Pensioners bent over in RI

[ERD50]

double post on edit deleted

 

[ERD50]

Why sympathise with the taxpayers? They chose to live there, they voted in the miscreants, and they are as much to blame for their ignorance of the true situation as the civil servants. At least the taxpayers can move and avoid the consequences (high taxes). The pensioners are toast.

The taxpayers fullfilled their promise when they put the money into the fund. If the fund was too generous with benefits, mismanaged their funds etc then it is what it is.

People seem to be under some dillusion that government pension funds are backed by the government entity that funded them in the first place having the ability to levy future taxes. This is not the case.

Let me also throw in a different perspective:

DW will retire with a small pension for the years she worked as an Illinois Municipal Employee (IMRF fund). DD is starting her teaching career in Illinois, her pension will be through the Illinois TRS. So I happened to check out the funding on each of these, since I know that Illinois is in bad fiscal shape.

The IMRF is funded ~ 86%. The TRS is funded at 48%!

TRS Issues and Answers
IMRF Online - IMRF 101

Yes, there is plenty of blame to go around for that 48% funding. But I'm going to place most of the blame on those closest to the situation.

When the Union negotiated for those pensions/benefits, they surely must (or should!) know what the funding status was. They did not force a higher funding level as part of the negotiations, so I think they need to take primary responsibility for the shortfall. Instead, it appears they went back to their members, claimed they 'won' all these benefits for them, knowing full well it was a house of cards of empty promises ( mixed metaphors are fun!).

Second in line for responsibility would be the teachers themselves. They should be critiquing what the Union is promising them.

Third is the politicians, it is their fiscal responsibility - but I would say the Union should be the one playing 'watchdog' on them, as they are the ones directly impacted.

Fourth is the general public, but they are far removed and if the choice in the ballot box is tweedle-dee or tweedle-dum, what can you do?

Fully funding those pensions would probably require a(nother) State tax increase. But if that happens in 'real time' the voters can respond. By low funding, the State is just pushing that tax on future generations who cannot vote right now. And risking the promised pensions. Fully funding them would put it to debate NOW - do we raise taxes, or do we adjust pensions, or some of both? Kicking the can down the road is just a fraud (on both the teachers and the taxpayers).

-ERD50

 

[Berkshire_Bull]

If I were a resident of Illinois (which I'm not) I wouldn't be concerned with the pension fund in the least. No politician is going to cut the taxpayers throats for more money in this economy, and if we restore order in Wash DC the pension fund will recover.

The contributions to the fund were calculated by actuaries using plausible data at the time. The numbers wern't "trumped up" or fraudlant.

I fail to see how it's possible for the taxpayers to kick a fulfilled promise "down the road"

The burden for this debacle should fall on the union to fix, whether it be adjusting pensions or re-appropriating funds. If they want to continue current benefits and hope for the best so be it.

Anyone going into any job should do their due diligence and know what they're entering. Hopefully things work out well with the pension for your daughter but if she gets $.50 on the dollar for her pension at retirement, she can't claim she didn't know what she was getting into.

It is what it is.

 

[ERD50]

Anyone going into any job should do their due diligence and know what they're entering. Hopefully things work out well with the pension for your daughter but if she gets $.50 on the dollar for her pension at retirement, she can't claim she didn't know what she was getting into.

It is what it is.

And I do plan on educating her on this in the near future. She's heard my grumblings at the dinner table, so it won't be a total surprise.

-ERD50

 

[clifp]

The people I know who live near Central Falls (but go out of their way not to drive through it) are surprised only that it took this long for the town to self-destruct.

Why sympathise with the taxpayers? They chose to live there, they voted in the miscreants, and they are as much to blame for their ignorance of the true situation as the civil servants. At least the taxpayers can move and avoid the consequences (high taxes). The pensioners are toast.

From Bestwife's comment, reading the receiver report, and using Google Earth, I'd characterize Central Falls as one step above a ghetto. Even this heartless conservative has a hard time blaming poor people for not moving out of ghetto. . (Don I fear the forum's "people should pull themselves up by their bootstraps" attitude is corrupting you. )

I also agree with ERD, it is unreasonable to expect citizen to dig deeper into a city finances than what they are told by city workers and/or the mayor. I am guessing that their isn't a local newspaper so another source of investigation is also closed down.

