must be employed, just as in the private sector. The private sector has survived (so far!) -- why can't the state?

Note: Comments are moderated by the editor and are subject to editing.

The Future of Capitalism replies:

Excellent point that the guy works for the state. And I agree that it should all move toward defined contribution/401K rather than defined benefit. But so long as we have defined benefit, what is the virtue in taxing people to set up these huge pools of capital for politicians to invest and control (badly, in exchange for campaign contributions from the money managers and to then vote the proxies however they want) rather than just funding the payouts year-to-year out of the budget?

Other reader comments on this item

Title By Date
⇒ Are you kidding?
[w/response] [49 words]		David MoranOct 4, 2010 17:12
↔ Moral Duty vs. Fiscal Responsibility [382 words]RonaldoOct 14, 2010 13:25
Public Pensions [228 words]J.JohnsonOct 4, 2010 14:07

Comment on this item

Mark my comment as a response to Are you kidding? by David Moran

Email me if someone replies to my comment

Note: Comments are moderated by the editor and are subject to editing.