OT: Want a high salary…work for san diego government….

[CA renter]

[quote=DWCAP][quote=davelj][quote=joec]

Could people living in cities simply say, no more. Let’s just have the city (county?/state?) file for bankruptcy and then, we can renegotiate and toss out these obscene pension contracts?

You keep reading that this or that pension can’t be changed no matter what and when push comes to shove, if you’re bankrupt, I don’t think there should be much choice in keeping some of these things where the folks involved were simply ripping off the community.
[/quote]

Would it be simpler just to institute a very high local or state pension tax (whichever applies) to all local and state government pensions above a certain amount, and direct those tax dollars back to the municipality in question? That way, the municipality gets a bunch of revenue returned to it from its pensioners and there’s no need to file BK. Kind of an end run around the problem, although I don’t know if it’s practical. I’m betting that folks would vote for it if it went straight to the ballot.[/quote]

I could be wrong, but I am of the understanding that the unions grunts game the system too. The most common one would be the saving up of vacation/sick time and working overtime to boost the final years pay, which is what is used to calculate the pension. Or jumping jobs at the last second to boost pay, or holding two positions, or whatever. It happens and it is real money that is not what the original understanding was suppose to be.

I say they change the pension system to calculate what the pension payout SHOULD have been if they calculated it on your entire careers pay, and then just tax the hell out of the difference. Those 600k bell pensions would slip away, atleast for the police chief, as most of the career was spent as a 60k cop.
Only after something like this would I listen to a raise taxes argument. Deal with the fraud, graft, and ‘rule bending’ first, then we can talk about more money.[/quote]

DWCAP,

Trust me, they are already working on this, as they should.

BTW, pension benefits are based on an employee’s **base pay** for the last three years, IIRC. Overtime does not count, but changing positions/promotions will affect the calculation. They are working on extending the lookback period and/or taking an average over a longer period of time versus taking the highest pay in the most recent three years.

While I support DB pensions, in order to sustain these benefits, all the game-playing needs to be wrung out.

[DWCAP]

[quote=CA renter][quote=DWCAP][quote=davelj][quote=joec]

Could people living in cities simply say, no more. Let’s just have the city (county?/state?) file for bankruptcy and then, we can renegotiate and toss out these obscene pension contracts?

You keep reading that this or that pension can’t be changed no matter what and when push comes to shove, if you’re bankrupt, I don’t think there should be much choice in keeping some of these things where the folks involved were simply ripping off the community.
[/quote]

Would it be simpler just to institute a very high local or state pension tax (whichever applies) to all local and state government pensions above a certain amount, and direct those tax dollars back to the municipality in question? That way, the municipality gets a bunch of revenue returned to it from its pensioners and there’s no need to file BK. Kind of an end run around the problem, although I don’t know if it’s practical. I’m betting that folks would vote for it if it went straight to the ballot.[/quote]

I could be wrong, but I am of the understanding that the unions grunts game the system too. The most common one would be the saving up of vacation/sick time and working overtime to boost the final years pay, which is what is used to calculate the pension. Or jumping jobs at the last second to boost pay, or holding two positions, or whatever. It happens and it is real money that is not what the original understanding was suppose to be.

I say they change the pension system to calculate what the pension payout SHOULD have been if they calculated it on your entire careers pay, and then just tax the hell out of the difference. Those 600k bell pensions would slip away, atleast for the police chief, as most of the career was spent as a 60k cop.
Only after something like this would I listen to a raise taxes argument. Deal with the fraud, graft, and ‘rule bending’ first, then we can talk about more money.[/quote]

DWCAP,

Trust me, they are already working on this, as they should.

BTW, pension benefits are based on an employee’s **base pay** for the last three years, IIRC. Overtime does not count, but changing positions/promotions will affect the calculation. They are working on extending the lookback period and/or taking an average over a longer period of time versus taking the highest pay in the most recent three years.

While I support DB pensions, in order to sustain these benefits, all the game-playing needs to be wrung out.[/quote]

Ill believe it when it gets passed into law, not when they talk about it. Same as managed competition. And I am pretty sure there are some, maybe not SD city but some, that it is your highest/last years pay.

