Quote:
Originally Posted by TiltonBB
That brings up some interesting questions:
How many years do you think someone should have to put in before they can retire with a full pension?
Many large companies (General Motors, Nynex, Verizon, Etc.) have given early retirement and pensions to their employees. Would you restrict those employees too?
How would you determine what positions the retired could hold after retirement and what positions you would restrict them from?
Since the Chief retired in Concord Massachusetts which state (NH or MA) should have that requirement, or pass that law?
It seems that most people think that the town of Moultonborough has benefited from hiring this experienced Chief. Do you think the town would be better off hiring someone younger, with less experience, because they didn't want someone who was collecting a pension in another state?
If the Chief already gets his medical benefits in MA thus saving the town of Moultonborough that expense, does that seem wrong too?
So many questions!:  |
I think that offering pensions from state government is ok. However, the system is too often filled with rules that aren't available to those who pay taxes to fund the pensions. For example: why should a state workers be able to spike his pension? This is when someone at the end of his/her career works boat loads of overtime for a couple of years and then the pension is based upon this bloated figure. Or when someone can cash out with a year of sick time or when someone can retiree at 50-years old. It goes on and on and it isn't fair. But for some reason state pensions can't be modified at all. Meanwhile, the folks working in the real economy can have their pensions eliminated with a stroke of a pen. Is this fair?