Home › Forums › Financial Markets/Economics › More public pension loony tunes – now Providence RI is in trouble
- This topic has 141 replies, 16 voices, and was last updated 11 years, 12 months ago by
CA renter.
-
AuthorPosts
-
May 9, 2012 at 6:56 AM #743336May 9, 2012 at 7:23 AM #743341
SD Realtor
ParticipantTrying to convince me that my social security benefit is in any manner comparable to a public pension is laughable.
I would gladly give more to the system to receive the pensions that those in the public sector receive.
GLADLY!!!
May 9, 2012 at 8:56 AM #743350CDMA ENG
Participant[quote=CA renter]For more information and actual FACTS:
http://www.iaff1775.org/news/local/294-the-truth-about-firefighter-retirement%5B/quote%5D
Oh fucking ya! That is a unbiased source of news and information.
Don’t cite something like this and think there is any validite left to your arguement. I liked it better when you were citing CALPERs or something like that but to invoke union disclaimer puts the arguement to shame.
CAR… You know bettter than that.
CE
May 9, 2012 at 9:14 AM #743352briansd1
GuestBTW, who is voting for San Diego’s Prop B.
I will.
Prop B might cost some cash up front to implement, but it will save money over decades and after that.
http://www.kpbs.org/news/2012/may/08/election-coverage-prop-b-city-pension-reform/
I’m not anti-union, but I believe that we cannot afford to pay those pension benefits to government employees.
May 9, 2012 at 1:15 PM #743377Allan from Fallbrook
Participant[quote=briansd1]BTW, who is voting for San Diego’s Prop B.
I will.
Prop B might cost some cash up front to implement, but it will save money over decades and after that.
http://www.kpbs.org/news/2012/may/08/election-coverage-prop-b-city-pension-reform/
I’m not anti-union, but I believe that we cannot afford to pay those pension benefits to government employees.[/quote]
Brian: It doesn’t come down to pro-union or anti-union, it comes down to what it is and what is not affordable.
The situation in Wisconsin with the Walker recall election is instructive: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/05/09/scott-walker-dominates-labor-falters-in-wisconsin-recall-primary.html
The underlying subtext to the Wisconsin recall is less Dem versus GOP and more to do with the perception that many states, especially the former strong union states (IL, IN, MI, WI), are in a fiscal quagmire and that pensions/benefits are contributing hugely.
May 10, 2012 at 1:11 AM #743418CA renter
Participant[quote=CDMA ENG][quote=CA renter]For more information and actual FACTS:
http://www.iaff1775.org/news/local/294-the-truth-about-firefighter-retirement%5B/quote%5D
Oh fucking ya! That is a unbiased source of news and information.
Don’t cite something like this and think there is any validite left to your arguement. I liked it better when you were citing CALPERs or something like that but to invoke union disclaimer puts the arguement to shame.
CAR… You know bettter than that.
CE[/quote]
Of course they are biased, but what they’re saying is factual.
If you can find any factual errors on their site, please point them out.
May 10, 2012 at 1:17 AM #743419Participant[quote=harvey]Let’s take a quick look at these “facts:”
#5 : Firefighter retirement benefits are not paid by the “taxpayers,” cities, counties or state. Benefits are deferred compensation, and are paid by the employee funded retirement systems […]
Absolutely false.
Not even open for interpretation, this one is an an outright lie.
And it is the only “fact” that matters.
ALL of their compensation comes from taxpayers. Where else would it come from?
And the issue is not compensation per se, the issue is the pension SHORTFALLS.
The tab for the shortfalls come directly from the taxpayers. The Unions and CalPERS have aggressively fought for this and in court and have won.
They were already paid once with taxpayer money. Their salary, benefits, and retirement contributions were paid YEARS AGO. And now they are demanding to be paid AGAIN, even though they aren’t even working any more.
Why are they claiming that they should get MORE taxpayer money, years after the fact? Because the stock market did not meet their unrealistic expectations.
And they try to blame “Wall Street” for the whole mess. Wouldn’t it be nice to have a 401K with guaranteed unrealistic performance, backed by the government? Choose a stock, any stock – the taxpayers will cover the loss if you pick a loser!
Read it this way: The unions and CalPERS have aggressively fought to take MORE money from schools, from the poor, and from existing public safety budgets. All across California, cites are laying off teachers and public safety workers in order to pay for retirees.