 

[Berkshire_Bull]

And I do plan on educating her on this in the near future. She's heard my grumblings at the dinner table, so it won't be a total surprise.

-ERD50

Absolutely. The nice thing is she's got a good job in a middeling economy, she's got guidance (you), and she's got your inheritance (hopefully someday long into the future)

 

[Texas Proud]

Why sympathise with the taxpayers? They chose to live there, they voted in the miscreants, and they are as much to blame for their ignorance of the true situation as the civil servants. At least the taxpayers can move and avoid the consequences (high taxes). The pensioners are toast.

maybe because the taxpayers were sold a lie....

Have you taken a look at the budget of your local anything Including retirement funds along with capital budgets etc. etc... Like city, county, school district, water district, fire district, hospital district etc. etc.... (we have maybe 20 that I pays taxes to).... thought not...

And by the way... the budget was not that out of whack according to the receiver... just that they put revenue in the budget that just did not happen for a few years and spent it....

 

[donheff]

maybe because the taxpayers were sold a lie....

Have you taken a look at the budget of your local anything Including retirement funds along with capital budgets etc. etc... Like city, county, school district, water district, fire district, hospital district etc. etc.... (we have maybe 20 that I pays taxes to).... thought not...

And by the way... the budget was not that out of whack according to the receiver... just that they put revenue in the budget that just did not happen for a few years and spent it....

Actually, I do sympathize with the taxpayers. But I am not so ready to blame the workers as many seem to be. All those factors you mentioned apply to workers as well. Too many people seem content to throw them under the bus even though they don't even have PBGC backing of their pensions. We are all justifiably frustrated with our politicians but I believe blaming the civil servants for our woes is misdirected. By the way, my comments here are aimed at the general tenor of the debate not at you.

 

[Culture]

The fact of the matter is that solving the public pension problem is going to be like solving the public debt problem, social security and medicate/medicaid. It cannot realistically be solved solely by spending cuts or solely by raising taxes.

As a group, people receiving public pensions are going to take a haircut at some point. This is not "fair" but I think it will happen, because the public is not going to tolerate the taxes required to make pensioners whole. Certainly some pension are well run and this will not happen to everyone, but I believe it will happen to most.

I blame everyone; public employees, union bosses, voters, non voters, and politicians. I am not sure what the proper order of blame is (most to least), but there is plenty of blame to go around.

 

[Bimmerbill]

So, how do employees who expect to receive a pension value it as part of their compensation?

My expected FERS pension is a big part of my total compensation. If they told me right now that it wouldn't be there, or be greatly reduced I would have to seriously consider looking for another job.

 

[clifp]

So, how do employees who expect to receive a pension value it as part of their compensation?

My expected FERS pension is a big part of my total compensation. If they told me right now that it wouldn't be there, or be greatly reduced I would have to seriously consider looking for another job.

I think this is an excellent question.

IMO a pension is too generous; if it allows someone to work for 25 years and retire at any age and collect more than 50% of their salary, or 30 years and collect more than 2/3 of their pay, get a COLA, while contributing less than 10% of their pay. (An obvious exception to this rule of thumb is military).

I have no problem with government workers retiring early but philosophically or more importantly financially I think to do so they need to save a considerable portion of their salaries.

As has been said many times Federal aren't too generous, because when Uncle Sam switched from the old CSRS to the new FERS they eliminated most of the provisions which make so many state and local pensions unsustainable.

So for instance lets compare the retirement of Federal firefighter with a Central Falls firefighter. They both start working at 23 back in 1986 (for simplicity lets assume they make the same salary although probably the Fed is paid higher). At age 48 after a close call they both retire. The Central Fall fireman starts collecting a pension immediately equal to 65% of his last years pay. The Fed fireman has to wait 8 years until age 56 to collect any pension. His pension is equal 25% of the average of 3 years of his base pay, no overtime included. Since he took retirement early his pension reduced by 5%/year before age 62, which is a 30% reduction so at age 56 he starts collecting a pension of 17.5% of salary. I think even for the most frugal retiring on 17.5% of your salary alone is almost impossible.

