|
Post by AztecWilliam on Sept 17, 2016 22:29:54 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by cmonaztecs on Sept 18, 2016 20:56:51 GMT -8
The Sunday UT today front page explained that in 1999 Gov Gray Davis signed legislation that gave more than 200,000 state employees or civil servants eligibility to retire at 55. Highway Patrol more than 90% of their peak pay at 50.
Pensions are now $billions under funded.
I don't see where the lump sum payment buyout will make sense unless you have poor health and don't expect to live much longer.
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Sept 19, 2016 6:38:12 GMT -8
The Sunday UT today front page explained that in 1999 Gov Gray Davis signed legislation that gave more than 200,000 state employees or civil servants eligibility to retire at 55. Highway Patrol more than 90% of their peak pay at 50. Pensions are now $billions under funded. I don't see where the lump sum payment buyout will make sense unless you have poor health and don't expect to live much longer. Grossly overestimating the return on the pension funds investment returns along with demographics going against the grain has made it even worse than the poor decisions of our politicians in Sacramento. Long term we must do away with defined benefit plans and go to a 401K/TSP type plan.
|
|
|
Post by cmonaztecs on Sept 19, 2016 7:23:39 GMT -8
401k will help, and raising retirement to 67 will slow the leak, but ultimately these public employees(Firemen and Police) on $100k pensions have to be rolled back. But it will never happen and we taxpayers will pay for their extravagant living if there's any tax money left after everyone reverts to 401k's. I see huge govt bankruptcies 10 to 20 years out and then these under funded pensions will have to be cut.
We need to be spending our tax money on water conservation, reservoirs and repairing our decaying infrastructure and not on extravagant pensions. Our system of relying on the people to police our government doesn't work! Some other method of oversight needs to be put into place, but I have no idea what that could be, other than any pension approvals must be put on the ballot for a vote of the public which seems an overlooked requirement. I can't even imagine these accelerated pensions put into law by Gray Davis back in 1999 would have passed if put on the ballot. Too little too late now.
|
|
|
Post by AlwaysAnAztec on Sept 19, 2016 9:16:05 GMT -8
The pension fund that I belong to is 100% funded. The agency actually followed the advice of the actuaries and everyone contributed what they were supposed to. When returns were great we were actually overfunded and when the bottom dropped out of the market we were not hit as bad as others. Where many agencies, i.e. City of San Diego, went wrong was to suspend their contributions for years when the returns 'took care of it'. They (Carl DeMaio) then blamed the "greedy employees" when they had to start contributing again.
|
|
|
Post by Fishn'Aztec on Sept 25, 2016 15:03:37 GMT -8
Don't retire!
|
|
|
Post by sdsu2000 on Sept 28, 2016 9:41:37 GMT -8
How to solve pensions? Stop giving them to the newly employed and let them fade slowly off into the sunset.
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Sept 29, 2016 15:00:44 GMT -8
How to solve pensions? Stop giving them to the newly employed and let them fade slowly off into the sunset. It won't take that long.
|
|
|
Post by sandiegopete on Sept 29, 2016 18:28:30 GMT -8
Public employee pensions funds are not guaranteed by the PBGC. They are guaranteed by the full faith and credit of the public entity that is providing the pension. 401K plans are not guaranteed by anybody. 401K plans also have management fees and that is one reason banks and other financial institutions push 401K and IRA retirement options so much and why they pay lobbyists so much money to promote those products as an alternative to traditional retirement plans. Retirement plans should be as risk free as possible. People will accept lower wages in return for secure retirement benefits. This has been the cornerstone of public employment. People would accept lower wages for secure employment and secure retirement benefits. Now there is a movement to eliminate not only the secure employment but the secure retirement as well. The question to ask taxpayers is: do you want to increase public employee wages and retirement benefits to the point where the government job is competitive with private jobs? And anybody who thinks government job pay is competitive with private business is so ignorant of both public and private employment compensation as to be without any credibility whatsoever. A person working in even a mid-management job for a government agency such as, oh to pick one, the EPA can increase their lifetime remuneration, including retirement benefits, by 50% if they are able to land a job with a corporation. You can research the topic and see that thousands of people leave government service to enter private service but you can't find very many people who leave private serviced to enter public service, other than multi-millionaires who take top level government jobs. Another reason many public employees are eager to leave public employment is because they are tired of being called lazy bums by the general public. I never could figure out why some people want to drive our best public employees from government service until I realized that the force behind all that criticism was the private companies that wanted to hire those employees.
