Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Zeronaut81 t1_jdpbsc5 wrote

Reply to comment by Artanthos in Police Captain Criminally Charged 1 Day after Retirement by JustZonesing

No, because social security is a taxpayer-funded retirement plan that all Americans pay into. A city pension is a further tax burden on the citizens of a city or county. Why should they pay for the retirement of a criminal if he or she was posing as a cop while engaging in crime?

The former cop would still get SS payments, and the citizens of the city/county wouldn’t have to continue to pay money to someone who betrayed their community’s trust.

51

Realeron t1_jdpem03 wrote

That's my beef with Republicans. If social security is taxpayer-funded, why is it labeled an entitlement that should be eliminated?

25

christhomasburns t1_jdpromt wrote

Because it's a ponzi scheme where the beneficiaries are receiving multiples of what they paid in by taking what the current payers are putting in. It will be insolvent within 20 years.

−32

Thr0waway3691215 t1_jdsrqnh wrote

It's not a Ponzi scheme, Social Security actually has your money in an interest bearing investment.

−1

christhomasburns t1_jdtgf7c wrote

No, they promise to pay you interest, they do not hold it in any way. Current recipients are being payed out by current payers.

2

Thr0waway3691215 t1_jdtmej7 wrote

Yes and no, a good chunk is disbursed, but the remainder is put into Treasury bonds. But even if all of the money went out to current recipients, that's still not a Ponzi scheme. At best, you could call Social Security underfunded in that case, but there's no attempt to defraud anyone.

1

christhomasburns t1_jdyixdz wrote

That's the literal definition of a ponzi scheme, but you do you. Doesn't matter anyway. If you were born after 1980 it'll be insolvent by the time you retire.

1

Thr0waway3691215 t1_jdyk21k wrote

No, it's really not, it's been paying out its obligations as promised. I get what you're trying to say, but that just makes it underfunded. There's nobody running off with all the money, it's going to people it's supposed to, so that immediately eliminates it being a Ponzi scam.

1

Artanthos t1_jdr2lwq wrote

So, take away something that a police officer has been earning for a lifetime after being accused of a misdemeanor, but be damned if you can apply the same standard to me.

2

Zeronaut81 t1_jdsc6ph wrote

If that officer is found guilty of a crime, yes. Why is that so hard to understand?

1

Artanthos t1_jdsgvfx wrote

Glad you acknowledged the double standard.

2

Zeronaut81 t1_jdshc5e wrote

It’s a double standard to not want to pay for a criminal who betrayed the public’s trust?

Why shouldn’t these people be held to a higher standard? Cops uphold the law, they shouldn’t be allowed to be above it.

2

Artanthos t1_jdskh2e wrote

It’s a double standard to expect someone else to lose a retirement the have spent a lifetime paying into for a minor offense while everyone else gets to theirs.

1

Zeronaut81 t1_jdskrsm wrote

This doesn’t sound like a minor offense.

2

Artanthos t1_jduqk9v wrote

He was sharing information.

No information provided about what information or to whom.

1

Zeronaut81 t1_jdus631 wrote

Well, it’s enough to know that whatever information he shared merits a criminal investigation. It’s super weird how some people just go to bat for the worst of us. It’s also weird seeing people rush to lick boots.

If this guy did nothing wrong, cool. But the fact that a criminal investigation has been opened on this guy immediately after retiring says that his pension should likely be at risk if he in fact did some crime.

We should expect better from those who wear the shield. Simple as that.

1

Artanthos t1_jduu0fz wrote

It’s weird that you automatically assume it’s something major without any supporting information.

It could just as easily be leaking information to the press or something else minor. We don’t know, nothing has been divulged.

An investigation could find a potential crime, or it could clear him. We don’t know because the investigation has not happened.

Even if the investigation finds a potential crime, it still has to go to trial. You would impose punishment without a trial? Imagine the outrage if this was the other way around.

1

Zeronaut81 t1_jduvjr0 wrote

Nope, I would just expect a person, regardless of their profession, would go to trial and defend themselves against a criminal accusation. If that person is found guilty, go from there.

All that I’m expecting is for this person to get treated like any other. And if this is being treated as a criminal investigation, that means that a crime has been suspected. This person possibly chose to act outside of legal areas in sharing that info. That info could have been used to harm others. Who knows what it was shared for, but it was deemed inappropriate enough to raise a criminal investigation.

A god-damned police captain shouldn’t be playing cute games. But let’s see what the investigation has to say, and what a trial in front of a jury of his peers would find.

That’s all that I want, no more people above the law.

1

Artanthos t1_jdwyhd6 wrote

And a trial may, or may not, happen, depending upon the investigation results.

If so, he will answer for anything he may have done.

But that’s not the same thing as taking away a retirement he worked a lifetime for over an allegation.

1

Muvseevum t1_jdqjc69 wrote

If you pay into a pension, you probably don’t pay into Social Security.

1

Artanthos t1_jdr2uhz wrote

Depends on the pension.

I pay into both plus a 401k.

I have older coworkers with much better pension plans and no Social Security.

2