The impact of COLA is even more dramatic. The Central Falls fireman gets COLA immediately, the Fed Fireman isn't eligible for a COLA adjustment until age 62. With a 3% inflation, the Central Falls pension will increase by more than 50%, making his pension at age 62 approximately equal to his salary at retirement vs a 17.5% pension for the Fed firefighter.

When you combine all of the factors, the cost to the taxpayers of Central Fall to fund their firefighters pension is at least five times the cost to US taxpayers for a federal fighter. This is why when I see them get cut drastically I am not too sympathetic.

 

[PaddyMac]

IMO, the sooner the public employees move to defined contribution plans like most private employees the sooner we'll all be playing on the same level playing field.

I find a real problem with the simple fact that unions implicitly tell politicians "we'll get our members to vote for you if you support us with better benefits" or "we'll tell our members to vote for the other guy if you don't agree to our demands". The politicians don't care what they agree to so long as they get re-elected, because they won't be around when those benefits have to be paid by future generations.

I'm generally supportive of the collective bargaining power of unions, but the entire system can't work under those circumstances. It needs to be "pay as you go" with 401k plans for employees, and forget about these pension plans that assume rosy 10% returns to be paid many years from now.

 

[packrat44]

I think this is an excellent question.

IMO a pension is too generous; if it allows someone to work for 25 years and retire at any age and collect more than 50% of their salary, or 30 years and collect more than 2/3 of their pay, get a COLA, while contributing less than 10% of their pay. (An obvious exception to this rule of thumb is military).
.

FERS is not that genorous. It is 1% per year of their salary. If you have served greater than 20 years and are older than 62 when you retire, the rate is increased to 1.1%.

I agree with you regarding pensions that are much more generous than taxpayers can afford. I have known police officers who after retiring with a generous pension with the minimum time served have gone into another law enforcement job and acquired a second generous pension. When your pensions are greater than your salary was, something is wrong.

 

[donheff]

clifp and others are correct about the more common sense FERS takes to pensions. FERS offers a modest size pension and relies on social security and a 401K style plan to round out the overall package, and it is fully funded from an actuarial basis so taxpayers shouldn't be subject to a significant unfunded liability. But for those considering a Federal career, FERS is actually a better deal than may seem. To get that 1 percent per year pension you only pay 1% of salary. The rest is funded by the employing agency. And from 56 until SS kicks in at 62 you get a supplement to make up what SS will pay. Add in the TSP and, all told, not too bad. And that firefighter or law enforcement officer does better. He or she pays in at 1.1% of salary but gets a pension based on 1.7% of the first 20 years and 1% of remaining years. And he or she can start taking a pension at age 50 with 20 years of service or any age with 25. I would have to research the question but I don't believe there is a reduction for years under age 56 like there is for other employees.

Just to perk everyone up and help in recruiting those thinking of running for office, the FERS Congressional provisions are much more generous than the law enforcement provisions. They get 2.5% per year of service.

 

[Tadpole]

OK, I'm sitting here reading and thinking. What do people who are asked to do high risk jobs deserve? A living wage is a given but what level of safety-net is fair value for the added risk over another government job at the same salary but with little risk? Does the public need to pay a premium for job related hazards? Would a fireman or policeman stop and think before they act if their families were not provided an adequate safety-net? Would they perform as well if they received low pay, low benefits, and longer required service? I think most of these jobs require a college degree today. Should this requirement be dropped so the worker can be offered less? What is the useful career lifetime of a person in high risk jobs? Are we disappointed that after years of public service these people actually survived and asked to claim the benefits they were offered in exchange for their high risk service?