In conclusion, the main reason to promote non-traditional pensions for public employees is to ensure no quality employee will stay in public service.
|
|
|
Post by sandiegopete on Sept 29, 2016 19:12:30 GMT -8
To add to my previous comment an put a San Diego slant on the issue, the City of San Diego intentionally underfunded its pension plan in order to fund a Republican convention and a downtown ballpark. The machinations were revealed by Diann Shipione and initially denied by the same city officials that engaged in the scam. I am very knowledgeable of that crisis. Although I have never been an employee of the City of San Diego I have served as a volunteer on several city boards. The city pension problems were caused by politicians who had no concern whatsoever for the fiscal health of the city. And the city remained obligated to make good on the pension promises.
|
|
|
Post by AlwaysAnAztec on Sept 30, 2016 12:48:52 GMT -8
Public employee pensions funds are not guaranteed by the PBGC. They are guaranteed by the full faith and credit of the public entity that is providing the pension. 401K plans are not guaranteed by anybody. 401K plans also have management fees and that is one reason banks and other financial institutions push 401K and IRA retirement options so much and why they pay lobbyists so much money to promote those products as an alternative to traditional retirement plans. Retirement plans should be as risk free as possible. People will accept lower wages in return for secure retirement benefits. This has been the cornerstone of public employment. People would accept lower wages for secure employment and secure retirement benefits. Now there is a movement to eliminate not only the secure employment but the secure retirement as well. The question to ask taxpayers is: do you want to increase public employee wages and retirement benefits to the point where the government job is competitive with private jobs? And anybody who thinks government job pay is competitive with private business is so ignorant of both public and private employment compensation as to be without any credibility whatsoever. A person working in even a mid-management job for a government agency such as, oh to pick one, the EPA can increase their lifetime remuneration, including retirement benefits, by 50% if they are able to land a job with a corporation. You can research the topic and see that thousands of people leave government service to enter private service but you can't find very many people who leave private serviced to enter public service, other than multi-millionaires who take top level government jobs. Another reason many public employees are eager to leave public employment is because they are tired of being called lazy bums by the general public. I never could figure out why some people want to drive our best public employees from government service until I realized that the force behind all that criticism was the private companies that wanted to hire those employees. In conclusion, the main reason to promote non-traditional pensions for public employees is to ensure no quality employee will stay in public service. Ding ding ding. We have a winner!!
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Oct 1, 2016 14:37:51 GMT -8
To add to my previous comment an put a San Diego slant on the issue, the City of San Diego intentionally underfunded its pension plan in order to fund a Republican convention and a downtown ballpark. The machinations were revealed by Diann Shipione and initially denied by the same city officials that engaged in the scam. I am very knowledgeable of that crisis. Although I have never been an employee of the City of San Diego I have served as a volunteer on several city boards. The city pension problems were caused by politicians who had no concern whatsoever for the fiscal health of the city. And the city remained obligated to make good on the pension promises. This is exactly why all Pensions should be funded out of current receipts and not future income. An IRA/TSP type plan is only one option.
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Oct 1, 2016 14:43:07 GMT -8
Public employee pensions funds are not guaranteed by the PBGC. They are guaranteed by the full faith and credit of the public entity that is providing the pension. 401K plans are not guaranteed by anybody. 401K plans also have management fees and that is one reason banks and other financial institutions push 401K and IRA retirement options so much and why they pay lobbyists so much money to promote those products as an alternative to traditional retirement plans. Retirement plans should be as risk free as possible. People will accept lower wages in return for secure retirement benefits. This has been the cornerstone of public employment. People would accept lower wages for secure employment and secure retirement benefits. Now there is a movement to eliminate not only the secure employment but the secure retirement as well. The question to ask taxpayers is: do you want to increase public employee wages and retirement benefits to the point where the government job is competitive with private jobs? And anybody who thinks government job pay is competitive with private business is so ignorant of both public and private employment compensation as to be without any credibility whatsoever. A person working in even a mid-management job for a government agency such as, oh to pick one, the EPA can increase their lifetime remuneration, including retirement benefits, by 50% if they are able to land a job with a corporation. You can research the topic and see that thousands of people leave government service to enter private service but you can't find very many people who leave private serviced to enter public service, other than multi-millionaires who take top level government jobs. Another reason many public employees are eager to leave public employment is because they are tired of being called lazy bums by the general public. I never could figure out why some people want to drive our best public employees from government service until I realized that the force behind all that criticism was the private companies that wanted to hire those employees. In conclusion, the main reason to promote non-traditional pensions for public employees is to ensure no quality employee will stay in public service. I can't argue with your logic and argument. I can say that as long as all retirement plan funding comes out of current income with no future liability or reliance on future tax or other income you are on sound ground. If the entity sponsoring the plan has no future obligation past current budget allocations it will be even safer. You thereby eliminate the problem that results in over promises and underfunding.