“The final retirement payout is based on the year of highest earnings. When those earnings jump at the end of a career, it renders the prior retirement payouts short of what is needed.

“If that highest-year pay exceeds what PERS assumes, it can be a big cost bite,” said Glendale City Manager Jim Starbird.”

http://www.glendalenewspress.com/news/tn-gnp-pension-20100728,0,2836196.story

[DWCAP]

[quote=CA renter][quote=DWCAP][quote=davelj][quote=joec]

Could people living in cities simply say, no more. Let’s just have the city (county?/state?) file for bankruptcy and then, we can renegotiate and toss out these obscene pension contracts?

You keep reading that this or that pension can’t be changed no matter what and when push comes to shove, if you’re bankrupt, I don’t think there should be much choice in keeping some of these things where the folks involved were simply ripping off the community.
[/quote]

Would it be simpler just to institute a very high local or state pension tax (whichever applies) to all local and state government pensions above a certain amount, and direct those tax dollars back to the municipality in question? That way, the municipality gets a bunch of revenue returned to it from its pensioners and there’s no need to file BK. Kind of an end run around the problem, although I don’t know if it’s practical. I’m betting that folks would vote for it if it went straight to the ballot.[/quote]

I could be wrong, but I am of the understanding that the unions grunts game the system too. The most common one would be the saving up of vacation/sick time and working overtime to boost the final years pay, which is what is used to calculate the pension. Or jumping jobs at the last second to boost pay, or holding two positions, or whatever. It happens and it is real money that is not what the original understanding was suppose to be.

I say they change the pension system to calculate what the pension payout SHOULD have been if they calculated it on your entire careers pay, and then just tax the hell out of the difference. Those 600k bell pensions would slip away, atleast for the police chief, as most of the career was spent as a 60k cop.
Only after something like this would I listen to a raise taxes argument. Deal with the fraud, graft, and ‘rule bending’ first, then we can talk about more money.[/quote]

DWCAP,

Trust me, they are already working on this, as they should.

BTW, pension benefits are based on an employee’s **base pay** for the last three years, IIRC. Overtime does not count, but changing positions/promotions will affect the calculation. They are working on extending the lookback period and/or taking an average over a longer period of time versus taking the highest pay in the most recent three years.

While I support DB pensions, in order to sustain these benefits, all the game-playing needs to be wrung out.[/quote]

Ill believe it when it gets passed into law, not when they talk about it. Same as managed competition. And I am pretty sure there are some, maybe not SD city but some, that it is your highest/last years pay.

“The final retirement payout is based on the year of highest earnings. When those earnings jump at the end of a career, it renders the prior retirement payouts short of what is needed.

“If that highest-year pay exceeds what PERS assumes, it can be a big cost bite,” said Glendale City Manager Jim Starbird.”

http://www.glendalenewspress.com/news/tn-gnp-pension-20100728,0,2836196.story

[DWCAP]

[quote=CA renter][quote=DWCAP][quote=davelj][quote=joec]

Could people living in cities simply say, no more. Let’s just have the city (county?/state?) file for bankruptcy and then, we can renegotiate and toss out these obscene pension contracts?

You keep reading that this or that pension can’t be changed no matter what and when push comes to shove, if you’re bankrupt, I don’t think there should be much choice in keeping some of these things where the folks involved were simply ripping off the community.
[/quote]

Would it be simpler just to institute a very high local or state pension tax (whichever applies) to all local and state government pensions above a certain amount, and direct those tax dollars back to the municipality in question? That way, the municipality gets a bunch of revenue returned to it from its pensioners and there’s no need to file BK. Kind of an end run around the problem, although I don’t know if it’s practical. I’m betting that folks would vote for it if it went straight to the ballot.[/quote]

I could be wrong, but I am of the understanding that the unions grunts game the system too. The most common one would be the saving up of vacation/sick time and working overtime to boost the final years pay, which is what is used to calculate the pension. Or jumping jobs at the last second to boost pay, or holding two positions, or whatever. It happens and it is real money that is not what the original understanding was suppose to be.

