Old 04-21-2012, 03:40 AM   #26
troy12n
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Tampa, FL
Posts: 5,333
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ARandall70 View Post
You just told on yourself, you feel that because you pay in to social security, everyone else should. So your are jealous that railroaders do not have to pay into the broken system that the rest of us do, and you want it to end. So pure jealousy is your reasoning for advocating the end of the RRS.
You are right, EVERYONE pays into SS. Except RR's.

There is not one legitimate reason railroaders should be exempt. Not one.

It's not jealousy, please... you can keep your lack of schedule, lack of family life, high divorce rate, etc.

But you can pay into SS like the rest of us.

You know, hope and change, pay your fair share, etc...
troy12n is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-21-2012, 07:00 AM   #27
coborn35
Senior Member
 
coborn35's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Duluth, MN
Posts: 1,398
Default

Anything railroaders make above the normal SS rate is NOT AT ALL paid for by the general public it is all in house.
__________________
I personally have had a problem with those trying to tell us to turn railroad photography into an "art form." It's fine for them to do so, I welcome it in fact, but what I do have a problem with is that the practitioners of the more "arty" shots, I have found, tend to look down their nose's at others who are shooting more "mundane" shots.
Railroad photography is what you make of it, but one way is not "better" than another, IMHO. Unless you have a pole right thought the nose of the engine! -SG
coborn35 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-21-2012, 03:28 PM   #28
Burner50
Member
 
Burner50's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 88
Send a message via MSN to Burner50
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by troy12n View Post
There is not one legitimate reason railroaders should be exempt. Not one.
Sure there is. It was started before SS, and it works. If it aint broke, don't fix it. You're not losing out on anything. Since I don't pay into SS, I am not eligible to draw any benefits from social security.

You have not presented one legitimate reason that we should get rid of railroad retirement... other than jealousy. If your retirement has to fail, so does ours.


But the Railroad Retirement Act of 2001 made our retirement private, so really you're complaining that our private retirement system is better than yours. The government doesn't provide my retirement program. I do. The only thing that even makes this a "Government program" is that the railroad retirement board who is the administrator of the program is a government agency (Funded by railroad employees).

Last edited by Burner50; 04-21-2012 at 03:36 PM.
Burner50 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-22-2012, 09:38 PM   #29
Flowing
Senior Member
 
Flowing's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 190
Default

"...lack of schedule, lack of family life, high divorce rate, etc."

Yes, those are the reasons railroaders are entitled to their own, successfully operating retirement fund. What better incentive is there for people to work for a RR where they sacrifice so much of their life for their job?
Flowing is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-22-2012, 11:40 PM   #30
sp4009
Member
 
sp4009's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 37
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Flowing View Post
"...lack of schedule, lack of family life, high divorce rate, etc."

Yes, those are the reasons railroaders are entitled to their own, successfully operating retirement fund. What better incentive is there for people to work for a RR where they sacrifice so much of their life for their job?
Thank You, these are the first words that have had any substance since the original post.
__________________
Joe Gartman
Locomotive Engineer, BNSF
Bakersfield, CA

My RP photos
Flickr
sp4009 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-23-2012, 02:42 AM   #31
troy12n
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Tampa, FL
Posts: 5,333
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Flowing View Post
"...lack of schedule, lack of family life, high divorce rate, etc."

Yes, those are the reasons railroaders are entitled to their own, successfully operating retirement fund. What better incentive is there for people to work for a RR where they sacrifice so much of their life for their job?
You think that's the only industry that has those sort of working conditions? think again
troy12n is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-23-2012, 04:26 AM   #32
nikos1
Senior Member
 
nikos1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 1,775
Default

All this is in my eye's is another pathetic attempt by the republicans to prove that they are the party of "small government". Just a political move since election time is coming up, doesn't matter if it destroys one of the few working government programs in the process.
__________________


Wedge shots of blue HLCX SD60's http://www.railpictures.net/showphotos.php?userid=7861

More wedge shots of blue HLCX SD60's http://nikos1.rrpicturearchives.net/

Video wedge shots of blue HLCX SD60's
http://youtube.com/profile?user=nikosjk1
nikos1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-23-2012, 05:35 AM   #33
JRMDC
Senior Member
 
JRMDC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 11,202
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Flowing View Post
"...lack of schedule, lack of family life, high divorce rate, etc."

Yes, those are the reasons railroaders are entitled to their own, successfully operating retirement fund. What better incentive is there for people to work for a RR where they sacrifice so much of their life for their job?
A purist in governmental outcomes (hence a hopeless romantic!) could say two things here. First, with respect to John, it isn't at all clear that it should be government policy to treat as special one particular category of citizens, just because they work hard and sacrifice much, when other groups of citizens also work hard and sacrifice much. I know, I know, in practice we favor special interest groups (and not just big corporations!) all the time. Like I said, "purist." So John's statement is reasonable as a moral statement, but it doesn't justify the policy, in my book.

