[quote=sdduuuude][quote=SK in CV]…returned to taxpayers in the form of lower tax rates.[/quote]

HAHAHAHA. That’s a funny one.

[quote=SK in CV]We had a once in 3 generations crash that the economy still hasn’t recovered from. Predictable? Maybe. But that was the cause of the problems with the public sector retirement pension shortfall. Not the overly generous pensions.[/quote]

Well, there are two points of discussion:
1) Choosing to offer a defined pension at all
2) The amount of that pension.

So, you are right, it wasn’t the overly generous pension. It was the fact that a pension was offered at all instead of a simple 401K-type plan.

For the state to choose to put taxpayer money at risk and imagine themselves to be capable of investing the money properly is a plan that will work perfectly up until the day when it doesn’t. Plus, they have to turn to a private investment contractor and have them do the investing for them – a cost that I’m sure CA Renter would like to avoid.

It isn’t the government’s place to take care of their employees for life or put our money at risk. The definition of “risk” is that there is both an upside and a downside, by the way.

Pay the employees now, let them manage their own retirement, avoid the risk, and avoid putting taxpayer money on the shoulders of the evil wall street people. I don’t see how that is a bad idea.[/quote]

SK is right; public employers (“taxpayers”)were paying very little (or nothing at all) for quite a while when the pensions were super-funded.