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 12 years, 1 month ago by
CA renter.
-
AuthorPosts
-
May 10, 2012 at 3:03 PM #743497May 10, 2012 at 3:12 PM #743498
CA renter
Participant[quote=SD Realtor]”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.[/quote]
Aside from the fact that they cannot legally “convert” existing benefits, how does one allocate the existing money to existing retirees and existing employees? Are you suggesting they liquidate the funds? How do you suggest they do that? DB pension funds don’t have separate accounts per employee.
Again, public employers use these benefits to draw the best employees and **keep them there.** The training costs, especially for safety employees, are too high to handle high turnover rates. Without these benefits, the turnover rates would increase dramatically, increasing recruiting and training costs significantly — the cost to recruit and train safety employees, especially if the employer provides academy training, can easily run in the $30K-$70K range PER EMPLOYEE.
May 10, 2012 at 3:16 PM #743499Participant[quote=SD Realtor]Trying 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!!![/quote]
If you are so envious of their position, why didn’t you apply for these jobs when there were PLENTY to go around?
Funny how nobody wants to do it during the good times, but when the bad times come, all of a sudden it’s the public employees’ fault that the private sector has had all their jobs off-shored and the capitalist pigs have made off with all the money (which the unions fought, BTW…where were you?).
May 10, 2012 at 3:35 PM #743500Participant[quote=briansd1][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.[/quote]
Yes, by not paying for illegal immigrants and/or their children, we would be laying off teachers, prison guards, police officers, etc., but the ratio of employees-to-citizens would basically stay the same, so services would not suffer. Services to citizens would actually improve because they tend to cost less than services for illegal immigrants.
Either that, or force employers of illegal immigrants to pay the full cost of illegal immigration which would include all physical, legal, and social infrastructure costs; education, healthcare, etc. I’m more ticked off about taxpayers being forced to subsidize the profits of employers who use illegal labor (who then force wages down for everyone else on top of it) than I am about public employees’ pensions.
May 10, 2012 at 3:54 PM #743502CDMA ENG
Participant[quote=CA renter][quote=CDMA ENG][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[/quote]
Why?
Can you point out any factual errors?[/quote]
I will argue with the anvil in my garage and have a better chance of persuasion. Especially on this subject.
Most of your detractors at least try to cite more unbiased material than this. You buy no credibility using this source. I am not here to debate the right or wrongs of the argument only the source that you chose to use.
Again, I know that arguing with you is a waste of time… You may, in fact, be Che Guevra incarnate.
Regards,
CE
May 10, 2012 at 4:49 PM #743508ParticipantThat’s a cop-out, CE, and you know it.
That citation is a good source because it amasses many of the myths/arguments and debates them point-by-point.
Again, if you can find any factual errors, please let us know.
May 10, 2012 at 5:03 PM #743510Participant[quote=CA renter]That’s a cop-out, CE, and you know it.
That citation is a good source because it amasses many of the myths/arguments and debates them point-by-point.
Again, if you can find any factual errors, please let us know.[/quote]
Terrible logic.
Do you buy a product because the sales literuator says its good? Of course not. You look to a third party assesment with no coin in the game.
I told you I was not debating the “facts” with you nor will I but for you to continue and cite a source that is bias is pure bullshit and further discredits you. Again I am not debating facts but the source you use and expect others to prove your point.
Ask yourself one simple question. How many non-baised (granted there are not a lot) media sources seem to be in favor of public pension plans? I have not read one yet that I would consider moderate source of information. The economist is one of them and they have yet to defend the program.
End of conversation for me. The anvil is crafting a better argument.
CE
May 10, 2012 at 5:04 PM #743509Anonymous
GuestHmmmm…..somebody did show where there was a hole in her “facts.”
A hole so big you could drive every firetruck in the SDFD right through it, at the same time.
But she posts four times in a row and never acknowledges the facts posted here that discredit her entire argument.
Who pays for the shortfalls?
