- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Mike Edmondson to get $128K retirement--state tax free--age 58
Posted on 3/28/17 at 3:11 pm to BigJim
Posted on 3/28/17 at 3:11 pm to BigJim
quote:
Why do we especially care about retirees?
I'm gonna pretend you didn't type that, well, because . . . .
quote:
For the more than 36 million Americans who will turn 65 in the coming decade, the best cities and towns for retirement can’t just be great places to live
quote:
Studies reveal that retirees have positive economic impacts on the communities where they choose to relocate. The benefits of in-migrating retirees into a community include stimulated growth in the health services, housing, banking, restaurants and entertainment sectors etc.
Concurrently, this leads to an increase in property and sales taxes that enables local governments to spend on improving local services. Retirees usually do not strain social services, healthcare services, school systems, criminal justice system, nor create environmental problems.
Overall, areas that have a sizable elderly population are more likely to have a stable economy and are resistant to economic downswings.
LINK
0
Posted on 3/28/17 at 3:12 pm to dpd901
A federal employee who reaches top managerial position makes about half the salary of a comparable position in private sector. The trade off is retirement security.
I just had our tax return prepared for first time as a recipient of ss. My payout was under 10k for 9 months of 2016. I had to pay tax on 85% of benefit. I only paid into ss for the minimum 40 quarters. My other ten years of teaching was under a state retirement plan for which I receive no benefit, as I did not work in that state long enough to reach retirement eligibility.
Life is a crap shoot. Everybody makes choices and sometimes bad karma happens. Plenty of people pay into ss and do not live long enough to collect benefit.
I just had our tax return prepared for first time as a recipient of ss. My payout was under 10k for 9 months of 2016. I had to pay tax on 85% of benefit. I only paid into ss for the minimum 40 quarters. My other ten years of teaching was under a state retirement plan for which I receive no benefit, as I did not work in that state long enough to reach retirement eligibility.
Life is a crap shoot. Everybody makes choices and sometimes bad karma happens. Plenty of people pay into ss and do not live long enough to collect benefit.
Posted on 3/28/17 at 3:12 pm to BlackAdam
quote:
I get that you don't like this, but you can't change it on anyone already in the system. The state Supreme court has ruled it would be an unconstitutional taking.
you could only make the benefit taxable on new hires after the enactment of the legislation.
That is 100% nonsense.
Please give us a link or cite a supreme court case. The tax structure is not part of a retirement package.
Posted on 3/28/17 at 3:31 pm to BigJim
quote:
That is 100% nonsense.
Please give us a link or cite a supreme court case. The tax structure is not part of a retirement package.
The retirement benefit is a vested right. You cannot reduce the benefit without impairing the vested right, and making a non-taxable item taxable you are reducing the benefit.
I do not recall the exact case, but I remember it came up in 2010 when LASERS sued and won over the cash balance plan.
Posted on 3/28/17 at 3:31 pm to BigJim
quote:
That is 100% nonsense.
Actually, he's 100% right. It's Contracts 101. Two parties enter in an agreement. The state says to Edmondson, for your services as State Police Superintendent,the state promises that we will provide you with a pension upon retirement equal to x amount of your final salary. Additionally, for services rendered, the state additionally agrees not to tax you on your pension. Edmondson says OK...that is a contract. Two parties something offered, consideration given and acceptance.
I don't particularly like it, but it is a valid contract.
This post was edited on 3/28/17 at 3:32 pm
Posted on 3/28/17 at 3:32 pm to I B Freeman
quote:
I B Freeman
quote:
What does all of that mean?
Are you saying government retirees should not pay income tax or not??
Know what I'm saying? I'm saying you don't know what you're talking about. If you'd researched it more than on the surface, you'd realize that any change to public employee retirement systems would only apply to new employees entering the system. Retroactively changing an employment compensation agreement after hiring requires the approval of the employee and/or opens the employer up to potential legal action.
In short: You have zero idea how to impact or bring about the change in which you seek, and yet you're still railing about it as if there is anything that can be done about the folks on the back end of the system. What's more, you paint with a brush the size or Texas regarding civil servants.
Jindal tried to change the Retirement System retroactively without the proper legal process in place, and ultimately that failed as the Court System would've ruled it immediately unconstitutional.
Why not research and focus on things you can change.
This post was edited on 3/28/17 at 3:34 pm
Posted on 3/28/17 at 3:42 pm to GFunk
quote:
Jindal tried to change the Retirement System retroactively without the proper legal process in place, and ultimately that failed as the Court System would've ruled it immediately unconstitutional.
They exempted judges in that legislation, but forgot about their law clerks, secretaries, etc which all were gonna be negatively affected by the legislation, whoops.
That legislation was also bad fiscally for the State as it let employees take both their contributions and the State's with them if they left the system. Currently the State's portion stays and offsets UAL debt which helps the State in reducing costs for the System.
Posted on 3/28/17 at 3:43 pm to I B Freeman
Ole Mike had it really hard setting up DUI checkpoints and walking Les Miles to the 50 yard line.
Well deserved retirement IMO.
Well deserved retirement IMO.
Posted on 3/28/17 at 3:43 pm to BlackAdam
quote:
The retirement benefit is a vested right. You cannot reduce the benefit without impairing the vested right, and making a non-taxable item taxable you are reducing the benefit.
