More State Workers Greed

Duff Miver

Registered User
Forum Member
Jul 29, 2009
6,521
55
0
Right behind you
Why is the retired general in the piece cited worth $1.2 million?

He's not. sensationalistic journalism at its finest. and you fell for it hook, line and sinker.

He won a contract valued at 1.2million. is that 1.2 million in his pocket? absolutely not.

It's 1.2 million out of taxpayers pockets.

And you never answered the question I asked twice. Here, I'll give you another try: Why is the retired military who collects retirement and then goes back to the same employer and double dips okay, while the school teacher who does the same thing a scum bag?
 

Trench

Turn it up
Forum Member
Mar 8, 2008
3,974
18
0
Mad City, WI
People are upset over this school incident because it was preplanned. He retires, gets his pension, and then comes back to collect both.
And every other example of this practice is NOT planned? :shrug:

Honestly, I don't know why anyone would defend ANY form of double-dipping in either the public sector or the private sector.
 

WhatsHisNuts

Woke
Forum Member
Aug 29, 2006
29,134
1,755
113
51
Earth
www.ffrf.org
it is complete and utter bullshit for anyone to be able to do it.

If you are retired and colllecting a pension, then you are retired.

People on SS can only earn a certain level of income or they lose their benefits.

Same should go for these people, R or D or I - if you are retired, then you are RETIRED!

Why do you hate the free market? Do you think the government should be able to tell people when they can or can't pursue more income? I'm guessing that isn't your issue, your real issue is that you follow republican talking points wherever they may go. If this was the private sector, you'd be singing a different tune, and you know it.
 

ssd

Registered User
Forum Member
Aug 2, 2000
1,837
53
48
Ohio
Hmmmm - whatshisnuts.....are you nuts.....or just unable to comprehend what someone says...

here: I'll repost what I typed for you again. I'll bold a few spots for you as well

it is complete and utter bullshit for anyone to be able to do it. (in this tense - anyone could be associated with someone in the public or private sector)

If you are retired and colllecting a pension, then you are retired. (once again, I have not defined retired as being retired from a public or a private job, all I have said is 'retired')

People on SS can only earn a certain level of income or they lose their benefits.

Same should go for these people, R or D or I - if you are retired, then you are RETIRED!
(oops - once again, I was totally obtuse and just used the word RETIRED - again, it was not referencing any job in any sector, just that someone has retired from A job.)

Thanks for playing. Please take your liberal axe to grind to another mill stone.

You call me out for being partisan and there is not a single thing in this post that it. And please refrain from telling me what I do and do not know. You have no idea.

You, however, look like a partisan dillweed.
 

Trench

Turn it up
Forum Member
Mar 8, 2008
3,974
18
0
Mad City, WI
People on SS can only earn a certain level of income or they lose their benefits.
What do you mean by this, SSD?

The current SS cap limit is $106,800 but no one loses their benefits. There is no means testing for SS recipients (yet anyway).
 

WhatsHisNuts

Woke
Forum Member
Aug 29, 2006
29,134
1,755
113
51
Earth
www.ffrf.org
Hmmmm - whatshisnuts.....are you nuts.....or just unable to comprehend what someone says...

here: I'll repost what I typed for you again. I'll bold a few spots for you as well

it is complete and utter bullshit for anyone to be able to do it. (in this tense - anyone could be associated with someone in the public or private sector)

If you are retired and colllecting a pension, then you are retired. (once again, I have not defined retired as being retired from a public or a private job, all I have said is 'retired')

People on SS can only earn a certain level of income or they lose their benefits.

Same should go for these people, R or D or I - if you are retired, then you are RETIRED!
(oops - once again, I was totally obtuse and just used the word RETIRED - again, it was not referencing any job in any sector, just that someone has retired from A job.)

Thanks for playing. Please take your liberal axe to grind to another mill stone.

You call me out for being partisan and there is not a single thing in this post that it. And please refrain from telling me what I do and do not know. You have no idea.

You, however, look like a partisan dillweed.

Newsflash: All pensions are not equal. If a retiree wants to make more money, let them enter the market. They EARNED their pension, don't tell them how much they are allowed to make. A lot of retired people got fucked in the mortgage meltdown.....should they be shut down from digging their way out of a debt hole because they are "retired"? Keep eating up those talking points.
 

ssd

Registered User
Forum Member
Aug 2, 2000
1,837
53
48
Ohio
I do not know why I am on your shit list here.

I am against double-dipping. Period.

I do not have a pension awaiting my retirement.

I've saved my own money for it.

You probably think I am for private pensions and against public ones.

I am actually against all of them. Private companies have to pay for pensioneers as well. So, they have to pay for them out of profits and that probably means higher consumer prices somewhere in the line.
Public has to pay for pensioneers through taxes.