I say they change the pension system to calculate what the pension payout SHOULD have been if they calculated it on your entire careers pay, and then just tax the hell out of the difference. Those 600k bell pensions would slip away, atleast for the police chief, as most of the career was spent as a 60k cop.
Only after something like this would I listen to a raise taxes argument. Deal with the fraud, graft, and ‘rule bending’ first, then we can talk about more money.[/quote]

DWCAP,

Trust me, they are already working on this, as they should.

BTW, pension benefits are based on an employee’s **base pay** for the last three years, IIRC. Overtime does not count, but changing positions/promotions will affect the calculation. They are working on extending the lookback period and/or taking an average over a longer period of time versus taking the highest pay in the most recent three years.

While I support DB pensions, in order to sustain these benefits, all the game-playing needs to be wrung out.[/quote]

Ill believe it when it gets passed into law, not when they talk about it. Same as managed competition. And I am pretty sure there are some, maybe not SD city but some, that it is your highest/last years pay.

“The final retirement payout is based on the year of highest earnings. When those earnings jump at the end of a career, it renders the prior retirement payouts short of what is needed.

“If that highest-year pay exceeds what PERS assumes, it can be a big cost bite,” said Glendale City Manager Jim Starbird.”

http://www.glendalenewspress.com/news/tn-gnp-pension-20100728,0,2836196.story

[DWCAP]

[quote=CA renter][quote=DWCAP][quote=davelj][quote=joec]

Could people living in cities simply say, no more. Let’s just have the city (county?/state?) file for bankruptcy and then, we can renegotiate and toss out these obscene pension contracts?

You keep reading that this or that pension can’t be changed no matter what and when push comes to shove, if you’re bankrupt, I don’t think there should be much choice in keeping some of these things where the folks involved were simply ripping off the community.
[/quote]

Would it be simpler just to institute a very high local or state pension tax (whichever applies) to all local and state government pensions above a certain amount, and direct those tax dollars back to the municipality in question? That way, the municipality gets a bunch of revenue returned to it from its pensioners and there’s no need to file BK. Kind of an end run around the problem, although I don’t know if it’s practical. I’m betting that folks would vote for it if it went straight to the ballot.[/quote]

I could be wrong, but I am of the understanding that the unions grunts game the system too. The most common one would be the saving up of vacation/sick time and working overtime to boost the final years pay, which is what is used to calculate the pension. Or jumping jobs at the last second to boost pay, or holding two positions, or whatever. It happens and it is real money that is not what the original understanding was suppose to be.

I say they change the pension system to calculate what the pension payout SHOULD have been if they calculated it on your entire careers pay, and then just tax the hell out of the difference. Those 600k bell pensions would slip away, atleast for the police chief, as most of the career was spent as a 60k cop.
Only after something like this would I listen to a raise taxes argument. Deal with the fraud, graft, and ‘rule bending’ first, then we can talk about more money.[/quote]

DWCAP,

Trust me, they are already working on this, as they should.

BTW, pension benefits are based on an employee’s **base pay** for the last three years, IIRC. Overtime does not count, but changing positions/promotions will affect the calculation. They are working on extending the lookback period and/or taking an average over a longer period of time versus taking the highest pay in the most recent three years.

While I support DB pensions, in order to sustain these benefits, all the game-playing needs to be wrung out.[/quote]

Ill believe it when it gets passed into law, not when they talk about it. Same as managed competition. And I am pretty sure there are some, maybe not SD city but some, that it is your highest/last years pay.

“The final retirement payout is based on the year of highest earnings. When those earnings jump at the end of a career, it renders the prior retirement payouts short of what is needed.

“If that highest-year pay exceeds what PERS assumes, it can be a big cost bite,” said Glendale City Manager Jim Starbird.”

http://www.glendalenewspress.com/news/tn-gnp-pension-20100728,0,2836196.story

[DWCAP]

[quote=CA renter][quote=DWCAP][quote=davelj][quote=joec]

Could people living in cities simply say, no more. Let’s just have the city (county?/state?) file for bankruptcy and then, we can renegotiate and toss out these obscene pension contracts?