Second, the Social Security system has never been a system that put money aside from contributions, to eventually feed back to recipients. It has always been a means of generating revenue. On paper, the SS trust fund does have assets, but those are (wisely??? ) invested in the federal government, and the government can choose to pay those assets back down the road, or not. In practice, SS benefits are paid out of current revenues, and the fact that some revenues come from SS taxes and some come from income taxes is something politicians care about but doesn't make a lick of practical difference. (Except in the very real sense that these seemingly arbitrary government constructions do constrain politicians at times.)

The point of that long-windedness is that it leads to the following. The SS tax helps pay for government. People who don't pay SS taxes, therefore, are not contributing a full share, compared to other workers making similar amounts of money. Great for them, not so great for the rest of us, and one could argue that is rather unfair. Again, just another in a myriad set of ways governments favor one set of people over another.

As an occasional purist type, I prefer to eliminate favoritism in general. As a very practical guy, I know nothing of the railroad retirement system and I have no opinion on this specific issue.

End of seriousness, back to fun, everyone!
__________________
My RP pix are here.
My Flickr pix are here.

My commentaries on rail pictures are in my blog.

RP Photo Albums:
Cabooses
Engine Details
Farm and Train
Plumes!
Railroad Details
Signal Details
Switchstand Shots

Last edited by JRMDC; 04-23-2012 at 05:37 AM.
JRMDC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-23-2012, 10:10 AM   #34
Burner50
Member
 
Burner50's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 88
Send a message via MSN to Burner50
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by troy12n View Post
You think that's the only industry that has those sort of working conditions? think again
But how many of those industries are labeled as vital to our economic prosperity and national defense? (Those are the things that get thrown around every time somebody wants to strike... the reasons we are unable to do so)

Now, Don't get me wrong... I'm all for smaller government, but this system pre-dates social security, it works well, and it isn't really hurting anybody. I would be singing a different note if we were drawing benefits under both social security and railroad retirement, but we are not.

There is other things that benefit us that apply only to our industry.
As a part of railroad retirement, we are allowed to retire early at 60 years of age with 30 years of service without suffering a deduction for early retirement.

Also, workers compensation doesn't apply.

Standard overtime laws don't apply either.

You're proposing to start messing with things that have worked well for decades for what reason? You want to talk about fair? This was started before SS, careers and lives were based around this, so why should it be changed all of a sudden? How is that fair to anyone?

Lets look at it this way... Say you build a 1,500 sqft garage on your property... Everything goes along just fine, and you're enjoying your big garage. A few years later, the city passes a law saying that garages are limited to 1,000 sqft, but you're exempt because you started before the new law went into effect... A couple more years go by, and all of a sudden, somebody decides that since your garage is larger than allowed by law, you should have to tear your garage down. Is that fair?

You may try to discount my analogy, because it is a government agency, but remember, this is a private pension system, just like the garage is private property.



I am still waiting for a legitimate reason to fold the railroad retirement system into social security... All I can see are negatives. As I have said before, there would be zero financial gain for the treasury, because all benefits in excess of what we are due under SS are paid for by railroad employees.
Burner50 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-26-2012, 02:24 AM   #35
ARandall70
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Fuquay-Varina, NC
Posts: 49
Send a message via Yahoo to ARandall70
Default

Guys, I read this post on another forum(www.jreb.org) and thought I'd pass it along. You railroaders may already know this, but I just read it.

Quote:
Railroad retirees and current rail workers should not be losing sleep over the much-hyped rumor that Congress is going to abolish Railroad Retirement, cut Railroad Retirement benefits or otherwise do harm to a system supported financially entirely by carriers and labor since its inception during the 1930s.

Recent language in a House Budget Committee report — “Conform Railroad Retirement Tier 1 benefits to Social Security benefits” — suggested an imminent congressional assault on Railroad Retirement by House Republicans.

But as the UTU and SMWIA legislative departments canvassed Capitol Hill, it became clear that the authors, who were drafting a roadmap for future federal spending cuts, did not understand how Railroad Retirement is funded.

UTU National Legislative Director James Stem, SMWIA Director of Government Affairs Jay Potesta, others in rail labor, carriers and the Railroad Retirement Board, began delivering the factual message to congressional offices:

“There are no public funds or general tax revenue used to pay the additional benefits provided by Tier 1 that exceed Social Security benefits. These additional benefits are fully funded by payroll taxes paid by rail labor and the carriers and are held in the Railroad Retirement account. Social Security does not reimburse Railroad Retirement for benefits that are not available under Social Security.”

