[quote=no_such_reality][quote=CA Renter]
BTW, have any of your taxes gone up in order to fund public employees’ retirement plans? I haven’t seen any increases in our household. What HAS happened is that public employers have been shifting more and more of the contribution burden onto the public employees, not taxpayers. This is reality, as opposed to the “all public employees are parasites” world, as seen on Fox News. [/quote]
Frankly, I think most of the State Employee Unions are stupid about this issue.
They should throw the 3 Safety groups: Police, Fire and Prison Guards under the school bus. the Prison Guard contract continues with the State paying the EMPLOYEE share. It’s buried in a different of the contract. In the pension part, it proudly calls out the Employee portion, then buried in another part, it shifts that portion responsibility to the State.
Those three though have the offensive features such as retirement at 50… it’s been rolled back for new employees, but the bulk of the rank and file are still covered by 3% at 50 or 55. Plus other ugly things like “presumptive” disability.
PD, is a wonderful little thing. If you develop a heart condition at many Fire Departments, Police Departments, it is assumed the job cuased it and the City has to prove the job did not in order not to pay the disability.
Did we mention air time? At least they have to buy air time.
Most Government workers pensions, excluding health benefits, are fairly resonable and can readily be converted to defined contribution plans.
BTW, do we know how the biggest lobbyist is in California last year? California Teachers…
As for taxes going up, yes. It’s a chronic battle of “temporary” tax increases. Browns first budget included them and their extension to 5 years went down in massive defeat.
How many props to increase taxes are trying to make the election? 4?
Plus the millionaire surtax. Er, wait, it’s not a surtax, that would be illegal so it has a different name.[/quote]
Have you checked the research dealing with the costs and legality of switching them to defined contribution plans? There is quite a bit of evidence out there that shows this would not save money and is not legal, especially for the vested portions of the retirement benefits.
