There seems to be a pretty long list of things I don't understand, huh?
OK, 'splain this to me: A company with a plant in the United States decides that it benefits their bottom line to close it and move production overseas to somewhere with cheaper labor and operating costs. So they hand out pink slips, ship all their equipment to the new overseas site (or sell it off as scrap), turn out the lights, and take a one-time tax write-off for shutting down that factory.
Here's where I get lost....Why are the American taxpayers subsidizing them (through the tax write-off) to ship American jobs overseas? If they want to offshore their operations, that's their business, but why are we taxpayers subsidizing it? The very people who are getting laid off are paying to get laid off!
Am I understanding this right?
Why can't Congress just re-write the tax code to disallow this subsidy? If you close a US plant, you don't get a write-off. If you open a US facility, you get a subsidy. You reward creating US jobs, not sending them away.
Oh, wait....the businesses that are benefiting from the offshoring write-offs are the same ones who are contributing BIG $$$$$ to Congress to say "thanks" for their....umm...."understanding" in these tough times. *atta boy, Congress....way to represent your constituents*
Now that I think about it, I guess I do understand.
Nevermind.
S
According to a recent USA Today report 21,000 retired federal workers receive a lifetime government pension (from YOU, the taxpayer) of $100,000 or more per year.
Those would include 326 DEA agents, 237 IRS investigators, 186 FBI agents, 444 Social Security agents, and...wait for it...714 retired postal workers. POSTAL WORKERS for cryin' out loud! One retired Smithsonian zoologist receives a $162,000 annual lifetime pension, and six other retired federal workers receive over $200,000 per year for life!
Gimme a second to regain my composure.... *deep breath*
By comparison, consider this: The average federal pension is $32,824. The average state and local government pension is $24,373. The average social security recipient receives $14,760. (The absolute maximum a social security recipient can receive is $30,156.)
Want a bit more sand kicked in your face? The average federal employee retired at age 59.4 years old, and had served for 27.8 years (2006 statistics). Full Social Security eligibility for the rest of us isn't until age 65-67.
True, years ago government salaries were below private sector pay, which is why the retirement benefits were more generous, but those days are long gone. Today federal government employees make 25-33% MORE than their friends in the private sector for comparable work.
Here's my point: With a trillion dollar federal deficit every year as far into the future as we can see, and with virtually everything on the table for possible cuts, why aren't federal pay and benefit reforms on the table, too? (If there is a major restructuring underway now that I'm not aware of, please enlighten me.)
IMO federal employee pay and benefits should be brought to parity with those in the private sector. Pay, benefits, pension, retirement age....everything! Why should civil servants have it SO much better than the taxpayers who are paying them?
I suggest you contact your congressman and register your outrage! Oh, wait....he's an overpaid federal employee, too. (And besides, right now he's on vacation.) *sigh*
S
EDIT: Let me add this for the benefit of a retired federal employee friend of mine....once you're retired, your pension should not be tampered with....with one caveat. If some day Congress deems it necessary to cut existing Social Security recipient's benefits, then the same % cuts should apply to retired federal worker's benefits, too.
The Libertarians among us....heck, pretty much everyone I know of any political party....are aghast at the move begun in NYC and now spreading to ban sales of "super-sized" soft drinks or to impose an additional tax on sugar-sweetened drinks. "The government is butting into my life! It's none of their business what I eat or drink!" Add to this government rules mandating motorcyclists and bike riders wear helmets, motorists wear seat belts, kids be in car seats, etc. and they seem to have a valid concern.
Here's where things get tricky. As long as we as a society agree to treat anyone who walks into a hospital emergency room with an ailment or injury, regardless of whether they can pay or not, lifestyle regulation IS the government's business. How can you ask the taxpayers to foot the bill for treatment of obesity, reckless behavior, etc, and not put some requirements on people to do their part in exchange for potentially free (to them individually at least) medical care?
This isn't an Obamacare issue. This is something that has been going on for decades, ever since our national sense of decency and compassion dictated that we not let people suffer. The idea of putting demands on people to eat and drink and act responsibly in exchange for agreeing to foot the medical bills for those who can't/won't pay for it themselves suddenly doesn't sound so intrusive. We just can't go around giving out blank checks. If we do, where is the incentive for those of us who CAN afford it to keep paying our insurance premiums?
Much as my knee-jerk reaction is to condemn even more government intervention in our lives, it does make sense in this case. Problem is, where is it going to stop? Do we want to be compassionate, or do we want to "live free"? Is there a third option? I sometimes feel like we've opened Pandora's Box.
S