We are laying off firefighters that are on duty today so that we can give the money to retired firefighters who are on a cruise ship.
We are laying off teachers that are in the classroom today so that we can give the money to retired teachers who are on the golf course.
How could anyone claim that these are ethically sound policies? It is simply staggering.
And even if we choose to abandon ethics – as apparently some folks have – there is no escaping the reality that it is completely unsustainable.
As for the comparison to Social Security – the only fact you need to know is this: Social Security retirement age has gone UP over the years (and will continue to go up), public-sector retirement age has gone DOWN.[/quote]
Pri,
Once again, you didn’t comprehend what was written. Pension benefits ARE NOT paid by taxpayers. That is a fact. How many times do I have to explain it to you before you “get it”?
The **contributions** to the pension funds are paid by employers when the employees are working. Once they are retired, 100% of a retiree’s benefits are paid out by their pension funds — in the case of CalPERS (and many other funds), it is not even a government entity, they are contractors. The vast majority of the benefits (usually around 75%) come from the funds’ investment returns…not from employer/employee contributions. Public employers (or “taxpayers” in your words) do not make any further contributions to the employee’s pension once the employee is retired.
The public employees receive their compensation from their employers, not taxpayers. Their employers’ revenues come from various taxes, fees, and even investment income. Your argument is like saying that I, as a Microsoft consumer, am the direct employer of MS employees. I am Microsoft’s customer, not the employer of MS’s employees (and executives) — there is a distinction.
Nonetheless, the pension shortfalls are primarily a result of market losses, not “greedy union thugs.” Couple that with revenue declines –especially in property tax revenues, which is usually the largest revenue source for most municipalities — and you get problems. Boots-on-the-ground” workers had nothing to do with it, yet the financial sector parasites are scapegoating them for all the damage inflicted by the financial industry (both booms and busts).
Again, many municipalities are already negotiating for increased employee pension contributions, pay and benefit cuts, etc. from unions…and most unions are being very conciliatory during these negotiations because they DO understand what’s going on with their employers’ finances (they understand much more than you do, as a matter of fact). Unfortunately, the MSM isn’t reporting this because it’s not nearly as dramatic as reporting on outliers in the public sector. For every one employee who is reported by the MSM because of their incredibly high pay/benefits, there are tens of thousands who are taking cuts…but that’s not the stuff that sells papers or gets idiots riled up against public sector workers…so we make grand pronouncements based upon a handful of public employees who have managed to scam the system (and many are being reviewed for this, but that’s not reported, either), and we ignore the very real concessions that union members have been making over the past few years.
May 10, 2012 at 6:13 AM #743422Anonymous
Guest[quote=CA renter]Public employers (or “taxpayers” in your words) do not make any further contributions to the employee’s pension once the employee is retired.[/quote]
Absolutely false.
http://www.ocregister.com/articles/billion-339161-percent-calpers.html
[…] in the current fiscal year, ending June 30, CalSTRS is projected to tap $1.9 billion from the general fund.
…
Worse, the projection for fiscal 2012-13, which begins July 1, is $3.1 billion going to CalPERS and $1.3 billion to CalSTRS.
Money from the general fund (read: “taxpayer money”) is being transferred to the pension systems TODAY because of shortfalls.
The taxpayers are being forced to make the pension contributions AGAIN.
And of course, how do you explain why Vallejo, San Jose, Stockton and other cities have had to cut services in order to maintain pension payments? It’s because their general funds had to pay for the pension shortfalls.
And it is going to get far worse:
May 10, 2012 at 9:13 AM #743438bearishgurl
ParticipantDoes anyone understand that these “outliers” such as the Fire Chief and Librarian mentioned in the OP were NOT union members? These retired “public employees” were appointed officials by their respective City Councils (not sure how a city is RI is governed). In CA, when a City Council or County Board of Supervisors releases a job opening for a public official position, they typically contract with a headhunter to search nationwide and interview at least 12-14 candidates. Yes, often they DO end up hiring someone from within the organization for the job simply because of their valuable institutional knowledge and these candidates typically have years of seniority already behind them. The job offer of an appointed public official is entirely negotiable between the Council/BOS and the candidate. This includes pay, medical/dental/vision benefits, leave accrual, etc, which may be entirely different plans or rate of accrual that unions negotiated for their rank and file public-worker members. Since appointed and elected officials do not typically stay on board as long as “rank and file union members,” it was not unheard of for them to be offered vesting in as little as five years with a pension at a higher percentage of their “wage” than the worker-bees. This was a carrot used to steal the “best” public officials away from other locales.