I may the only one who finds it hard to feel sorry for the taxpayer. The taxpayer is the voter who hired the people to act in their names on government issues. This often is a penny-wise, pound-foolish relationship as current taxpayers are bribed by political con-people to elect them to a position where they can serve themselves. The bribe is fiscal responsibility (con-word, low taxes). So they let current salaries lag while hiring with offers of benefits to the applicant in the future. Well, if the offer is a con, then the taxpayer is the con-man. City councils, state legislatures, and Congress make the laws that govern the salaries and benefits an applicant when a job is offered. Those are all elected positions. Are there any surprises? I would say - probably not. If an incumbent is part of a con-government, I am sure opponents have tried to point it out during elections. I am equally sure that people chose to ignore any and all warnings in favor of their "current year" personal income. The applicant, probably young and just out of college, was just interviewing for a job and simply weighed the benefit of the offer.

I am sure that some of the people who legislated the past-cons or their friends and relatives are now running for office expressing outrage for the result of their previous cons. And I am sure people are still falling for it. It is that applicant who suffers and is powerless.

 

[donheff]

OK, I'm sitting here reading and thinking. What do people who are asked to do high risk jobs deserve? A living wage is a given but what level of safety-net is fair value for the added risk over another government job at the same salary but with little risk? Does the public need to pay a premium for job related hazards?

The thinking on firefighter and law enforcement retirement is that these jobs are robust enough that employees often can't work as long as they could in other careers. They also have mandatory retirement ages from covered positions for the same reason. So you are paying for both the added risk and the shorter career life span. Similarly, these jobs have maximum entry level ages (usually around 35) based on the same reasoning about the rigors of the job. Us 50+ers are just too decrepit.

 

[ERD50]

The thinking on firefighter and law enforcement retirement is that these jobs are robust enough that employees often can't work as long as they could in other careers. They also have mandatory retirement ages from covered positions for the same reason. So you are paying for both the added risk and the shorter career life span. Similarly, these jobs have maximum entry level ages (usually around 35) based on the same reasoning about the rigors of the job. Us 50+ers are just too decrepit.

Couldn't they be assigned to other jobs that aren't that strenuous? I would think their experience would be valuable in all sorts of assignments (building inspection, safety reviews, etc). Or offer training for those positions.

I also know that many firefighters work a second job since their schedule usually gives them 3-4 days of off time since their on time is 24 hours. So their work isn't so stressful that they couldn't handle more.

These jobs are special, due to the risk. But I just think that can be adjusted in other ways than an early out.


-ERD50

 

[chemist]

If a company plan goes belly up employees get some relief through ERISA which, IIRC, is backed up by us the taxpayers. Public pensions are not covered probably because it was assumed they are already backed up by the taxpayers. As long as these public employees get benefits commensurate with ERISA that would seem fair. In most cases they do better but when it comes to small municipalities it would seem public employee pensions are at greater risk than private since the taxpayer base is not sufficient to provide backup.

You don't recall correctly, PBGC is funded by premiums paid by the pension funds covered by it.

PBGC receives no funds from general tax revenues. Operations are financed by insurance premiums set by Congress and paid by sponsors of defined benefit plans, investment income, assets from pension plans trusteed by PBGC, and recoveries from the companies formerly responsible for the plans.

 

[donheff]

Couldn't they be assigned to other jobs that aren't that strenuous? I would think their experience would be valuable in all sorts of assignments (building inspection, safety reviews, etc). Or offer training for those positions.
-ERD50

Sure you could but people are not things that you can move around as you see fit. The idea behind the retirement system is to help make a career in the field attractive -- same with the military retirement system. If your options under say age 62 are find another position yourself when you get booted out or we will stick you where we want you, the whole package becomes less attractive. This is not to say that sh** can't happen. Police and firefighters get riff'ed like anybody else and they have to make do like anybody else. But designing a system that by its nature ends with a lot of uncertainty is not ideal.

Edit: besides, in FERS the agency contribution (i.e. part of the compensation package) makes the whole deal fully funded. So the tax payers are not on the hook for unfunded liabilities. Assuming that the overall benefits package is fair (and we have no a priori basis to assume it isn't), the question thus becomes, do we (and the employees involved) prefer to raise salaries and leave them to fund retirement on their own or continue with a decent pension system. The same applies to general employees as well. I prefer a decent retirement system as part of the attraction for civil service and military service.

