Try the political quiz
@ISIDEWITHQuestionsEconomyStarted 13yrs agoActive 4wks ago

Should pension plans for federal, state, and local government workers be transitioned into privately managed accounts?

The average retired federal employee receives a pension (retirement plan) of $32,824 annually. Total unfunded pension liability for all U.S. cities and counties is an estimated $574 billion. In addition to their pensions, federal employees are offered a 401(k) plus 5% matching, whereas the average private employee is offered 3 percent matching of 401(k) without pension.

+
Expand
+ Settings

Filter by author

Narrow down the conversation to these participants:

:

:

:

:

State:

DMA:

Congressional District (2014-2024):

County:

State Senate District:

City:

978 Replies

 @7Z65922Democrat from Georgia  answered…6yrs6Y

No, but I think it should be the workers' choice, therefore give incentives for private accounts and insure that the worker will not lose any money if they chooses to privatize their pension plan

 @9DRHX76  from Georgia  answered…3yrs3Y

Any such pension funds should go towards the budget for universal basic income, as everyone should benefit from a level of basic assistance with no distinction between those who do and do not work for the government of any particular jurisdiction

 @93WLDXF from Georgia  answered…4yrs4Y

Government workers should have the option to opt for a privately managed account

 @8X8QZNM from Georgia  answered…5yrs5Y

No , that's just a lot of extra work and the funds we have to pay now don't seem that bad (paying your own and however much you want seems a little ehh)

 @8N8XSG7 from Georgia  answered…6yrs6Y

They should be given the option to choose whether they want a private managed account or not.

 @8MWYZZM from Georgia  answered…6yrs6Y

I think pension plans should be 50/50

 @8M99BS9 from Georgia  answered…6yrs6Y

Government workers should simply be given an added modifier to social security per their time of service (as an option) and then be given similar investment portfolio opportunities as employees in private sector.

 @8KN6VSF from Georgia  answered…6yrs6Y

Yes, if the employee wants that. But it should not be forced.

 @8HP5DD4 from Georgia  answered…6yrs6Y

No. And employers should provide pension benefits to their employees.

 @8FGCTN6Libertarian from Georgia  answered…6yrs6Y

This doesn’t affect me.

 @8CSCLW7 from Georgia  answered…6yrs6Y

Yes, but only if the worker chooses a private account

 @99VQB39Progressive from Georgia  answered…3yrs3Y

Yes, but with strict requirements to manage pension portfolio risk to the same level it is currently.

 @92M4KYG from Georgia  answered…4yrs4Y

Yes, but it should be voluntary

 @8X8QXB8Republican from Georgia  answered…5yrs5Y

Yes, just so spending doesn't get to crazy

 @938R763 from Georgia  answered…4yrs4Y

Maybe, but there needs to be sufficient incentive to work for the government.

 @92ZSW6T from Georgia  answered…4yrs4Y

That decision should be left to the individual employee. But I think privately managed accounts should be an option.

 @9FCCXKCCommunist from Georgia  answered…3yrs3Y

Communism is better

Demographics

Loading the political themes of users that engaged with this discussion

Loading data...

More conversations

Join in on more popular conversations.

 @ISIDEWITH submitted…2yrs2Y

Israeli Bombings Kill 2,300 In Lebanon in 3 weeks

Lebanese authorities say Israeli bombing has killed more than 2,300 people and injured almost 11,000, mostly in the past three weeks, with Israeli attacks reaching areas far beyond Hizbollah’s traditional bastions of support in the south.The Israeli military has ordered people living in more than a quarter of Lebanon to flee, according to a UN calculation, as its fight with the Iran-backed Shia militant group Hizbollah threatens to engulf the Mediterranean country.Lebanese authorities say Israeli bombing has killed more than 2,300 people and injured almost 11,000, mostly in the past three weeks, with Israeli attacks reaching areas far beyond Hizbollah’s traditional bastions of support in the south.More than 1mn people have fled their homes in Lebanon in under a month, according to its government, a dramatic forced movement of the population in a country of only about 5mn inhabitants with a land mass smaller than the US state of Connecticut. Israeli forces began a ground offensive in south Lebanon two weeks ago, in their fourth invasion of the country in under five decades. They had already destroyed large parts of the densely populated southern Beirut suburb where Hizbollah had its headquarters, and killed many top militant commanders in air strikes, including former leader Hassan Nasrallah.Rema Jamous Imseis, Middle East director of UNHCR, told journalists in Geneva that “over 25 per cent of [Lebanon is] under a direct Israeli military evacuation order”. “People are heeding these calls to evacuate and they’re fleeing with almost nothing,” she added, saying that 80 per cent of the shelters opened by the Lebanese government — mostly in schools — were now full.

▲  1012 replies

 @ISIDEWITH submitted…2yrs2Y

A Moment of Darkness': Washington Post's No-Endorsement Decision Ignites Media Firestorm

Even though the presidential race between former President Donald Trump and Vice President Kamala Harris is neck and neck, The Washington Post has decided not to make a presidential endorsement for the first time in 36 years, the publisher and CEO announced Friday."We are returning to our roots of not endorsing presidential candidates," Will Lewis wrote in an opinion piece published on the paper's website. He referenced the paper's policy in the decades prior to 1976, when, following the Watergate scandal that the Post broke, it endorsed Democratic nominee Jimmy Carter. The last time the Post did not endorse a presidential candidate in the general election was 1988, according to a search of its archives.Colleagues learned the news from the editorial page editor, David Shipley, at a tense meeting shortly before Lewis' announcement. The meeting was characterized by someone with direct knowledge of discussions on condition of anonymity to speak about internal matters.Shipley said that he told other editorial board leaders Thursday by management that there would be no endorsement, though he has known for weeks. He added that he "owns" this decision. The reason he cited was to create "independent space" where the newspaper does not tell people for whom to vote.Colleagues were said to be "shocked" and uniformly negative. Post corporate spokespeople have not responded to multiple messages left by NPR on the subject.Former Washington Post Executive Editor Martin Baron, who led the newsroom to acclaim during Trump's presidency, denounced the decision starkly."This is cowardice, a moment of darkness that will leave democracy as a casualty," Baron said in a statement to NPR. "Donald Trump will celebrate this as an invitation to further intimidate The Post’s owner, Jeff Bezos (and other media owners). History will mark a disturbing chapter of spinelessness at an institution famed for courage."A similar decision by Los Angeles Times owner Patrick Soon-Shiong led this week to the resignations of the paper's editorials editor and two editorial board members. Soon-Shiong said that he had asked the editorial board to draft a "factual analysis" of Trump and Harris' policies and plans. In her resignation letter, editorials editor Mariel Garza said the decision made the paper look “craven and hypocritical,” given its past reporting and editorials on Trump.

▲  1013 replies