“Civil Service Rules” and “Union Contracts” do not apply here. In other words, your SD elected officials offered and/or agreed upon the City Librarian’s appointment to use a particular formula to calculate their pension (among negotiating and agreeing to other perks at the time of their appointment).
These “appointed outliers” work strictly at the pleasure of City Councils/Boards of Supervisors. Their “contributions” and “personality” can fall in and out of favor with the PTB, depending on WHO gets replaced in the next election cycle (and WHO replaced the incumbent who voted to hire/retain the official).
Don’t mix up the salaries, benefits and pension formulas of elected officials and their appointees with the rank and file public worker union members. The “total pkg” of compensation between the two is as different as night and day.
May 10, 2012 at 9:37 AM #743439Participant[quote=CA renter][quote=CDMA ENG][quote=CA renter]For more information and actual FACTS:
http://www.iaff1775.org/news/local/294-the-truth-about-firefighter-retirement%5B/quote%5D
Oh fucking ya! That is a unbiased source of news and information.
Don’t cite something like this and think there is any validite left to your arguement. I liked it better when you were citing CALPERs or something like that but to invoke union disclaimer puts the arguement to shame.
CAR… You know bettter than that.
CE[/quote]
Of course they are biased, but what they’re saying is factual.
If you can find any factual errors on their site, please point them out.[/quote]
-1
May 10, 2012 at 10:23 AM #743443Guest[quote=harvey][quote=CA renter]Public employers (or “taxpayers” in your words) do not make any further contributions to the employee’s pension once the employee is retired.[/quote]
Absolutely false.
http://www.ocregister.com/articles/billion-339161-percent-calpers.html
[…] in the current fiscal year, ending June 30, CalSTRS is projected to tap $1.9 billion from the general fund.
…
Worse, the projection for fiscal 2012-13, which begins July 1, is $3.1 billion going to CalPERS and $1.3 billion to CalSTRS.
Money from the general fund (read: “taxpayer money”) is being transferred to the pension systems TODAY because of shortfalls.
The taxpayers are being forced to make the pension contributions AGAIN.
And of course, how do you explain why Vallejo, San Jose, Stockton and other cities have had to cut services in order to maintain pension payments? It’s because their general funds had to pay for the pension shortfalls.
And it is going to get far worse:
http://www.arc.asm.ca.gov/budgetfactcheck/?p_id=299%5B/quote%5D
Thank you for making the point that teachers and firefighters today are being laid off so that retired workers’ pension can be paid.
CA renter even suggested before that if could kick the children of unauthorized migrants out of school, be they citizens or not, we could save money. “Save money” means laying off teachers who are working today.
That’s why I support Prop B to move City of San Diego employees to 401k type pensions. Yes, on B.
May 10, 2012 at 10:27 AM #743445Guest[quote=CA renter]
yet the financial sector parasites are scapegoating them for all the damage inflicted by the financial industry (both booms and busts).[/quote]Why invest with Wall Street if they are such parasites?
The pension funds could have bought more conservatives investments. The problem with that is that pension contributions would have been much higher for the same level of guaranteed benefits.
May 10, 2012 at 11:30 AM #743468GuestYes the “financial sector parasites,” like these guys:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303592404577362220551217352.html
Ex-CEO of Calpers Accused of Fraud
Guess who will be paying for these losses also?
The whole system is corrupt and unsustainable.
The solution is trivial: Convert to individual 401K retirement accounts – like everybody else has – and the pension problems go away.
There is simply no reason to have a special class of citizens that get automatic bailouts whenever there is an economic downturn.
May 10, 2012 at 11:59 AM #743473all
Participant[quote=briansd1]unauthorized migrants[/quote]
That’s too harsh, Brian. Why not call them ‘partially documented migrants’, or ‘amnesty eligible migrants’?
May 10, 2012 at 2:45 PM #743494Participant“The solution is trivial: Convert to individual 401K retirement accounts – like everybody else has – and the pension problems go away.”
What? That sounds way to complex to me.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.