So, in reality, I am against pensions in general.

I was taught to be fiscally responsible at an early age and have taken the steps necessary to take care of myself in my retirement. It really isn't that hard - just takes some will power and forethought.

Why can SS beneficiaries only make a limited amount of income in retirement yet pensioneers can make an unlimited amount?
 

ssd

Registered User
Forum Member
Aug 2, 2000
1,837
53
48
Ohio
Trench:
here:
only applies to certain people

Full retirement ages

Born before 1943.............65 years
Born between 1943-1954..66 years

The full retirement age will gradually increase each year until it reaches 67 years for people born in 1960 or later.

Early retirement and earnings

If retired below full retirement age: $14,160 per year, and for every $2 over that limit, $1 is withheld from benefits.
 

Trampled Underfoot

Registered
Forum Member
Feb 26, 2001
13,593
164
63
I do not know why I am on your shit list here.

I am against double-dipping. Period.

I do not have a pension awaiting my retirement.

I've saved my own money for it.

You probably think I am for private pensions and against public ones.

I am actually against all of them. Private companies have to pay for pensioneers as well. So, they have to pay for them out of profits and that probably means higher consumer prices somewhere in the line.
Public has to pay for pensioneers through taxes.

So, in reality, I am against pensions in general.

I was taught to be fiscally responsible at an early age and have taken the steps necessary to take care of myself in my retirement. It really isn't that hard - just takes some will power and forethought.

Why can SS beneficiaries only make a limited amount of income in retirement yet pensioneers can make an unlimited amount?

I didn't read this entire thread so maybe i'm missing something but pensions are part of your compensation when you accept a position. Just because it is paid out in the future doesn't mean you are stealing. It's your fucking money. Who gives a shit if you work another job while you are collecting a pension?
 

WhatsHisNuts

Woke
Forum Member
Aug 29, 2006
29,134
1,755
113
51
Earth
www.ffrf.org
I do not know why I am on your shit list here.

I am against double-dipping. Period.


I do not have a pension awaiting my retirement.

I've saved my own money for it.

You probably think I am for private pensions and against public ones.

I am actually against all of them. Private companies have to pay for pensioneers as well. So, they have to pay for them out of profits and that probably means higher consumer prices somewhere in the line.
Public has to pay for pensioneers through taxes.

So, in reality, I am against pensions in general.

I was taught to be fiscally responsible at an early age and have taken the steps necessary to take care of myself in my retirement. It really isn't that hard - just takes some will power and forethought.

Why can SS beneficiaries only make a limited amount of income in retirement yet pensioneers can make an unlimited amount?

Should you be able to make money on investments while you have a job? Should you be able to work two jobs? Where does double dipping start and where does it end? How about we stay the hell out of people's business if they aren't hurting others!

The marketplace used to be much more competitive so companies had to offer pensions. I would also guess there were less investors and less pressure to squeeze every fucking penny out of the business, so you can't hold it against people that were lucky enough to get such a deal.

The problem I have is that the "conservatives" talk out of both sides of their mouths. Deregulate, free market, blah blah blah.....then we see something like this and all the crying starts about "greed" and regulation. It is a fucking joke and you can't see it b/c you're a sucker, just like Rusty, Skulnik, and Raymond. You buy into one side's point of view and whatever they say goes. It's sickening.

I'm liberal but have voted Democrat one time in 20 years.
 

Trench

Turn it up
Forum Member
Mar 8, 2008
3,974
18
0
Mad City, WI
Why can SS beneficiaries only make a limited amount of income in retirement yet pensioneers can make an unlimited amount?
Again, there is no cap on what SS recipients can make (i.e. no means testing). The SS cap only applies to the maximum amount of income from which SS taxes are witheld.
 

Trampled Underfoot

Registered
Forum Member
Feb 26, 2001
13,593
164
63
Again, there is no cap on what SS recipients can make (i.e. no means testing). The SS cap only applies to the maximum amount of income from which SS taxes are witheld.

Surprised ssd didn't know this. And by the way this cap should be raised.
 

marine

poker brat
Forum Member
Jul 13, 1999
3,867
73
48
51
Fort Worth, TX
It's 1.2 million out of taxpayers pockets.

And you never answered the question I asked twice. Here, I'll give you another try: Why is the retired military who collects retirement and then goes back to the same employer and double dips okay, while the school teacher who does the same thing a scum bag?

Dude, for the last time, they are not going back to the same employer and being hired.
FUUUUUUUUUUUUUCK. i'll try and draw you a picture with stick figures so you can attempt to understand it. Because you're so disillusioned with what you -think- is reality simply because it is what you think.

and here, a line from the original article. you should read stuff all the way through, it provides more information to help comprehend what the issue really is.

