$76k/MONTH pension -- NYTimes article

[simonsez]

My federal tax burden is pretty high.  Being single, no kids, and having a six figure income, I pay far more than a four person household with the same household income, plus my income wasn't paid to me from collected tax dollars.  Most people I know who complain about government waste (including overly generous pensions) pay significant taxes as well, despite the Trump tax cuts which cuts some of the burden.  However, even those in low income households votes count just as much (assuming they are legal citizens.)

Ok, why WOULDN'T you pay more in taxes than a household earning the same but had to feed, house, and clothe 4x as many humans?  That's the point of the personal exemptions and standard deduction - to reduce the tax burden due to the fixed costs of surviving.  If your household has more humans, it costs more and thus, the taxable onus isn't as great.

Also, if you make 6 figures and a comparative 4 person household also made the same, their income is likely not being paid to them via collected tax dollars.

[dude]

My federal tax burden is pretty high.  Being single, no kids, and having a six figure income, I pay far more than a four person household with the same household income, plus my income wasn't paid to me from collected tax dollars.  Most people I know who complain about government waste (including overly generous pensions) pay significant taxes as well, despite the Trump tax cuts which cuts some of the burden.  However, even those in low income households votes count just as much (assuming they are legal citizens.)

Ok, why WOULDN'T you pay more in taxes than a household earning the same but had to feed, house, and clothe 4x as many humans?  That's the point of the personal exemptions and standard deduction - to reduce the tax burden due to the fixed costs of surviving.  If your household has more humans, it costs more and thus, the taxable onus isn't as great.

Also, if you make 6 figures and a comparative 4 person household also made the same, their income is likely not being paid to them via collected tax dollars.

To play devil's advocate here -- because that household of 4 almost certainly consumes far more public goods than the household of one.

[NoStacheOhio]

My federal tax burden is pretty high.  Being single, no kids, and having a six figure income, I pay far more than a four person household with the same household income, plus my income wasn't paid to me from collected tax dollars.  Most people I know who complain about government waste (including overly generous pensions) pay significant taxes as well, despite the Trump tax cuts which cuts some of the burden.  However, even those in low income households votes count just as much (assuming they are legal citizens.)

Ok, why WOULDN'T you pay more in taxes than a household earning the same but had to feed, house, and clothe 4x as many humans?  That's the point of the personal exemptions and standard deduction - to reduce the tax burden due to the fixed costs of surviving.  If your household has more humans, it costs more and thus, the taxable onus isn't as great.

Also, if you make 6 figures and a comparative 4 person household also made the same, their income is likely not being paid to them via collected tax dollars.

To play devil's advocate here -- because that household of 4 almost certainly consumes far more public goods than the household of one.

Yes, let's discourage immigration and children-having. What could possibly go wrong?

[maizefolk]

So I can certainly understand how taxing people based on income without giving perks for increased household size reduces the incentive to have children, but how would it discourage immigration?

[NoStacheOhio]

So I can certainly understand how taxing people based on income without giving perks for increased household size reduces the incentive to have children, but how would it discourage immigration?

Sorry, it doesn't. It was a separate point. Our current immigration policy is moving in the direction of less immigration.

[maizefolk]

Gotcha, thanks for explaining.

[simonsez]

My federal tax burden is pretty high.  Being single, no kids, and having a six figure income, I pay far more than a four person household with the same household income, plus my income wasn't paid to me from collected tax dollars.  Most people I know who complain about government waste (including overly generous pensions) pay significant taxes as well, despite the Trump tax cuts which cuts some of the burden.  However, even those in low income households votes count just as much (assuming they are legal citizens.)

Ok, why WOULDN'T you pay more in taxes than a household earning the same but had to feed, house, and clothe 4x as many humans?  That's the point of the personal exemptions and standard deduction - to reduce the tax burden due to the fixed costs of surviving.  If your household has more humans, it costs more and thus, the taxable onus isn't as great.

Also, if you make 6 figures and a comparative 4 person household also made the same, their income is likely not being paid to them via collected tax dollars.

To play devil's advocate here -- because that household of 4 almost certainly consumes far more public goods than the household of one.

This is an argument for abolition (or significant reduction) of income taxes and replacing with a system akin to a sales tax - it's an interesting one but that's not the current system we have.  We are taxed mainly on our income, not on what we spend/consume - and in that system the family of 4 gets breaks compared to the individual ceteris paribus.  We're pretty entrenched with income taxes, especially with tax-advantaged accounts, but I do quite often wonder how well consumption taxes would work (especially with regard to public education).  I guess I could read up on the UAE, Bermuda, Andorra, Monaco, and The Bahamas.

