Public Pension Problems.

[ERD50]

And of course the Politicians were elected by the voters......

Except those public unions fund campaigns. So you've got the public unions on both sides of the bargaining table, and the average voter isn't.

I'd see the mailings my daughter would get from the Teacher's union. Maybe an 8 page mailing with 6 pages devoted to their political agenda.

-ERD50

 

[MichaelB]

There are many players at the table and they all participate. I’m not defending unions but I think blaming them and / or public sector employees while ignoring the others is one dimensional and a sign of tunnel vision.

 

[OldShooter]

Except those public unions fund campaigns. So you've got the public unions on both sides of the bargaining table, and the average voter isn't. ...

+1

Last year in St. Paul MN the teachers' union selected and then elected the school board members.

I have always wondered why conflict of interest rules permit public school teachers and other public employees to hold elective offices that involve voting on budgets that in turn affect their own paychecks.

 

[ERD50]

There are many players at the table and they all participate. I’m not defending unions but I think blaming them and / or public sector employees while ignoring the others is one dimensional and a sign of tunnel vision.

Right, I would never say the unions and their political contributions were 100% of the problem. But I do think it is a big one that makes my vote far less powerful than it would be otherwise.

-ERD50

 

[pb4uski]

... I have always wondered why conflict of interest rules permit public school teachers and other public employees to hold elective offices that involve voting on budgets that in turn affect their own paychecks.

I'm pretty sure in our town that you can't be on the school board and employed by the school. I'd be surprised if it is allowed anywhere.

The chairman of our school board though is a teacher... but he works for a school district in an adjoining town.... while techincally he isn't conflicted he still seems to lean towards the teachers on issues coming before the board.

 

[scrabbler1]

I'm pretty sure in our town that you can't be on the school board and employed by the school. I'd be surprised if it is allowed anywhere.

The chairman of our school board though is a teacher... but he works for a school district in an adjoining town.... while techincally he isn't conflicted he still seems to lean towards the teachers on issues coming before the board.

We have a lot of this in my area, too. Retired teachers, teachers in neighboring school districts, sometimes relatives of teachers, serving on school boards, often failing to get tough on the teacher unions. Our state (New York) did enact a tax cap law a few years ago which requires a supermajority vote to pass a school budget if the increase exceeds the cap. Most districts stay under the cap to more easily get it passed. This puts pressure on the school boards to not give away the store.

 

[pb4uski]

Our cap is even more onerous... if a district spends more than $x per pupil, then there is a 50% penalty that goes to the state and then to other school districts... so to spend $1/pupil more than the cap you need to increase the budget by $2/pupil.

 

[Teacher Terry]

We could also donate sick time for a huge illness or taking care of a family member with a serious illness. It had to be approved first with paperwork from the doctor required. For instance someone used it to care for a child after a liver transplant.

 

[hopefullyoneday]

I don't have any problem with the promise of a pension in exchange for lower salaries. It is the perversion of benefits... like paying for sick time when an employee isn't sick or, worst of all, goosing their pension by giving them gobs of OT in the year before they retire and basing their lifetime pension on that last year of pay... spiking their pension IIRC.. that make us taxpayers want to puke.

That's just cheating.

Overtime for me is created by the employer. They decided not to hire enough people for the last few years to cover the people retiring. So the employer created the problem and wants the tax payers to cover it. Myself and others just work when the opportunity arrives.

 

[OldShooter]

Overtime for me is created by the employer. They decided not to hire enough people for the last few years to cover the people retiring. So the employer created the problem and wants the tax payers to cover it. Myself and others just work when the opportunity arrives.

Sorry, I would still say that pensions should be calculated on base salary, not on some overtime-enhanced number whether it was deliberately given to the soon-to-retire employee as a gift from his supervisor or whether it was due to understaffing as you say. How can it be fair for two employees with identical base salaries retiring at different pensions because one got lucky with OT towards the end and the other didn't? A pension is reward for long service, which is properly reflected in the base salary.

 

[hopefullyoneday]

Sorry, I would still say that pensions should be calculated on base salary, not on some overtime-enhanced number whether it was deliberately given to the soon-to-retire employee as a gift from his supervisor or whether it was due to understaffing as you say. How can it be fair for two employees with identical base salaries retiring at different pensions because one got lucky with OT towards the end and the other didn't? A pension is reward for long service, which is properly reflected in the base salary.

Well because 1 did not get lucky as all employees have the same opportunity to work overtime if they choose. So if one employee chooses to not work overtime that is on him. There is no way for my situation for the overtime to be given out unfairly as you are hired overtime based on the last overtime day worked. You talk about being rewarded for long service so why not be rewarded for working more than others.

 

[hopefullyoneday]

Sorry, I would still say that pensions should be calculated on base salary, not on some overtime-enhanced number whether it was deliberately given to the soon-to-retire employee as a gift from his supervisor or whether it was due to understaffing as you say. How can it be fair for two employees with identical base salaries retiring at different pensions because one got lucky with OT towards the end and the other didn't? A pension is reward for long service, which is properly reflected in the base salary.

What is your position for people that have 401k accts as they can contribute more if they work overtime and get a employee match which raises their retirement acct.