You keep reading that this or that pension can’t be changed no matter what and when push comes to shove, if you’re bankrupt, I don’t think there should be much choice in keeping some of these things where the folks involved were simply ripping off the community.
[/quote]

Would it be simpler just to institute a very high local or state pension tax (whichever applies) to all local and state government pensions above a certain amount, and direct those tax dollars back to the municipality in question? That way, the municipality gets a bunch of revenue returned to it from its pensioners and there’s no need to file BK. Kind of an end run around the problem, although I don’t know if it’s practical. I’m betting that folks would vote for it if it went straight to the ballot.[/quote]

I could be wrong, but I am of the understanding that the unions grunts game the system too. The most common one would be the saving up of vacation/sick time and working overtime to boost the final years pay, which is what is used to calculate the pension. Or jumping jobs at the last second to boost pay, or holding two positions, or whatever. It happens and it is real money that is not what the original understanding was suppose to be.

I say they change the pension system to calculate what the pension payout SHOULD have been if they calculated it on your entire careers pay, and then just tax the hell out of the difference. Those 600k bell pensions would slip away, atleast for the police chief, as most of the career was spent as a 60k cop.
Only after something like this would I listen to a raise taxes argument. Deal with the fraud, graft, and ‘rule bending’ first, then we can talk about more money.[/quote]

DWCAP,

Trust me, they are already working on this, as they should.

BTW, pension benefits are based on an employee’s **base pay** for the last three years, IIRC. Overtime does not count, but changing positions/promotions will affect the calculation. They are working on extending the lookback period and/or taking an average over a longer period of time versus taking the highest pay in the most recent three years.

While I support DB pensions, in order to sustain these benefits, all the game-playing needs to be wrung out.[/quote]

Ill believe it when it gets passed into law, not when they talk about it. Same as managed competition. And I am pretty sure there are some, maybe not SD city but some, that it is your highest/last years pay.

“The final retirement payout is based on the year of highest earnings. When those earnings jump at the end of a career, it renders the prior retirement payouts short of what is needed.

“If that highest-year pay exceeds what PERS assumes, it can be a big cost bite,” said Glendale City Manager Jim Starbird.”

http://www.glendalenewspress.com/news/tn-gnp-pension-20100728,0,2836196.story

[CA renter]

DWCAP,

Yes, most departments that I’m aware of use the highest/last calculation. That’s one of the things that will probably be changing in the next couple of years, IMHO.

What I was refuting was the common claim that overtime boosts pension payouts, which is NOT true for the vast majority of govt employees — none at all that I’m aware of (those that would have this provision would be in the small minority, if they exist at all these days).

[CA renter]

DWCAP,

Yes, most departments that I’m aware of use the highest/last calculation. That’s one of the things that will probably be changing in the next couple of years, IMHO.

What I was refuting was the common claim that overtime boosts pension payouts, which is NOT true for the vast majority of govt employees — none at all that I’m aware of (those that would have this provision would be in the small minority, if they exist at all these days).

[CA renter]

DWCAP,

Yes, most departments that I’m aware of use the highest/last calculation. That’s one of the things that will probably be changing in the next couple of years, IMHO.

What I was refuting was the common claim that overtime boosts pension payouts, which is NOT true for the vast majority of govt employees — none at all that I’m aware of (those that would have this provision would be in the small minority, if they exist at all these days).

[CA renter]

DWCAP,

Yes, most departments that I’m aware of use the highest/last calculation. That’s one of the things that will probably be changing in the next couple of years, IMHO.

What I was refuting was the common claim that overtime boosts pension payouts, which is NOT true for the vast majority of govt employees — none at all that I’m aware of (those that would have this provision would be in the small minority, if they exist at all these days).

[CA renter]

DWCAP,

Yes, most departments that I’m aware of use the highest/last calculation. That’s one of the things that will probably be changing in the next couple of years, IMHO.

What I was refuting was the common claim that overtime boosts pension payouts, which is NOT true for the vast majority of govt employees — none at all that I’m aware of (those that would have this provision would be in the small minority, if they exist at all these days).

[no_such_reality]

[quote=CA renter]DWCAP,

Yes, most departments that I’m aware of use the highest/last calculation. That’s one of the things that will probably be changing in the next couple of years, IMHO.

