[quote=flu]1. Do you think that with all the pensions underpeforming the markets, that it’s sustainable for local and state governments to continue to make up for the shortfall?[/quote]
I honestly don’t know the answer. I know an employee in the same classification as I was who is “retiring” today will receive a monthly benefit of about 250% of mine. This is partly due to their own mandatory payroll contributions of approximately $77K over the last ten years and partly due to being a member of the “enhanced benefit tier.” When the PTB voted this in in 2002, they were all members of the (retirement) system themselves who wished to “convert” their own pensions to an “enhanced” version. For this group, healthcare premium credits ($200-$300 mo) are not guaranteed and can be taken away at any time. If this has not already been taken away, I see it happening soon as a partial solution.
I don’t believe there would have been a shortfall under the old system.
I erred in a previous post when I said members of the old system were not required to contribute. Actually, they were but not until reaching 45 years of age. These (4% to 7.5%) contributions were staggered every year from then on until they retired.
[quote=flu]2. Unlike a normal organization in which if it can’t pay for it’s bills, it files for bankruptcy to restructure debt and relinquish itself from a unpayable debt burden (like the airline industry did to unpayable pensions), governments do not have the ability to file for BK and get any pension debt relieve. Do you agree that is the predicament of our local and state governments?[/quote]
Yes, that is their predicament. Actually, airlines are still paying their pensions. I have a relative who is a retired American flight attendant (age 68) who has been collecting her pension for many years and also flying “Space A” wherever and whenever she wants.
[quote=flu]3. Finally, do you think that it’s right that both current and future taxpayers (even the ones that are kids who had no voting power) will continue to pay for this benefit that up their asses so that a small percentage of people can continue to collect an return that has since fallen completely out of wack with reality?[/quote]
Unless laws are repealed/changed, I see no way out. Mandatory contributions by its working members can always be raised.
[quote=flu]All the “data” you are arguing over. About how much harder the job is, death rate, how little pay inheritance it is, etc etc…Death rate…It’s all irrelevant…[/quote]
It is ALL …. absolutely relevant. A government employee, by the nature of their employment, loses basic freedoms and rights of privacy that private-sector workers enjoy. Everyone is free to choose their own path.
[quote=flu]What part of “we can’t afford to pay for this” are you not understanding??? Doesn’t it bother you one bit, it’s not me or you that’s really going to suffer from this, but your kids (unless you’re going to encourage them to move out of CA and not deal with it)…[/quote]
My kid(s) already make over twice what I made at the time of leaving my gov’mt job. I never in my life dreamed of making that much money. I’m happy for them. They are also living a life I never dreamed of and have no plans to EVER leave CA. If I am ever in a position to help them in the future to buy a house, I might (if I took out a second TD on it as I wouldn’t want to go on title with them or sign a mortgage note with them).
[quote=flu]In our current local/state government setup, this hard decision is being temporarily deferred, because it can apparently tap into an unlimited credit line from the taxpayers (at least that’s what folks think)…And it will continue to do some until the tax burden is so high and so large, people say enough…Then we have a snowball effect in which business/people do less business here, which means fewer tax dollars, which means the local/state has even a bigger shortfall. The unlimited taxpayer credit line for our local/state government is no different than the loose financing that allowed someone with a fake alt-a stated income to borrow as much money as he/she can without any consequences.[/quote]
Understand, but I see the “taxpayer burden” on pension shortfalls shrinking gradually due to VERY high current mandatory payroll deductions on existing workers, deaths of near-retirees and current retirees and other “tweaks” of most or all of the public retirement systems currently in place in CA, which have the effect of greatly reducing or entirely eliminating future pension obligations. Tax and “teeter fund” shortfalls to local governments will improve once these lagging, lazy lenders begin to wise up, foreclose and let the damaged RE markets begin to heal.
On this thread, you used the analogy of a mortgage loan borrower submitting fake credentials for qualification and “persons who took cash out of their properties” and had debt forgiven to compare to govm’t pension shortfalls. They are not one and the same. The pension plans for CA governments explicitly follow state law (in place for many decades) in administering their pensions. Banks who refuse to foreclose in the absence of receiving any mortgage payments for many months from their borrowers are NOT following the law laid out expressly and explicitly for them to do so. And lenders loaned money to anyone who could fog a mirror because they already had some poor distant chump to take the dubious loan off their hands the next day (at a discount, of course). Lenders’ stupid lending decisions during the “boom years” were all due to a combination of runaway greed on several levels, Big Bank gross incompetency and lack of oversight of their “so-called” registered “mortgage brokers” in the field. The only state law in place to support lenders’ procrastination in foreclosing is this one:
…(j) This section shall remain in effect only until January 1, 2013, and as of that date is repealed, unless a later enacted statute, that is enacted before January 1, 2013, deletes or extends that date.
….giving them an addt’l 90 days to foreclose on mortgage loans which qualified. (“90 days” is not an extra 2-3 yrs, btw.) Lenders who are exempt from this law don’t have to follow it. That’s it. The game was supposed to be OVER . . . but alas . . . it wasn’t and it isn’t. Too many “enterprising borrowers” made off with hundreds of thousands of dollars in phony “equity,” likely FAR MORE than I will ever recover in my paltry “govm’t pension” in my lifetime. This continuing debacle has cost this country FAR MORE than partially or almost fully-funded govm’t pension funds will. I for one am in hopes that this section dies on the vine and goes away quietly due to our legislature finally getting a clue that almost no one qualifies for a “mod,” lol ….
[quote=flu][quote=bearishgurl]If you want to lobby for govm’t pension reform in CA, then complain to your legislator. Better yet, line out the old legislation and draft it anew![/quote]Nope, I’ll just find more legal creative ways pay less taxes, or legally shelter my income/assets…with no remorse…Since better me than someone else..Hey, I’m kinda liking the new “me way of thinking”[/quote]Certainly, you are totally, completely within your rights here and I would do the same thing if I felt I was being “gouged” by the IRS and FTB :=]
