Quote Originally Posted by Buy American View Post
Incidentally, our pension is protected by the Federal Government and can't be touched.
...nu uh

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/23/bu...?_r=1&emc=eta1


Without a union pension my life would be so much worse. My elder uncles and grandmother would be a huge financial burden on me and my cousins. Hell... I wish I had one. I have nothing but respect for those workers blessed to be able to bargan collectively.

That said... I think it's a perfectly sound argument that when plotting a pension course, city leaders and accountants assumed that a significant number of the now 20,000 retirees would stay in detroit and commit a portion of their $25,000 [[avg.) payment to the local economy.

I don't think its unfair to stop the 13th check or to shoulder a small portion of the financial burden the city now faces.

The big grift is over down at CAY. The feds and the economy [[read the feds) have seen to most of that. The council while not competent by most measures are the best perceivably available from this [[at large) environment.

I mean it's not like there were a bunch of well seasoned, 55 year old retirees with municipal experience to choose from in the city.

With all sincerity, would a 1.5% reduction in payments or a 10% increase in additional benefits [[copay,coverage) be a critical blow or just uncomfortable for retirees?

In my perspective: If and when I'm told [[and its we all know it's when) my "this tax" and my "that fee" has to go up slightly....I might grumble but I wouldn't fold.

BA, IYHO would it ruin most retirees?