Counting on a pension ??

[Portlock]

So, BobS – do you mean the current State and local politicians will go ahead and lie to me about how much I will really be paying to fund the pensions of city workers?

[EconProf]

BobSUh…yeah.

[EconProf]

BobSUh…yeah.

[EconProf]

BobSUh…yeah.

[EconProf]

BobSUh…yeah.

[EconProf]

BobSUh…yeah.

[jennyo]

The bigger issue is that even if the pension funds go under or just underperform, the government entity is liable for paying the pension costs, unless (as in the case of San Diego) some malfeasance or fraud can be proven as the basis for increasing pension benefits.

So if CALPERS has a bad year in terms of earnings, the state General Fund makes up the difference in the actual cost of funding pensions for beneficiaries. At least for the state government, payments to retirees are protected in the state constitution so these costs are a must pay, like debt service, and cannot be cut from the state budget. The only way to reduce state pension costs is to promise new employees less, it is an entitlement to existing retirees as well as those making their way through the system now.

And I don’t see state court judges (who are essentially state employees) allowing those benefits to be taken away.

[jennyo]

The bigger issue is that even if the pension funds go under or just underperform, the government entity is liable for paying the pension costs, unless (as in the case of San Diego) some malfeasance or fraud can be proven as the basis for increasing pension benefits.

So if CALPERS has a bad year in terms of earnings, the state General Fund makes up the difference in the actual cost of funding pensions for beneficiaries. At least for the state government, payments to retirees are protected in the state constitution so these costs are a must pay, like debt service, and cannot be cut from the state budget. The only way to reduce state pension costs is to promise new employees less, it is an entitlement to existing retirees as well as those making their way through the system now.

And I don’t see state court judges (who are essentially state employees) allowing those benefits to be taken away.

[jennyo]

The bigger issue is that even if the pension funds go under or just underperform, the government entity is liable for paying the pension costs, unless (as in the case of San Diego) some malfeasance or fraud can be proven as the basis for increasing pension benefits.

So if CALPERS has a bad year in terms of earnings, the state General Fund makes up the difference in the actual cost of funding pensions for beneficiaries. At least for the state government, payments to retirees are protected in the state constitution so these costs are a must pay, like debt service, and cannot be cut from the state budget. The only way to reduce state pension costs is to promise new employees less, it is an entitlement to existing retirees as well as those making their way through the system now.

And I don’t see state court judges (who are essentially state employees) allowing those benefits to be taken away.

[jennyo]

The bigger issue is that even if the pension funds go under or just underperform, the government entity is liable for paying the pension costs, unless (as in the case of San Diego) some malfeasance or fraud can be proven as the basis for increasing pension benefits.

So if CALPERS has a bad year in terms of earnings, the state General Fund makes up the difference in the actual cost of funding pensions for beneficiaries. At least for the state government, payments to retirees are protected in the state constitution so these costs are a must pay, like debt service, and cannot be cut from the state budget. The only way to reduce state pension costs is to promise new employees less, it is an entitlement to existing retirees as well as those making their way through the system now.

And I don’t see state court judges (who are essentially state employees) allowing those benefits to be taken away.

[jennyo]

The bigger issue is that even if the pension funds go under or just underperform, the government entity is liable for paying the pension costs, unless (as in the case of San Diego) some malfeasance or fraud can be proven as the basis for increasing pension benefits.

So if CALPERS has a bad year in terms of earnings, the state General Fund makes up the difference in the actual cost of funding pensions for beneficiaries. At least for the state government, payments to retirees are protected in the state constitution so these costs are a must pay, like debt service, and cannot be cut from the state budget. The only way to reduce state pension costs is to promise new employees less, it is an entitlement to existing retirees as well as those making their way through the system now.

And I don’t see state court judges (who are essentially state employees) allowing those benefits to be taken away.

[EconProf]

BobS
The State of California has so many ticking time bombs built into its systems, it is simply a good place to avoid in future investing. A major recession would set them off, and they would feed on each other and be self-reinforcing. The demographic trends and upcoming tax hikes will exacerbate everything too.
A good place to keep up with CA political trends is FlashReport.org

[EconProf]

BobS
The State of California has so many ticking time bombs built into its systems, it is simply a good place to avoid in future investing. A major recession would set them off, and they would feed on each other and be self-reinforcing. The demographic trends and upcoming tax hikes will exacerbate everything too.
A good place to keep up with CA political trends is FlashReport.org

[EconProf]

BobS
The State of California has so many ticking time bombs built into its systems, it is simply a good place to avoid in future investing. A major recession would set them off, and they would feed on each other and be self-reinforcing. The demographic trends and upcoming tax hikes will exacerbate everything too.
A good place to keep up with CA political trends is FlashReport.org

[EconProf]

BobS
The State of California has so many ticking time bombs built into its systems, it is simply a good place to avoid in future investing. A major recession would set them off, and they would feed on each other and be self-reinforcing. The demographic trends and upcoming tax hikes will exacerbate everything too.
A good place to keep up with CA political trends is FlashReport.org

[Author]

Posts