[mm1970]

Universities are generally terrible at recognizing and responding to the fact that the market wage their employees could command continues to change over time after they are hired.

Essentially you need to have another job offer in hand, with a higher salary attached, and be absolutely willing to leave for that other position in order to have any shot at a significant raise. At which point you might as well leave.

Companies are just as bad.

One of my friends is a university professor, and just changed universities, partly for that reason also.

[nereo]

Universities are generally terrible at recognizing and responding to the fact that the market wage their employees could command continues to change over time after they are hired.

Essentially you need to have another job offer in hand, with a higher salary attached, and be absolutely willing to leave for that other position in order to have any shot at a significant raise. At which point you might as well leave.

Companies are just as bad.

One of my friends is a university professor, and just changed universities, partly for that reason also.

Well in both cases the employer has a vested interest in paying their workers as little as they can get away with, and hoping that changing jobs is too disruptive for most employees to undertake. 
It should be noted that, at least in the short-term, offering a pension which vests only after a few decades is one way of retaining employees ('golden handcuffs').

In the largest university system in my area, they have an active practice of trying to buy-out professors who have ~15 years of experience so that they leave before their pensions vest.  In exchange they hire younger non-tenured PhDs who work their asses off for less money. The older profs sometimes leave for private industry or a private college having pocketed 2-3x their annual salary but without the lucrative pension which attracted them to the job in the first place.
The biggest drawback to this practice IMO is that there's a steady 'brain-drain' of the best profs shortly after they've really become established and start to really draw money for the university in the form of large federal grants. But the personell department understands salary and liability (pensions) and rarely considers the value added (grants, experience).  Consequentially, the system remains second-tier even though there's a perennial push to move up in the rankings.

[Telecaster]

Yes, let's discourage immigration and children-having. What could possibly go wrong?

Does anyone decide to have kids or not based on the tax code? 

[NoStacheOhio]

Yes, let's discourage immigration and children-having. What could possibly go wrong?

Does anyone decide to have kids or not based on the tax code?

Directly, no.

However, if your take-home pay is the same as someone without kids, it's totally plausible that a statistically significant number of people would conclude they can't afford it.

[nereo]

Yes, let's discourage immigration and children-having. What could possibly go wrong?

Does anyone decide to have kids or not based on the tax code?

It was at least one consideration in our decision-making. knowing that a having a kid was going to put a strain our our budget, it was at the very least comforting to know we'd be paying less in taxes, mitigating the financial burden slightly.  If that incentive went away... we might have decided to further delay - which very could have led to not having any kids at all.

in other words, like NoStachOhio said - we probably would have concluded we couldn't afford it.

[fuzzy math]

My federal tax burden is pretty high.  Being single, no kids, and having a six figure income, I pay far more than a four person household with the same household income, plus my income wasn't paid to me from collected tax dollars.  Most people I know who complain about government waste (including overly generous pensions) pay significant taxes as well, despite the Trump tax cuts which cuts some of the burden.  However, even those in low income households votes count just as much (assuming they are legal citizens.
 

As a family of 5, I tip my hat to you for that, sir. In my experience, there are a whole lot of ppl on disability or SS sitting around watching Fox and reiterating talking points that are likely to make them lose their last time.

Are you actually assuming that the people voting aren't citizens? I believe your illustrious leader's commission on voter fraud famously failed to find anything of interest.

[maizefolk]

In the largest university system in my area, they have an active practice of trying to buy-out professors who have ~15 years of experience so that they leave before their pensions vest.  In exchange they hire younger non-tenured PhDs who work their asses off for less money. The older profs sometimes leave for private industry or a private college having pocketed 2-3x their annual salary but without the lucrative pension which attracted them to the job in the first place.
The biggest drawback to this practice IMO is that there's a steady 'brain-drain' of the best profs shortly after they've really become established and start to really draw money for the university in the form of large federal grants. But the personell department understands salary and liability (pensions) and rarely considers the value added (grants, experience).  Consequentially, the system remains second-tier even though there's a perennial push to move up in the rankings.

Yup, buy-outs are generally going to be a terrible way to reduce headcounts/total payroll, since you'll preferentially remove the most productive people who are confident they can go find another job somewhere else, while the people who know they're already getting more than they'd make at another job are the ones who are least likely to accept a buyout offer.