There’s a one word answer, but I’m sure she’ll give us hundreds of words instead, words that never actually provide the answer. Who will be the scapegoat now? Wall Street, Realtors, Mexicans? … certainly not the people who are actually getting the money.
It’s true, we would be better off getting sensible responses from an anvil (who has an anvil in their garage, anyway?)
May 10, 2012 at 5:27 PM #743512Participant[quote=harvey]Hmmmm…..somebody did show where there was a hole in her “facts.”
A hole so big you could drive every firetruck in the SDFD right through it, at the same time.
But she posts four times in a row and never acknowledges the facts posted here that discredit her entire argument.
Who pays for the shortfalls?
There’s a one word answer, but I’m sure she’ll give us hundreds of words instead, words that never actually provide the answer. Who will be the scapegoat now? Wall Street, Realtors, Mexicans? … certainly not the people who are actually getting the money.
It’s true, we would be better off getting sensible responses from an anvil (who has an anvil in their garage, anyway?)[/quote]
One word: public employees who have been making concessions over the past few years.
Which of your taxes have gone up specifically to pay for public employees’ pensions, and by how much? I’ll bet you $1,000, right now, that public employees have been paying more toward this than you have.
May 10, 2012 at 5:48 PM #743518briansd1
Guest[quote=CA renter]
One word: public employees who have been making concessions over the past few years.
Which of your taxes have gone up specifically to pay for public employees’ pensions, and by how much? I’ll bet you $1,000, right now, that public employees have been paying more toward this than you have.[/quote]
Citizens are paying in cutbacks to current services so that the pensions funds can be made whole.
IMO, public employees need to make more concessions.
The reason there is a shortfall in pensions is because public employees and their employers did not contribute enough for the levels of risk in the funds’ portofolios.
Public employees are getting guaranteed/risk-free pensions. They need to contribute accordingly. There needs to be a commensurate matching of risk and returns.
May 10, 2012 at 5:48 PM #743516Guest[quote=CDMA ENG] You may, in fact, be Che Guevra incarnate.
[/quote]
Che? He’s a hero.
CA renter is more like the Christine O’Donnell of public employees, IMO.
May 10, 2012 at 6:23 PM #743523Participant[quote=briansd1][quote=CA renter]
One word: public employees who have been making concessions over the past few years.
Which of your taxes have gone up specifically to pay for public employees’ pensions, and by how much? I’ll bet you $1,000, right now, that public employees have been paying more toward this than you have.[/quote]
Citizens are paying in cutbacks to current services so that the pensions funds can be made whole.
IMO, public employees need to make more concessions.
The reason there is a shortfall in pensions is because public employees and their employers did not contribute enough for the levels of risk in the funds’ portofolios.
Public employees are getting guaranteed/risk-free pensions. They need to contribute accordingly. There needs to be a commensurate matching of risk and returns.[/quote]
Money is fungible. You’re making assumptions about WHY government finances are in such trouble.
Again, pension funds are in trouble because of the market crash, not because of “greedy union thugs.”
How about public-private partnerships and give-aways to private developers and contractors (where the majority of fraud and abuse occurs)? What about all the idiotic bonds that taxpayers passed, even in the face of a major recession? What about all the interest payments we’re making because govt entities took on too much debt for various projects during the “good times”?
No…it’s much easier to blame the “union thugs” for the mess. Nevermind the fact that the propaganda is designed to turn ignorant “private sector” workers against their own so that the private corporations can take over the void left by unions. Think your taxes will go down as a result? Guess again. The purpose is to drive more money toward the top of the pyramid (corporations and capitalists who do not work for a living) while lowering wages for those who actually do the work and create the capital in the first place.
Think about it: over the past few decades, more and more of the work that was once done by unionized govt workers has been shifted to the private sector. Have your wages gone up or your taxes gone down as a result of this privatization?
People need to know WHO is behind the propaganda, and WHY. They also need to understand what the actual outcomes will be. The assault on public workers did NOT come about because of taxpayer advocates (beware of wolves in sheeps’ clothing), but because of private entities who want to take over public assets and cash flows.
