other than the headline, seems the reader responses were more informative than the UT news paper article
[quote=UT readers] …City of San Diego employees {except for hourly employees} have not been in Social Security since September, 1981.
…SD City employees have been out of Social Security since 9/81 and that was done on a promise of lifetime medical care for retirees and a pension better than SS.
…The majority of tax increases in California over the past few years (and those proposed on the ballots all up and down the state now) have been to fund pensions. The politicians, being the devious types that they are, just don’t use pensions as the rationale, they say things like “public safety,” “education,” and “infrastructure.”
…The difference between a 401k and a pension is that with a 401k plan the retiree receives the money that has been placed in their own account which grows based upon the investment returns. They own the account and can transfer it to their next employer.
A city pension plan provides a defined benefit but that is not guaranteed. As the judge ruled in the Stockton bankruptcy a pension can be impaired in bankruptcy.
The risk of both pensions and 401k’s is that they do not make their assumed rate of investment return. Unfortunately, with a pension the risk falls on taxpayers because of the rules pensions operate under.
So there is plenty of risk to go around, especially for plans that are grossly underfunded.
…The longer the City delays the more it will cost to meet the Court’s requirement.
…Once again, the UT fails to provide basic information. Who is the consultant?