[hadabeardonce]

The flipside:

Public Servants Are Losing Their Foothold in the Middle Class
https://a.msn.com/r/2/AAwdQrD?m=en-us&a=1

Sent from my ONE A2005 using Tapatalk

[wenchsenior]

In the largest university system in my area, they have an active practice of trying to buy-out professors who have ~15 years of experience so that they leave before their pensions vest.  In exchange they hire younger non-tenured PhDs who work their asses off for less money. The older profs sometimes leave for private industry or a private college having pocketed 2-3x their annual salary but without the lucrative pension which attracted them to the job in the first place.
The biggest drawback to this practice IMO is that there's a steady 'brain-drain' of the best profs shortly after they've really become established and start to really draw money for the university in the form of large federal grants. But the personell department understands salary and liability (pensions) and rarely considers the value added (grants, experience).  Consequentially, the system remains second-tier even though there's a perennial push to move up in the rankings.

Yup, buy-outs are generally going to be a terrible way to reduce headcounts/total payroll, since you'll preferentially remove the most productive people who are confident they can go find another job somewhere else, while the people who know they're already getting more than they'd make at another job are the ones who are least likely to accept a buyout offer.

This is interesting b/c DH's federal job is on the bubble right now b/c Trump's budget request slashed funding for scientific research.  DH is adjunct at the local university, and when they heard the possibility that his job would be gone next year, they immediately offered to try to hire him on as faculty (he's got Full Professor status) and implied they would try to match his federal salary or close to it.  The reason is the value that DH brings to the dept...he brings in some of the most money, and supports and graduates a very large number of grad students, among the highest in his department (in fact just won a prestigious college-level award last year).  So I'm not surprised they'd be loathe to lose him. 

However, your story makes me think that, were push to come to shove, they might not actually offer him a full professorship with retirement and health benefits, but some sort of highly paid 'temp' position. 

Congress makes the actual federal budget, of course, and I doubt Trump's moronic attempts to gut funding for scientific research will mostly come to pass, so probably DH won't have to actually find out if his university is as shitty as some of these stories imply.

[maizefolk]

Depending on the university, most of the ones in the USA don't have a pension plan anymore so bringing your husband on as a tenured faculty member vs high-paid temp wouldn't save them any money in the short term. Add into that most of the people making the decisions are tenured faculty themselves and couldn't imagine being willing to take a job without tenure, and the argument your husband can make that he wouldn't be taken as credibly in applications for new grants is he's a non-tenure track faculty member, and I'd be optimistic that if they can pull together the money to hire him at all it'll be a tenured position.

FWIW, after previous government shutdowns I have multiple colleagues who were federal employees with adjunct appointments at universities who got fed up and switched over to faculty positions at their associated state universities, and all of the ones I've kept up with since have seemed a lot happier after making the transition.

Good luck!

[nereo]

Depending on the university, most of the ones in the USA don't have a pension plan anymore so bringing your husband on as a tenured faculty member vs high-paid temp wouldn't save them any money in the short term. Add into that most of the people making the decisions are tenured faculty themselves and couldn't imagine being willing to take a job without tenure, and the argument your husband can make that he wouldn't be taken as credibly in applications for new grants is he's a non-tenure track faculty member, and I'd be optimistic that if they can pull together the money to hire him at all it'll be a tenured position.

FWIW, after previous government shutdowns I have multiple colleagues who were federal employees with adjunct appointments at universities who got fed up and switched over to faculty positions at their associated state universities, and all of the ones I've kept up with since have seemed a lot happier after making the transition.

Good luck!

Adding to this - an absurd irony with the latest fights over (and inability to pass) the federal budget has resulted in a series of continuing resolutions (CRs). While DJT has proposed slashing many scientific and education proposals, the actual (yet temporary) outcome has been that funding for these organizations has often increased over the past year. I'm paid through one program that DJT tried to zero out - but congressional leaders ultiamtely give us full funding through the 2018 cycle. It wastes a whole lot of f-ing time as departments go into triage-mode and draft up contingency plans to stay afloat with reduced/no fiscal support, only to be told to go back to life as normal (at least for the next 3-6 months until the next continuing resolution).
New people aren't being hired and attrition is setting in - yet we lack any clear guidance of what future budgets will look like; we're being asked to cut 22% by the WH but got a slight increase (+4%) from congress and the lastest CR over the previous fiscal year.

[Lance Burkhart]

The Flood:

pensiontsunami.com