Some of the many concessions being made by public employees:
“Recent collective bargaining agreements have reduced many of the benefit formulas in Table 1 to levels prior to 1999.18 For example, the 2 percent at 55 formula for State
Miscellaneous and State Industrial employees (First Tier) and for State Industrial (Tier 1) shifted to 2 percent at 60 for employees hired on or after January 15, 2011. Similarly, State Peace Officers/Firefighters hired on or after this date are subject to a 2.5 percent at 55 formula. Generally, these benefit formula changes either increased the full retirement age, decreased the benefit formula, or both. In addition, reforms now require retirement benefits for all new state employees to be based on their highest annual average salary over a 36-month period.
————More info on how it works:
“Member contribution rates are set by statute and/or collective bargaining agreements (Table 2).24 Recent collective bargaining agreements have increased employee contribution rates modestly.25 The 2011-2012 state agency employee average contribution rate is 7.4 percent. Neither public agency nor statewide average employee rates are available for the current year. The average systemwide employee contribution rate was 7.6 percent in 2009-2010, the most recent year available.
Employers accounted for 67.3 percent of total contributions for the year ending in 2010, the highest level since 1992. However, because average employer contributions were low in the late 1990s and early 2000s,26 and employee contributions were relatively constant, the amount contributed by each group over time is closer to parity. Since 1992, employers have contributed 59.5 percent of the total, with employees contributing the balance.”http://siepr.stanford.edu/system/files/shared/Nation%20Statewide%20Report%20v081.pdf
———————In many/most cases, employers (“taxpayers” for pri) were not making ANY contributions toward their pensions during the good times.
Taxpayers are now having to pay for the contributions that WERE NOT MADE by “taxpayers” during the good times.
May 10, 2012 at 6:24 PM #743524sdrealtor
Participant[quote=CA renter][quote=harvey]Hmmmm…..somebody did show where there was a hole in her “facts.”
A hole so big you could drive every firetruck in the SDFD right through it, at the same time.
But she posts four times in a row and never acknowledges the facts posted here that discredit her entire argument.
Who pays for the shortfalls?
There’s a one word answer, but I’m sure she’ll give us hundreds of words instead, words that never actually provide the answer. Who will be the scapegoat now? Wall Street, Realtors, Mexicans? … certainly not the people who are actually getting the money.
It’s true, we would be better off getting sensible responses from an anvil (who has an anvil in their garage, anyway?)[/quote]
One word: public employees who have been making concessions over the past few years.
Which of your taxes have gone up specifically to pay for public employees’ pensions, and by how much? I’ll bet you $1,000, right now, that public employees have been paying more toward this than you have.[/quote]
One word? Someone cant count
May 10, 2012 at 6:42 PM #743526blake
Participanthttp://wallstreetpit.com/91884-california-penion-nightmare-worsens
The California Public Employees’ Retirement System’s chief actuary says state taxpayers should increase contributions 5.7 percent, or $213 million, next year to cover the cost of pensions after record losses.California would pay $3.7 billion, or about 4 percent of the state’s budget, for retiree benefits in the fiscal year beginning July 1, actuary Alan Milligan recommended in a report today. School districts would pay $1.2 billion. The fund’s governing board will consider the increase at a meeting May 16.
…May 10, 2012 at 6:42 PM #743527SD Realtor
ParticipantIt is absolutely hilarious.
On the one hand you will argue that it is a shame that people would have to move out of san diego to find affordable housing. That they should not have to.
Yet your argument for pensions is that people who do not work in the public sector should not get them. That the solution is for us chumps in the private sector to quit and get a public sector job.
You love to argue how in favor of the workers, that the working class should receive all corporate profits but you are plenty satisfied with the differences in how the private and public working class employees are treated.
In your utopia shouldn’t all working class employees receive the exact same treatment?
Why shouldn’t they get the exact same benefit?
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.