New Federal and State employees should not receive a pension.

No new points, only rebuttals, since this is the last round: "The point I was trying to get across was that the money upfront would be helpful to the people by getting the money now as opposed to later, and it would be helpful for th government not to spend so much money on pensions...." Not to be mean, but you have to actually back assertions up. Pensions often have investment profiles, which reduces the total burden on the state (or private employer), so that they do not necessarily have to cover the entire cost of the pension from their own contributions. Without the timeframe of investing, the offset would seem to be more expensive than just continuing to fund the pension. I say "would seem" because I don't think you've done the math, or if you have you haven't posted it to help establish your point. Unfortunately, since you haven't done so and this is the last round, I can't consider this a valid point. "It might be a better option for the people to take the larger salary" Again, since pensions generally have an investment aspect, while at the same time guaranteeing returns, while it MIGHT be better, we'd have to start talking concrete examples before we can debate that idea seriously. It MIGHT be better for me to jump out of a plane without a parachute, because the Giant Egret might take me to the land of the bikini models...or I might plow into the ground and liquefy my organs. "people should be accepting of this because there are many people who unfortunately do not make it to the age of retirement or be able to collect a pension that would break even the amount that was already given upfront." You say people "should" be accepting of this, but reality doesn't seem to bear out the idea that people see it as better to have some money up front than a pension; no employees are ever reported to be happy their pension is going away. And you're talking about an amount that, you think, has a high likelihood of saving the government money overall, while at the same time providing the employees a benefit that is a viable alternative to a pension. That would have to be quite an increase in salary for most people, and since you haven't posted any numbers, I can't rebut them, but neither can I accept the point. "And I did not say there waas a choice between a pension and a larger salary did I???" No, you did not. You've explained why you think employees should be okay with taking a pay cut, and justified it by explaining that they might want a greater gain now than later, saying that it was a psychological trick. I pointed out that it would be one thing if you gave them the choice to fall for this "trick" or not (and that I didn't think most would). But no, I concur that you never suggested giving folks a choice. Honestly, I feel that's worse than giving them a choice. It seems like you're saying "We'll take X away, but hopefully they'll be too stupid to realize they're losing it if we toss them Y, even though it's worth so much less". "Also remember i did say that this change was only for new employees, not the currnet ones, the current people working and those retired will keep their slaries...Also remember... some if not most of the government jobs pay really nicely to begin with... just saying..." You're advocating a compensation cut (loss of pension) without an understanding of how to compensate the new employees adequately to make up for it. Either they lose out a substantial chunk (thus, the new folks who begin working immediately after the cutoff would make substantially less than the new folks who started immediately before), or you try to adjust their salary to make up for it. If it's the former, you'd have to establish why that's okay, and if it's the latter you'd have to come up with numbers of some kind that show how it will be fair compensation for lack of a pension AND save money to the state. You're making a blanket statement about ALL government employees losing their pension, so you would have to justify removing pension from our Armed Forces (which, I think, would get you support from no one), as well as removing the pension from the lesser-paid fields such as teaching; it's easier to attempt to justify removing the pension from the already well-compensated, but it becomes more difficult when you're talking about people who aren't really compensated their worth with their salary. In summation: You haven't addressed my contention that we should make the government a "good" employer, even if many in the private sector are "bad". You haven't actually shown that your plan would save money, since you haven't come up with any actual analysis of your idea to raise salary to at least partially make up for a loss of pension. At present, I feel your position does not have adequate support, and therefore urge voters to reject the motion. Thank you for the debate! (In the interests of full disclosure, I am not a public employee. I work in the private sector, but in a field that has many public sector colleagues. And no, it's neither teaching nor the military).