But Smith said Maki may not have ever left his job if he struck a rehiring deal before he left ? and that?s what the agency will look into.
 

marine

poker brat
Forum Member
Jul 13, 1999
3,867
73
48
51
Fort Worth, TX
Holyshit. policies in place to prevent conflicts of interest. It's almost like I know what I am talking about.


http://www.armytimes.com/news/2011/01/gannett-military-mentors-quit-over-pentagon-rules-012411/


By Tom Vanden Brook - USA Today
Posted : Wednesday Jan 19, 2011 20:30:37 EST



Seven retired admirals and generals hired by the military as consultants will end their advisory roles rather than comply with new regulations requiring them to divulge outside income to avoid a conflict of interest.

The former officers are among 158 Pentagon retirees known as ?senior mentors? who have been identified stories as getting as much as $440 an hour to offer advice on war plans and weapons systems.

A USA Today investigation found that 80 percent of the mentors had financial ties to defense contractors that they were not required to reveal to the public.


Related reading

? Pentagon will stop shielding mentors (Nov. 17, 2010)

? Pentagon redoes rule for mentors (July 19, 2010)

? Mentors hired, fired in discreet fashion (Dec. 22, 2009)

? Gates orders review of military mentor program (Dec. 16, 2009)

? Mentor pay a factor in program review (Dec. 17, 2009)

? Retired general advised Corps, pitched gear (Dec. 15, 2009)

? Loophole let Army hire retired generals (Dec. 8, 2009)

? McCain seeks review of work by retired brass (Nov. 19, 2009)

? Retired officers cash in while advising (Nov. 18, 2009)

The Army, Navy, Marine Corps and Air Force have used the services of about 30 senior mentors. Most of the other mentors advise Pentagon departments that do not fall under the main service branches.

Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman said that seven senior mentors declined this month to file financial disclosure forms and bowed out of the mentors program because they said the requirement is too intrusive.

?We don?t think the requirements are onerous,? Whitman said. ?These are appropriate salary caps as well as necessary transparency.?

Among those mentors who work for the four branches:

? Six former generals at the Army?s Battle Command Training Program at Fort Leavenworth, Kan.

? Four retired admirals at the Naval War College in Newport, R.I.

? Ex-commanders advising on war plans for the Marine Corps at Marine Corps Base Quantico, Va.

? Retired Air Force generals who help the service run war games.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates required last year that mentors disclose their assets and business ties as a condition of employment, and also capped their pay at $179,000. This month, President Obama made that policy law when he signed the defense authorization act.


Discuss:

Mentors quit over income disclosure

If mentors don?t want to disclose their financial ties, they shouldn?t be involved in shaping government decisions, said Mandy Smithberger, a national security investigator with the Project on Government Oversight. ?We?re better off not having them if it?s too onerous,? she said.

Military ethics officials are reviewing the forms to look for potential conflicts, Whitman said.

Dozens of senior mentors advise Pentagon agencies including missile defense and divisions such as Central Command, which is responsible for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. It is not known whether any mentors from those agencies have opted out of the program, Whitman said.

Rep. Robert Andrews, D-N.J., says the public can only judge whether mentors have conflicts of interest by seeing whether they work for defense contractors that benefit from decisions such as the awarding of contracts, he said.

?Filing a financial disclosure is a basic requirement of any position of public trust,? he said.
 

Duff Miver

Registered User
Forum Member
Jul 29, 2009
6,521
55
0
Right behind you
But Smith said Maki may not have ever left his job if he struck a rehiring deal before he left ? and that?s what the agency will look into.

So what? No wrongdoing has been shown. Maybe, maybe not.

If not, then he's just double dipping like the retired military.

Oh, If I call myself a "contractor" and stick my hand in taxpayer's pockets, that's okay, but if I call myself an "employee", it's different.

That's reasoning only a jarhead could think makes sense.
 

marine

poker brat
Forum Member
Jul 13, 1999
3,867
73
48
51
Fort Worth, TX
The most laymans breakdown I can find for you. If you need help with the big words, let me know.


http://www.legalzoom.com/everyday-law/workplace/employee-vs-independent-contractor-differences

While an "independent contractor" is different from a standard employee, the exact definition of your role is not set in stone. To prevent any unwanted surprises, it is essential to define the exact business relationship between you and your employer prior to beginning work.

What is an independent contractor?

We can look in three different places when answering this question. A sometimes difficult status to define, what makes an independent contractor has been outlined by common law principles, the Fair Labor Standards Act, and finally the decisions of some courts.

The IRS and many states have adopted common law principles to define an independent contractor. These rules focus primarily on the level of control an employer has over a service or product, meaning, whether or not the employer actually defines what is being done and how it will be accomplished.

