Rachel

Dom you see the point I am making about not paying more regardless of whether Mayor has a pension, or not?  

Quoted from visitor

benny = it's a pension with clear guidelines re: elgibility.  I am not denying that their are pension problems.  But, if it does not cost you any more for a pensioner to serve as Mayor - it is not double dipping because the taxpayer is not paying out more.  The taxpayer is still paying the pension and the Mayor's salary.

The taxpayer is essentially paying more due to the higher unememployment taxes that are paid due to the pensioner taking up a job that an unemployed person could take.

Whether McCarthy is the right person to be Mayor and/or teh problems inherent in the public sector pension system are two seperate issues.  My argument is narrowly focused on
whetherr someone with a pension should be able to run for office.

Taking it Back

The taxpayer has a choice because they decide who gets that position.  

Now theer are some related issues that may come into play - spousal buyouts, health insurance

Quoted from visitor

Taking it Back

The taxpayer has a choice because they decide who gets that position.  

True!

Quoted from bumblethru

True!

I understand that, but the average taxpayer doesnt see the bigger picture, the macro view.  What I am saying is that you should not be able to collect a pension while not retired.  There should be a cap on the amount you can earn why collecting a pension.  

Quoted from DemocraticVoiceOfReason

I actually agree with you on your suggestion -- the suspending the pension part -- now, the problem .. how would we get or should I say what are the chances that the State Legislature would actually pass your idea into law ?????????????????

Wouldn't become a law....because YOUR socialist dem buddies are doing everything they can to s crew the taxpayers

Oh and Hugh Farley's tripple dipping.   Still waiting for you to provide the documentation.   Not saying he is or isn't, but I trust you can provide the proof?   (or do you not know how)

It's no surprise that someone that looked the other way on the City pension debacle would do this. He keeps saying he did not see a line on the printed budget. Real believable. Of course a public pensioner can run but this is the very reason the State is over $300 million in the red. No one should have voted for him. And its not so cut and dry as some would have you believe. Working together works-for them never you. Buyer remorse has set in before swearing in.

Quoted from DemocraticVoiceOfReason

I agree with Visitor.  Besides, it is perfectly legal.   There are many people who retire from private sector jobs and start a second career in the private sector WHILE COLLECTING A PENSION.    Many service men and women work long enough to retire from the military and then work in either the public or private sector -- should they be vilified for "double dipping" ?

If anyone doesn't like it, they could petition and work to have the law changed.

Does the Sch'dy Police Dept. Commisioner (Mr. Bennett) have the same situation?   Or was his public to public?

Be careful of what you wish for.
Who is going to control 'who' can make 'how much'? Trust me.....the public sector will always come out on top because of the public sector unions that are presently unsustainable. They are a huge political lobbying block that will always rein supreme.

In a capitalistic society everyone is entitled to work and make as much money as they want....legally that is!  And it is  more then acceptable for private companies to offer pensions/retirements that are based on the 'market'. Public sector has a never ending flow of taxpayer's money that they seem will never dry up. THAT IS WHERE THE PROBLEM LIES!!

The problem that is killing the taxpayers are all of the public sector jobs/benefits/pensions/retirements. Double dipping or not!! They are clearly unsustainable!

Quoted from visitor

The taxpayer has a choice because they decide who gets that position.  

I don't believe the voters in Schenectady would have elected McCarthy if they knew PRIOR to the election that he would be receiving his pension and a mayoral salary.

Again, career politician $200K, City taxpayers another increase.

Quoted from visitor

Whether McCarthy is the right person to be Mayor and/or teh problems inherent in the public sector pension system are two seperate issues.  My argument is narrowly focused on
whetherr someone with a pension should be able to run for office.

A person whose livelihood is dependent on the state and who has a vested interest in influencing the outcome of government policies that secure their livelihood or increase compensation, whether they currently work for the state or retired from the state, should have to recuse themselves from the pension system or state payroll TEMPORARILY while collecting a paycheck for an elected office.  Any direct or indirect involvement on legislation that would result in a increase in personal benefits and compensation must be prohibited.  That would include campaigning or fundraising.  Once their elected service is up, they can return to collecting their deserved pension or state salary.

Quoted from visitor

Taking it Back

The taxpayer has a choice because they decide who gets that position.  

However, the taxpayer was not informed by McC that he was going to take from the taxpayers twice.

And isn't it so very interesting that when he became acting mayor, at that time there were these scenarios explained about he could do both jobs, he could take leave from his county job (withOUT pay I would think), etc etc.  

But NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER did McC ever publicly state that if elected he would screw the taxcpayers twice by double dipping.  If he put the taxpayers ahead of his own greed, he would have statexd back then that if elected he would be eligible for the pension but that he would choose just to vest and not take the pension.   But NOPE, instead, McC SECRETLY planned to screw the taxpayers.

Obviously McC figures he better double dip because he knows full well that he will need to hike taxes big time, and hike fees, and impose new fees, so he knows he better cover his own income by insuring he gets enough income to pay his own property taxes !!!!!!!!!!

And now, well, the city taxpayers are going to be forced into having yet ANOTHER NON-ELECTED city council member.  

So much for the will of the people, the residents, homeonwers, taxpayers in the city.

He didn't say he would knock down the historic IOOF Temple or close the Traffic Dept on Albany St. If he did he would have lost. BIG TIME. Unfortunately enough voters were tricked by idiotic non issues; Alpine Skiing, Union tuition, a jukebox with Taxman, phony job figures, backseat of my JEEP, etc, etc. As Mobile says "you get the government you deserve".