 

[Texas Proud]

Well because 1 did not get lucky as all employees have the same opportunity to work overtime if they choose. So if one employee chooses to not work overtime that is on him. There is no way for my situation for the overtime to be given out unfairly as you are hired overtime based on the last overtime day worked. You talk about being rewarded for long service so why not be rewarded for working more than others.

My problem with this kind of spiking is that your OT is a one time deal but the increase in your pension is the remaining of your life... most are 3 years, some 5, but if you got $3000 per year overtime for those years it appears that you got paid that your whole career...


And if you are like one of my sisters, you can work part time and increase your number of years worked when you have much lower salary...


I do not fault you for taking advantage of the rules, just like I do not fault my sister..... I just think the rules are bad...

 

[MissMolly]

So I'm curious, do you think people with millions in their retirement accounts that manipulate their income in order to meet ACA subsidy thresholds is a bad idea as well?

 

[Bir48die]

So I'm curious, do you think people with millions in their retirement accounts that manipulate their income in order to meet ACA subsidy thresholds is a bad idea as well?

Oh boy! This will get you a warning from the admins. This current thread and your subject matter are my two biggest pet peeves.

 

[Teacher Terry]

In our state people who work p.t. only earn 6 months of pension credit per year worked. Lots of things are legal but not right. Letting overtime count for your pension and millionaires getting ACA subsidies for instance.

 

[Chuckanut]

I have donated extra sick time to fellow employees who where out for uncexpected illnesses and accidents.

I have also refused to consider donating sick time for certain people who routinely go through all of their paid time-off every year. For some strange reason their fellow employees know the difference between somebody with an unexpected serious illness and the folks who use sick time as just more paid time-off. Wonder of wonders!

 

[hopefullyoneday]

In our state people who work p.t. only earn 6 months of pension credit per year worked. Lots of things are legal but not right. Letting overtime count for your pension and millionaires getting ACA subsidies for instance.

I left a higher paying job for the retirement promised to me. I still keep in touch with people I worked with b4 this job. They are on par to retire when I do with a 4% withdraw rate that will be more than my pension with overtime. So how is that right?

 

[hopefullyoneday]

At least with a 401k you have control over what you invest in. With a pension I have no control and they can cut benefits anytime they want. My projected pension went from 75k yr to 52.5k yr and I have to contribute more from my pay just to keep that.

 

[MissMolly]

Oh boy! This will get you a warning from the admins. This current thread and your subject matter are my two biggest pet peeves.

Well I don't think it's right for people to take issue with those that may have a pension and then further blame them for any problems that their pension system may be experiencing and then further yet, blame them for taking advantage of any available "loopholes" while others smugly sit on their ACA subsidy. Please explain to me why it is OK to work around the loopholes of one but not the other. I don't get it.

 

[Cut-Throat]

The constant 'beat down' of public employees continues..... Middle Class folks pitted against each other.... No mention of the eroding wage base of the last 40 years.............

 

[USGrant1962]

The constant 'beat down' of public employees continues..... Middle Class folks pitted against each other.... No mention of the eroding tax base of the last 40 years.............

What erosion do you think has occurred over the last 40 years? Federal revenues have fluctuated between 15% and 20% of GDP for the last 70 years. And we are around the middle of that range today. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/FYFRGDA188S

Total government receipts (state, local, and Federal) as percentage of GDP did nothing but go up for over 100 years, with some recent perturbations caused by the two big bubbles (dotcom and real estate) in the late 90s and late 00s. https://www.usgovernmentrevenue.com...n_F0t_US_Government_Revenue_As_Percent_Of_GDP

And, Real GDP per capita was ~$30K/year in 1978 and is ~$57K in 2018 - almost twice as big in real dollars. US Real GDP Per Capita by Year

A higher tax receipts percentage times a higher base is not "eroded".

EDIT - oh, and I missed population growth from '78 to '18, so an even bigger bite by the tax base.

 

[razztazz]

The constant 'beat down' of public employees continues..... Middle Class folks pitted against each other.... No mention of the eroding tax base of the last 40 years.............

Ya know, even without that eroding tax base as mentioned by USGRANT, if his numbers are good, your point is still salient. It's a common tactic used by.... whatever you wanna call 'em The Man, The Establishment, Power, etc.... keep people weak and distracted and bent over the grindstone.

 

[Cut-Throat]

What erosion do you think has occurred over the last 40 years?

I had a typo, I meant wage base eroded over the last 40 years..... I corrected it.

 

[USGrant1962]

Well I don't think it's right for people to take issue with those that may have a pension and then further blame them for any problems that their pension system may be experiencing and then further yet, blame them for taking advantage of any available "loopholes" while others smugly sit on their ACA subsidy. Please explain to me why it is OK to work around the loopholes of one but not the other. I don't get it.

But one of these things is not like the other.

I've seen numbers like $6 trillion for unfunded public pensions. KFF says total ACA tax credits are $4.6B/year. So the two or three percent of high net worth recipients that may be "gaming" might be worth $100M/year in subsidies. All things being equal, in 60,000 years the ACA gaming problem might match the public pension problem.