What I was refuting was the common claim that overtime boosts pension payouts, which is NOT true for the vast majority of govt employees — none at all that I’m aware of (those that would have this provision would be in the small minority, if they exist at all these days).[/quote]

Funny, CalPers disagrees with you.

“The CalPERS-sponsored bill, SB 53, prevents pension boosting with vacation time, sick leave and other things. The measure was a response to audits that found widespread pension spiking. ”

http://www.capitolweekly.net/article.php?xid=y5qn8ger3ylp9c

As for Pete Wilson’s blunder, I fully agree with you. For the root drivers, do you think Pete was just looking to pass the dole or do you think it was pandering at the prompt of the big State Unions?

Finally, it’s CalPers managing the money, CalPers making the recommendation for the funding. That is govermental agency.

You’re blaming the finance sector. That’s the government. Government regulators of the finance sector would be the same kind of people running CalPers.

[no_such_reality]

[quote=CA renter]DWCAP,

Yes, most departments that I’m aware of use the highest/last calculation. That’s one of the things that will probably be changing in the next couple of years, IMHO.

What I was refuting was the common claim that overtime boosts pension payouts, which is NOT true for the vast majority of govt employees — none at all that I’m aware of (those that would have this provision would be in the small minority, if they exist at all these days).[/quote]

Funny, CalPers disagrees with you.

“The CalPERS-sponsored bill, SB 53, prevents pension boosting with vacation time, sick leave and other things. The measure was a response to audits that found widespread pension spiking. ”

http://www.capitolweekly.net/article.php?xid=y5qn8ger3ylp9c

As for Pete Wilson’s blunder, I fully agree with you. For the root drivers, do you think Pete was just looking to pass the dole or do you think it was pandering at the prompt of the big State Unions?

Finally, it’s CalPers managing the money, CalPers making the recommendation for the funding. That is govermental agency.

You’re blaming the finance sector. That’s the government. Government regulators of the finance sector would be the same kind of people running CalPers.

[no_such_reality]

[quote=CA renter]DWCAP,

Yes, most departments that I’m aware of use the highest/last calculation. That’s one of the things that will probably be changing in the next couple of years, IMHO.

What I was refuting was the common claim that overtime boosts pension payouts, which is NOT true for the vast majority of govt employees — none at all that I’m aware of (those that would have this provision would be in the small minority, if they exist at all these days).[/quote]

Funny, CalPers disagrees with you.

“The CalPERS-sponsored bill, SB 53, prevents pension boosting with vacation time, sick leave and other things. The measure was a response to audits that found widespread pension spiking. ”

http://www.capitolweekly.net/article.php?xid=y5qn8ger3ylp9c

As for Pete Wilson’s blunder, I fully agree with you. For the root drivers, do you think Pete was just looking to pass the dole or do you think it was pandering at the prompt of the big State Unions?

Finally, it’s CalPers managing the money, CalPers making the recommendation for the funding. That is govermental agency.

You’re blaming the finance sector. That’s the government. Government regulators of the finance sector would be the same kind of people running CalPers.

[no_such_reality]

[quote=CA renter]DWCAP,

Yes, most departments that I’m aware of use the highest/last calculation. That’s one of the things that will probably be changing in the next couple of years, IMHO.

What I was refuting was the common claim that overtime boosts pension payouts, which is NOT true for the vast majority of govt employees — none at all that I’m aware of (those that would have this provision would be in the small minority, if they exist at all these days).[/quote]

Funny, CalPers disagrees with you.

“The CalPERS-sponsored bill, SB 53, prevents pension boosting with vacation time, sick leave and other things. The measure was a response to audits that found widespread pension spiking. ”

http://www.capitolweekly.net/article.php?xid=y5qn8ger3ylp9c

As for Pete Wilson’s blunder, I fully agree with you. For the root drivers, do you think Pete was just looking to pass the dole or do you think it was pandering at the prompt of the big State Unions?

Finally, it’s CalPers managing the money, CalPers making the recommendation for the funding. That is govermental agency.

You’re blaming the finance sector. That’s the government. Government regulators of the finance sector would be the same kind of people running CalPers.

[Author]

Posts