mbta pension costs

it seems the mbta has $700+ million unfunded liability for 6000+ for year under 60 retirees. i suspect some of the posters herein are retirees. i would like to know why the mbta does not operate at a margin that covers operating costs and provides the actuarial payment for retirees. talk about recklessness. i for one would move rates to where all these costs were covered. if ridership declines, adjust the service. start with buses, the biggest losers.i'm sure there are massive adjustments that can be made. it's just palin wrong to pass on fiscal messes to the non-mbta users. ken patrick

Passing on public transit costs to non-users is how public transit is almost always funded. Government services are never funded solely by their users. I can't tell the government that I have no children so my taxes shouldn't pay for schools, because schools benefit society as a whole - even me, if only indirectly. Public transit is the same way: even if you never use it, the fact that it is there benefits you by getting service industry workers like baristas who sell you your coffee, blue collar workers like the people who keep your office building maintained or produce the goods you consume, and even your coworkers to work. Plus its there as a backup in case your car breaks down. Also, I presume you were attempting to call this "plain" wrong, rather than referring to the Governor of Alaska?

Secondly, cutting service in response to declining ridership is not a good idea. That will just push more people away.

Finally, I don't even know what you were trying to say regarding the T's finances, as this post is almost illegible, but I'm reasonably certain you don't know anywhere near enough about the T to call them financially "reckless".

KEN-
As a matter of full disclosure, I am posting my response as someone who has earned a portion of my pension benefits through the Massachusetts Teachers Retirement System. As with others who have earned benefits through similar systems and as a frequent reader of your posts, I am only partially surprised that you would target workers and beneficiaries instead of the policy-makers who knowingly left pension obligations underfunded. It is the Great and General Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts which has chronically avoid the reckoning of pension obligations, not the workers.

i for one would move rates to where all these costs were covered.

It is just such an approach to pension funding that has placed the USPS in the massive difficulty it finds itself.

...just palin wrong...

is one of those typos that -- while easy to commit -- is illustrative. It can -- through the subconscious production of a name know to us all -- typify someone of a particular approach to others and life, in general. Or, to borrow your turn of phrase from another and now-locked thread, it shows you safe from "slavish adherence" when it comes to proofreading your own submissions.
You can choose to respond or not, but if not, please consider my closing question merely rhetorical. Do you feel compelled to throw grenades, or is it a matter of personal preference?
-jaymac

is there a source for these numbers?

Is there a comparison for other transit authorities that do have these obligations covered?

Does this have anything whatsoever to do with "MBTA Rail Operations"?

And it's just "Palin wrong" for the MBTA to have the autocentric Big Dig debt dumped on it

As I learned at a very young age, when the internet was new, don't feed the trolls! And our dear Ken here is, naturally, our resident troll.

Seriously though, For Science(and proper discussion), what is the MBTA pension situation, or is this something that is either not public, or a little too far off topic? Sery? Clarity here? Thanks.

I thought Ken, seeing that he actually created a topic, rather than post endless replies on one... was actually going to have a topic of substance on the matter. But I see he's still here only to troll. No questions, no possible solutions -- merely trolling and only trolling. Not to mention his post is nearly incoherent and I can barely follow his point, if there is one to be found.

Just remember, guys, Ken doesn't want to pay for you, but you should have to pay for him. Riiight.

F-line to Dudley via Park wrote:Does this have anything whatsoever to do with "MBTA Rail Operations"?

Agreed.

This board is for railfan discussions. Mostly light conversations. This is not a forum for financial discussions, the only exception for this is when the time comes to raise the fare.