|
|
|
Post by cmonaztecs on Oct 2, 2016 5:07:22 GMT -8
To add to my previous comment an put a San Diego slant on the issue, the City of San Diego intentionally underfunded its pension plan in order to fund a Republican convention and a downtown ballpark. The machinations were revealed by Diann Shipione and initially denied by the same city officials that engaged in the scam. I am very knowledgeable of that crisis. Although I have never been an employee of the City of San Diego I have served as a volunteer on several city boards. The city pension problems were caused by politicians who had no concern whatsoever for the fiscal health of the city. And the city remained obligated to make good on the pension promises. Republican.......grrrrr.... if I hear that word one more time... another word for catering to wealthy special interests and then somehow get the ignorant poor working white stiff to vote for them in the name of jingoism.
|
|
|
Post by tuff on Oct 8, 2016 17:01:03 GMT -8
I would quit the pension programs on all new hires and just contribute into their individual 401 k's. put the responsibility back on the individual.
|
|
|
Post by chris92065 on Feb 18, 2017 1:34:53 GMT -8
To add to my previous comment an put a San Diego slant on the issue, the City of San Diego intentionally underfunded its pension plan in order to fund a Republican convention and a downtown ballpark. The machinations were revealed by Diann Shipione and initially denied by the same city officials that engaged in the scam. I am very knowledgeable of that crisis. Although I have never been an employee of the City of San Diego I have served as a volunteer on several city boards. The city pension problems were caused by politicians who had no concern whatsoever for the fiscal health of the city. And the city remained obligated to make good on the pension promises. Republican.......grrrrr.... if I hear that word one more time... another word for catering to wealthy special interests and then somehow get the ignorant poor working white stiff to vote for them in the name of jingoism. Bro. Both parties are for those who have cash. Be honest. A problem is that local governments are allowed to negotiate a contract as critical as a pension. Another problem is that governments are allowed to touch those funds. But it don't matter any more
|
|
|
Post by chris92065 on Feb 18, 2017 1:35:13 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by chris92065 on Feb 18, 2017 1:37:49 GMT -8
Did you notice that the state of California was a defendant ?
Yup. The most liberal state in the union.
Just bent over every piunlic employee in the state and rammed them in the ass with a sledge hammer.
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Feb 18, 2017 8:26:12 GMT -8
Glad to see some more comments on this thread. The tax payers are taking it in the ear from the idiots we send to Sacramento. The action of the courts, right or wrong, have upheld the right of idiots to screw us.
|
|
|
Post by Spud on Apr 28, 2017 5:58:43 GMT -8
The issue is so complicated. When I joined public service in the early 90's, our agency was "superfunded". Meaning, our deposits in PERS where more than our projected long term liability (or at least that's what PERS was telling us...). Then the push for increased retirement benefits came...from 2% @ 60 to 3% @ 60 for regular employees, and from 2% @ 50 to 3% @ 50 for public safety. PERS rolled out the dog and pony show and convinced anyone who was listening that the increases would basically be free. Investment returns where strong, and there was more than enough money to handle the increased benefits. It was a win-win for everyone. City Councils and City Managers were falling all over themselves to hand out these increases because they were told there would be no long term cost increases. It wasn't "greedy" unions pushing for them...they didn't have to do anything but sit there as politicians gladly handed out these benefits. Remember, PERS was guaranteeing no cost increases.
But there were problems from the get go. First, PERS actuaries had not adjusted their assumptions of how long employees lived after retirement. Second, PERS was killing it with investments because they were heavily invested in risky investments. So when the great recession hit, PERS lost BILLIONS on the sub-prime mortgage debacle and all those billions were gone in a flash. Then PERS decided to adjust their actuarial estimates which further decimated those funds. And finally, PERS then locks down their investment strategies which significantly reduced their ability to earn the 7 or 8% (or more) rates of returns that they historically had done.
What's unfortunate, is that public employees have somehow been made to be the bad guy in all of this, when in reality is that decision makers at PERS are the real criminals. So, what's the fix? Well, obviously steps have already been taken to start reducing future employee benefits with lower level retirement plans. But "old" employees on the tier 1 retirement plans will need to start contributing more towards their retirement. Things like single highest year and all spiking have to go away. And I'm fairly certain that the courts will rule that agencies will be able to roll back plans for all future retirement calculations (not roll back benefits already earned). Although for those of us who are close to retirement, this won't be much of an impact, the employees hired in the last 10 years will be screwed. It will be a significant loss in total compensation for them (and you better believe recruiting and retention will suffer). And yes, citizens will ultimately need to foot a good chunk of the bill. And you can't just walk away from PERS as some have stated. Because you still have to pay for retirees, the cost for leaving PERS is enormous. For our agency, if we wanted to bid farewell to PERS and move to a 401K style system, the cost would be close to $1B (PERS is an "all in" proposition...can't split up employees). Considering our annual gen fund budget is a little more than 1/10th of that, that's not going to happen. The OP's article does a poor job of really delving into the complexity of the issues in my opinion.
|
|