Common law principles further define independent contractor status by method of compensation. If a person is on an employer's payroll and receives a steady paycheck, clearly that the person is an employee rather than an independent contractor, who likely receives payment in a different manner. Other considerations when identifying someone as an independent contractor may include:

If the worker supplies his or her own equipment, materials and tools
If all necessary materials are not supplied by the employer
If the worker can be discharged at anytime and can choose whether or not to come to work without fear of losing employment
If the worker control the hours of employment thus indicating they are acting as an independent contractor
Whether the work is temporary or permanent

Again, the nature of the work will help define the relationship. When work is considered integral to the business, it is more likely that the person is an employee. On the other hand, work that is temporary and non integral may imply independent contractor status.

In an attempt to interpret provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act and discern between employee and independent contractor status, some courts and federal agencies have come up with the "economic realities test." It looks at the dependence of the worker on the business for which he or she works. If a person gains a large portion of their salary from that business, chances are that person qualifies as an employee. The test also factors in such things as level of skill, integral nature of the work, intent of the parties and payment of social security taxes and benefits.

Outside of the Fair Labor Standards Act, courts ask the following questions to determine work relationship in addition to both an economic and an agency test:

What is the degree of control over work and who exercises that control?
What is each party's level of loss in the relationship?
Who has paid for materials, supplies and/or equipment?
What type of skill is required for work?
Is there a degree of permanence?
Is the worker an integral part of the business?

These courts also use the "right to control" test. When the hiring party controls the way work is carried out and a product is delivered, the relationship between the parties is employer/employee. If an employer does not have authority over how a party accomplishes his or her work but simply give requests an outline, the relationship between the parties is that of hiring party/independent contractor.

Employer Tax Liability

An employer's tax liability is determined by the worker's employment status. When a worker is an employee, employers must pay state and federal unemployment tax, social security tax and workers compensation/disability premiums to a State Insurance Fund. When a worker is an independent contractor, the hiring party is not required to make any of these payments.

Should employers incorrectly define a worker as an independent contractor, they may find themselves liable for past taxes including FICA and federal unemployment tax. Safe harbors which allow employers to use the independent contractor status and avoid penalties include: prior practice of treating similar employees as independent contractors and the existence of a prior IRS audit where no taxes were required to be paid.

Conclusion

Certain factors will define a worker as an independent contractor in every case: not relying on the business as the sole source of income, working at his or her pace as defined by an agreement, being ineligible for employer provided benefits and retaining a degree of control and independence. While the independent contractor is his or her own boss, work stays within the definitions of oral or written contract and adheres to certain requirements. An employee, on the other hand, relies on the business for steady income, gives up elements of control and independence, is eligible for certain benefits and works within constraint of workplace.
 
P

PRO190

Guest
I'm not going to say it is right, but the taxpayers aren't getting screwed. If the guy sits at home and collects retirement, someone has to get paid to replace them....and that will be a fully fringed employee. OR, they can bring back the retired worker and pay him salary only (he's already getting retiree benefits) which is a much better deal for the business/state.

:facepalm:

The Fact is the GREED!!!
Simply stated if he was REALLY WANTING TO RETIRE he would Cash In his Retirement Package and MOVE ON creating an Opportunity for the next Person..
He doesn't want to retire but his Chancellor Buddy is going to give him a Sweet Deal to MAKE $201,000 a year (131,000 sal + 70,000 pen ) for doing the SAME JOB!!!!!!!

PURE GREEDY BULLSHIT ATTAINABLE DUE TO COLLECTIVE BARGAINING!!!
IT IS PURE EXPLOITATION OF THE SYSTEM!!!
 

Skulnik

Truth Teller
Forum Member
Mar 30, 2007
22,296
1,470
113
Jefferson City, Missouri
The Fact is the GREED!!!
Simply stated if he was REALLY WANTING TO RETIRE he would Cash In his Retirement Package and MOVE ON creating an Opportunity for the next Person..
He doesn't want to retire but his Chancellor Buddy is going to give him a Sweet Deal to MAKE $201,000 a year (131,000 sal + 70,000 pen ) for doing the SAME JOB!!!!!!!

PURE GREEDY BULLSHIT ATTAINABLE DUE TO COLLECTIVE BARGAINING!!!
IT IS PURE EXPLOITATION OF THE SYSTEM!!!

:0074
 

Mags

Registered User
Forum Member
Aug 8, 2000
2,813
27
48
Again, there is no cap on what SS recipients can make (i.e. no means testing). The SS cap only applies to the maximum amount of income from which SS taxes are witheld.

Don't forget that the current benefit formula is extremely progressive... with a cap on benefits, which justifies the cap on earnings that are taxed.
 
Bet on MyBookie
Top