 

[Bimmerbill]

I just read an article stating that FERS is more expensive than CSRS. I thought it would be the opposite. News Articles: FERS After 25 Years

Don't forget the considerable and permanent penalties for federal employees retiring at 56. 5% penalty per year below 62, permanent. Also no COLA until age 62. You need 30 years of service to avoid that penalty. I will have 30 years of service at age 60.

There is talk of increasing the FERS pension contributions paid by the employee. Currently it is .8% of salary. There is talk of a phased in increase up to around 6%. I don't disagree, but hope its phased in slowly since there is also talk of a 5 year pay freeze now, an increase from the current 2 year pay freeze.

 

[donheff]

You don't recall correctly, PBGC is funded by premiums paid by the pension funds covered by it.

Thanks Chemist. I was under the impression there is a Federal guarantee. I guess the tax on companies must simply go up when a lot of pension funds crash. In any event, covered employees are insured up to the PBGC limits. Government employees are not covered so no guarantee other than the full faith and credit of their fellow tax payers.

 

[ERD50]

The idea behind the retirement system is to help make a career in the field attractive -- same with the military retirement system. If your options under say age 62 are find another position yourself when you get booted out or we will stick you where we want you, the whole package becomes less attractive.

True, but if it is still attractive enough to fill the positions, then something along those lines could be reasonable. I do not know if we are having problems filling firefigher positions, I was under the impression (possibly mistaken) that law enforcement has many applicants for each opening.

I'm all for keeping the funding of the position and the retirement much more 'real time'. We need to understand what the costs are as we commit to them.

Sure you could but people are not things that you can move around as you see fit.

Tell that to the people in the private sector who were downsized, or moved to other positions or locations, or merged and eliminated as 'redundant''.

-ERD50

 

[donheff]

Tell that to the people in the private sector who were downsized, or moved to other positions or locations, or merged and eliminated as 'redundant''. (referring to my people are not things comment)

-ERD50

Red herring. As I mentioned in my post, sh** happens. Companies get stressed and Government agency funds get cut, posts get closed. I ran many a Christmas RIF that put my fellow Feds on the street or sent them packing to new locations and new jobs (the impact of funding cuts are such that it is important to get people off the Government rolls in the first quarter, Oct - Dec). But that is far different than designing the system to end in such an action. The perception that many companies do think of their employees as things feeds the frustration and anger that your comment expresses. Not something you want to plan into the system.

I do agree with your concern for transparency - the agency contribution to fully fund FERS is substantial and is not readily apparent to the taxpayers or the employees who benefit from it.

 

[Tadpole]

BimmerBill, Anyone who has done a stint as a federal manager knows that FERS is more expensive on the front end and cheaper on the tail end. CSRS and FERS employees pay the same out of their salaries for the the government retirement funds. All of the CSRS contribution goes to the CSRS/FERS retirement fund. FERS employees pay into the Social Security fund then the rest goes into the CSRS/FERS retirement fund. The total for both is a little over 8%. So the small contribution to FERS was done to maintain overall fairness in the take home and to divert pension contributions from the government employee fund to the Social Security fund. The changes in both retirement programs were made in the same era (the 80s). The FERS system also has the TSP. So the federal manager is matching the SS payroll tax and contributing up to 5% of contributions to the employee TSP. I recall that when budgets were being prepared, FERS employees were a bigger bite on the budget than CSRS. However CSRS employees get the larger pension and, consequently, are the most expensive on the tail end of the budgets.

 

[donheff]

The FERS system also has the TSP. So the federal manager is matching the SS payroll tax and contributing up to 5% of contributions to the employee TSP. I recall that when budgets were being prepared, FERS employees were a bigger bite on the budget than CSRS. However CSRS employees get the larger pension and, consequently, are the most expensive on the tail end of the budgets.

Yes, the budget bite is big for FERS. The agency pays its match to the TSP, the employer half for SS, and the bulk of the FERS pension component. It is good for managers to have to wrestle with the full costs and beneficial to taxpayers (or their watchdogs) who can more readily see those costs if they choose.