No, the state's tax structure is NOT part of retirement system. Think about how absurd that would be. So that would mean that the recent increase in sales takes more money out of retirees hands which reduces benefits so is therefore unconstitutional.
It is in a different section of law; it is not in the materials sent to the IRS to qualify as a tax-exempt plan. This is just the fevered dream of retiree organizations.
quote:
I do not recall the exact case, but I remember it came up in 2010 when LASERS sued and won over the cash balance plan.
Had nothing to do with taxes...at all.
Posted on 3/28/17 at 3:49 pm to KiwiHead
quote:
Actually, he's 100% right. It's Contracts 101. Two parties enter in an agreement. The state says to Edmondson, for your services as State Police Superintendent,the state promises that we will provide you with a pension upon retirement equal to x amount of your final salary. Additionally, for services rendered, the state additionally agrees not to tax you on your pension. Edmondson says OK...that is a contract. Two parties something offered, consideration given and acceptance.
I don't particularly like it, but it is a valid contract.
Nope. Tax structure at the time the employee is hired is not part of their retirement package.
Find me one case that has ever held that.
Posted on 3/28/17 at 3:55 pm to League Champs
quote:
then a lot of retirees will be moving to Texas
Do they need help packing?
I doubt 10 retirees would move out of state because they had to pay state income tax. Most pensions are small and the annual tax wouldn't buy the diesel for the moving van.
Posted on 3/28/17 at 3:56 pm to BlackAdam
quote:
I get that you don't like this, but you can't change it on anyone already in the system. The state Supreme court has ruled it would be an unconstitutional taking.
you could only make the benefit taxable on new hires after the enactment of the legislation.
That is not true.
Posted on 3/28/17 at 3:58 pm to Bogie00
quote:
A federal employee who reaches top managerial position makes about half the salary of a comparable position in private sector. The trade off is retirement security.
Link please.
You are correct social security income is taxed federally.
Posted on 3/28/17 at 4:02 pm to BlackAdam
quote:
The retirement benefit is a vested right. You cannot reduce the benefit without impairing the vested right, and making a non-taxable item taxable you are reducing the benefit.
BS.
The retirement system obligations have nothing to do with tax code.
The state of Louisiana did not employ the tens of thousands of federal pensioners in the state that we exempt from taxes so there is no way what your are saying applies to them.
There is nothing preventing the legislature from imposing a tax on state pensioners.
Posted on 3/28/17 at 4:04 pm to KiwiHead
quote:
Actually, he's 100% right. It's Contracts 101.
It is not a contract anymore than my daily decision to live here and subject myself to the taxes is a contract.
Produce one piece of evidence that Louisiana has ever promised an employee that their pension would never be taxed.
Posted on 3/28/17 at 4:04 pm to BigJim
quote:
Nope. Tax structure at the time the employee is hired is not part of their retirement package.
If the change reduces the defined benefit it is part of the retirement package. The sales tax scenario does not alter the defined benefit.
Posted on 3/28/17 at 4:08 pm to GFunk
quote:
f you'd researched it more than on the surface, you'd realize that any change to public employee retirement systems would only apply to new employees entering the system. Retroactively changing an employment compensation agreement after hiring requires the approval of the employee and/or opens the employer up to potential legal action.
And that is where you are wrong. The tax code has NOTHING with state retirements.
Point to a single change Jindal proposed in the tax code regarding income tax on their retirement. Jindal dealt with the retirement system and that HAS NOTHING to do with the tax code.
Talk about zero idea about what you are posting!!! Geez.
Posted on 3/28/17 at 4:11 pm to BlackAdam
quote:
If the change reduces the defined benefit it is part of the retirement package. The sales tax scenario does not alter the defined benefit.
You are simply wrong.
Call someone you believe if you don't believe me and Jim.
Posted on 3/28/17 at 4:18 pm to I B Freeman
quote:
I doubt 10 retirees would move out of state because they had to pay state income tax.
Then you are an idiot. And someone to ignore on tax discussions
quote:
10 fastest growing retirement spots, by percent change in age; 65 and older population:
1. Raleigh-Cary, N.C.: 60 percent
2. Austin-Round Rock, Texas: 53 percent
3. Las Vegas-Paradise, Nev.: 50 percent
4. Boise City-Nampa, Idaho: 46 percent
5. Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Marietta, Ga.: 44 percent
6. Provo-Orem, Utah: 42 percent
7. Colorado Springs, Colo.: 40 percent
8. Houston-Sugar Land-Baytown, Texas: 39 percent
9. Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington, Texas: 38 percent
10. Charlotte-Gastonia-Concord, N.C.-S.C.: 36 percent
US News
Posted on 3/28/17 at 4:41 pm to BlackAdam
quote:
If the change reduces the defined benefit it is part of the retirement package. The sales tax scenario does not alter the defined benefit.
The exemption retirement income is NOT PART OF THE DEFINED BENEFIT EITHER!!!
The defined benefit is the amount they will receive if they work X years at Y salary. Retirement (including calculation of benefit) is in Title 11. Tax issues are in Title 47. To read in that tax code at time of hiring is part of the implied employee contract is expansive beyond anything I have ever read by a court.
I am still waiting to be corrected.
Page 8 of 9
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News