Thus, there would be no savings to the federal government by tinkering with the Railroad Retirement system.

“Rail labor, carriers and the Railroad Retirement Board will continue delivering that message on Capitol Hill,” Stem said. “We are all confident that when the dust settles, this unfortunate draft language will disappear from consideration in Congress.”

Source: http://www.jreb.org/ns/index.php?board=1.0
Im still not sure that this is 100% dead, but hopefully it is headed that way.
__________________
Anthony Randall
Fuquay-Varina, NC
www.youtube.com/user/ARandall70
ARandall70 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-26-2012, 04:30 PM   #36
Burner50
Member
 
Burner50's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 88
Send a message via MSN to Burner50
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ARandall70 View Post
Guys, I read this post on another forum(www.jreb.org) and thought I'd pass it along. You railroaders may already know this, but I just read it.



Im still not sure that this is 100% dead, but hopefully it is headed that way.
That sounds like it came from the UTU Alert last week. It appears that the people who drafted this simply don't understand how RRT works.


The fact remains that the language is still in the house budget, but it appears to be stalled with the senate. Even if the house passsed the bill, it would have to be signed by the president.

The idea and concept is still dangerous.
Burner50 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-26-2012, 05:19 PM   #37
ARandall70
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Fuquay-Varina, NC
Posts: 49
Send a message via Yahoo to ARandall70
Default

Burner, please keep us posted with how this pans out.

I hope for you, and my friends who work for various railroads, that this dangerous language goes away.
__________________
Anthony Randall
Fuquay-Varina, NC
www.youtube.com/user/ARandall70
ARandall70 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-26-2012, 10:19 PM   #38
JimThias
Senior Member
 
JimThias's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Grand Rapids, MI
Posts: 9,800
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ARandall70 View Post
I hope for you, and my friends who work for various railroads, that this dangerous language goes away.
I bet you hope that's not the only thing that goes away.
__________________
.
Rhymes with slice, rice and mice, and probably should be spelled like "Tice."

This pretty much sums it up: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Thias
JimThias is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-26-2012, 11:35 PM   #39
ARandall70
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Fuquay-Varina, NC
Posts: 49
Send a message via Yahoo to ARandall70
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JimThias View Post
I bet you hope that's not the only thing that goes away.
Lol, Troy can frustrate many of us at times, but this would have only been a one or two post thread without him. And I'm sure NS has gained a few views through that other thread as well.

I don't usually take much related to trains or railfanning too seriously, but I kinda take this personally, even though I'm still in college and don't work for the railroad, because it would be really bad for my friends, and because I hope to work for a railroad someday.
__________________
Anthony Randall
Fuquay-Varina, NC
www.youtube.com/user/ARandall70
ARandall70 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-08-2012, 05:15 AM   #40
Photoshooter09
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 50
Default

Honestly, I think that "troy" is out of line and off base with his assumptions. First, how does a private pension effect people that do not pay into it? Well, with RRB, it doesn't simply because it is not any burden on the taxpayer. I really like JRMDC's response of not offering an opinion because he doesn't know all of the facts, thank you. So, I would suggest that the Railpictures forum is not the best place to discuss this current event, since the majority of the participants would not be effected by this proposal. I would, however like to tip my hat to those that have defended the RRB on here as this could effect many members of the R.R. community.
__________________
Rail Transportation Specialist/ Consultant

Last edited by Photoshooter09; 05-08-2012 at 01:51 PM. Reason: Re worded to add "opinion".
Photoshooter09 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-08-2012, 09:17 PM   #41
Mgoldman
Senior Member
 
Mgoldman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 3,641
Default

Seems to me that the employer should be paying for all retirement benefits - it was a perk designed to entice people to work at a particular company. Problem is, the country as a whole likely could not function if a large percent of it's population did not have some method to sustain themselves during their last 20, 30 or 40 years.

So - theoretically, both should be kept as they really do not effect each other unless you take Janusz's statement that the government abuses the program for profit so to speak and does not have the opportunity to rip off railroad employees.

Question is - why does anyone want to abolish the Railroad Retirement Act? If anything, they should be promoting more of the same in different industries.

Unless, of course, it is just like the Social Security program and not a truly viable system. In other words, is it costing so much that the railroads can not afford it? Only, now it's the big bad corporate American railroad company being chastised instead of an over sized wreckless government?

/Mitch

Last edited by Mgoldman; 05-08-2012 at 09:20 PM.
Mgoldman is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 07:40 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.