Here we go again... Every time any of us public sector parasites gripe about proposals to retroactively screw our earned pensions I hear the refrain "no one said this should be retroactive, we are only talking about changing things going forward." Well I have not heard any public sector types here say that we shouldn't change things going forward so why accuse us of not wanting "squat to happen to our pension..even if it is unsustainable..." That would imply we think things should stay the same forever. How about citing some comments to that effect.Public sector... you want squat to happen to your pension... even if it is unsustainable and it will cost your children and grand children a lot to pay for it... just saying...
Nothing *can* happen by federal law -- nor should it -- for anything already earned. That's also true in the private sector pension plans.Public sector... you want squat to happen to your pension... even if it is unsustainable and it will cost your children and grand children a lot to pay for it... just saying...
Well I have not heard any public sector types here say that we shouldn't change things going forward so why accuse us of not wanting "squat to happen to our pension..even if it is unsustainable..."
Perhaps not from posters here, I'd need to go back and try to find a comment to that effect - might be there, might not.
But I think we see this attitude in action. For example, Illinois is taking the tiny, teensie, baby steps of reducing some of the benefits earned forward, but only for people hired in 2011 or later. They really need to consider some cuts to the future earned benefits of current employees (leaving past earned benefits alone, as required by law). But it's not happening, and clearly because someone/group is saying " I don't want squat to happen to my pension..even if it is unsustainable...".
What other explanation is there?
-ERD50
I used to work for a defense contractor, and I can attest to the fact that there was a *lot* of triple dipping going on.
Nothing *can* happen by federal law -- nor should it -- for anything already earned. That's also true in the private sector pension plans.
Those are sunk costs and if it is painful for the taxpayer it has to be honored. The best we can do for our kids and grandkids is not throw more good money after bad. And the very first thing we should do for our kids and grandkids is to shut the door on these DB pension plans for most public sector new hires. If someone is drilling holes in a boat causing it to sink, it doesn't help much to patch the holes until you stop the guy drilling the holes. And every time we hire another public sector employee into a DB pension plan, we are drilling another hole. But sealing the holes won't keep the ship afloat until we can stop more holes from appearing.
I saw on the news that some city in California is laying off EVERYBODY... they did not explain why... just showing mad people...
Last month, the California Joint Powers Insurance Authority notified Maywood that it was terminating general liability and workers' compensation coverage because the city posed too high a risk. A large number of claims filed against the police were a significant factor in that decision. Jonathan Shull, chief executive officer of the insurance authority, said Maywood was the first city to have its insurance cancelled by the group. The insurer acted after Maywood failed to make basic improvements the insurer had mandated, including hiring a permanent city manager, he said.
That would be Maywood, California. They have a 450,000 dollar budget deficit on a 10.1 million general fund budget, cannot get insurance, and so plan to lay off all the employees, disband the police department, and contract operations out to the LA County Sheriff and the neighboring city of Bell.
Maywood to hire others to run the city - Los Angeles Times
My pension is simply part of the compensation I agreed to many years ago.
Here we go again... Every time any of us public sector parasites gripe about proposals to retroactively screw our earned pensions I hear the refrain "no one said this should be retroactive, we are only talking about changing things going forward." Well I have not heard any public sector types here say that we shouldn't change things going forward so why accuse us of not wanting "squat to happen to our pension..even if it is unsustainable..." That would imply we think things should stay the same forever. How about citing some comments to that effect.
So THAT'S the reason tuition increases are many times the cost of living............
"Changing things going forward" is a lot different that "not wanting squat to happen to OUR pension"......... With rare exceptions, the private sector has abandoned DB plans, because the company could no longer AFFORD them. However, public employees are protected by strong unions and politicians, and the taxpayer is viewed as a never-ending stream of money. If the govt told you they were going to reduce your public pension amount by 20% next year because your municipality could not AFFORD it, how would that make YOU feel??
So, its ok to screw the new hires, just don't mess with those with "seniority", or retirees, even if the promise is unsustainable?
Not sure what you are saying here Dude. Yes, lots of companies abandoned DB plans and vested employees retained whatever they had earned to date. In many cases that was a pretty bad deal. The same thing has happened in many government plans (I will say the Feds were pretty good about how they changed things going forward with the FERS transition). But demanding that states honor already earned benefits is no more squandering our kid's futures than demanding that the government not cut benefits for current social security recipients."Changing things going forward" is a lot different that "not wanting squat to happen to OUR pension"......... With rare exceptions, the private sector has abandoned DB plans, because the company could no longer AFFORD them. However, public employees are protected by strong unions and politicians, and the taxpayer is viewed as a never-ending stream of money. If the govt told you they were going to reduce your public pension amount by 20% next year because your municipality could not AFFORD it, how would that make YOU feel??
So, its ok to screw the new hires, just don't mess with those with "seniority", or retirees, even if the promise is unsustainable?
Nothing *can* happen by federal law -- nor should it -- for anything already earned. That's also true in the private sector pension plans.
Those are sunk costs and if it is painful for the taxpayer it has to be honored. The best we can do for our kids and grandkids is not throw more good money after bad. And the very first thing we should do for our kids and grandkids is to shut the door on these DB pension plans for most public sector new hires. If someone is drilling holes in a boat causing it to sink, it doesn't help much to patch the holes until you stop the guy drilling the holes. And every time we hire another public sector employee into a DB pension plan, we are drilling another hole. But sealing the holes won't keep the ship afloat until we can stop more holes from appearing.
In 1984 They raised the cost of our pensions to us by 40% for all existing employees.
RE: Illinois not cutting future benefits of current employees
I don't have data on all 50 states, but I'm guessing it is a pretty rare occurrence?
-ERD50
No not really but in that specific case they were contributing 5% of their salary and increased 40% to a whooping 7%. I believe most of states increased employee contributions in the last 20 years. But in order to pay for 2@50 or 2.5%55, or 3@60 plan. You really need to have employees contribute 15% and matched by the employeers. Leonidas fund where the cops put in something like 12.5% is one of the few I've seen which are close.
From what I've seen, it's not *that* uncommon for employees to need to increase their contribution rates. That is seen as more politically palatable than cutting future benefits*.I don't have data on all 50 states, but I'm guessing it is a pretty rare occurrence?
Maybe if you are at the local level. States can not declare bankruptcy.In general you can break contracts as long as you pay the penalty for breaching the contract. More importantly bankruptcy allows courts to basically tear up contracts. My understanding is that case law regarding municipality (much less states) bankruptcy is quite small so we are in uncharted waters. An open question is do governments have a right to break contracts as long as they pay the penalty. In the case of military contracts we know the government cancels projects but the defense contractors gets compensated.
Maybe if you are at the local level. States can not declare bankruptcy.
Since the state cannot declare bankruptcy, the federal government can put the state into receivership.I really don't understand how California is going to pay all the people it owes money to.
And, using similar logic, what's stopping you from working in the public sector where the pensions are great and the livin' is easy (or so I hear)?
This is just the way it starts. It is more like the death of a thousand cuts. Eventually, vested stakeholders will be forced to take cuts, pay more or see future benefit growth curtailed. Creating different pay structure for the same work is the first step.So, its ok to screw the new hires, just don't mess with those with "seniority", or retirees, even if the promise is unsustainable?