[quote=bearishgurl][quote=briansd1]BG and CA renter, you guys need to give it up.
Just in SD, it used to be that 5% of city revenue went to pensions, now it’s 25%.
I’m a bleeding heart liberal and even I think that we need an adjustment. Personally, I’d rather money be spent on services for citizens than pensions for former employees. As far as I’m concerned, retirees can be hung out to dry. 1.3 millions citizens are more important than a few thousand retirees. Sorry, but we need to have our priorities straight.[/quote]
FWIW, brian, local public pensions weren’t calculated with the same (lucrative) formulas before 2002 and after 2010. A “new hire” in the local cities or County today will NOT receive anywhere near the “sweetheart deal” as those who converted to or were hired into between 2002 and 2010. Some jurisdictions have dropped their defined benefit plans altogether in favor of “457 plans.”
And in case you were wondering, my pension is calculated using a pre-2002 formula and is very, very modest, I can assure you.[/quote]
Not only that, but many employers stopped offering retiree healthcare to new employees in the 90s. That offsets a large part of the increased pension benefits (which I never agreed with, and have said this multiple times) offered in the late 1990s/early 2000s.
……………..
sdr,
I’ve repeatedly said that reform was necessary, and have outlined ways for that to happen. Guess what? It’s already happening. Public employees HAVE been making concessions; yes, even those who’ve been on the job a long time. They HAVE been taking hits, which is why these ignorant, vitriolic posts of yours (and others) are so offensive.
