Public pension plan files for bankruptcy

Quote from Krazen1211 : This will be pretty widespread soon. A bunch of overpaid government employees are going to lose their pensions. They certainly deserve it.

Why do they deserve to lose their pensions?

How do you know that the employees covered by the pension fund are "overpaid"?

Does someone who was promised a pension at the time of hiring and has worked all their life at that job with that pension being an essential part of their long range retirement planning "deserve" to have that pulled out from under them any more than anyone working in the private sector?

Quote from nobama : Why do they deserve to lose their pensions? How do you know that the employees covered by the pension fund are "overpaid"? Does someone who was promised a pension at the time of hiring and has worked all their life at that job with that pension being an essential part of their long range retirement planning "deserve" to have that pulled out from under them any more than anyone working in the private sector?

Being that the person who "negotiated" with them was likely the person they campaigned for and voted for, then yes, they do deserve it.

Quote from The2AMBearArms : Being that the person who "negotiated" with them was likely the person they campaigned for and voted for, then yes, they do deserve it.

I disagree.

Most civil service job positions have the salary and benefit packages including pension plans already established before accepting applications for the positions.

A person who takes a civil service job does not "negotiate" with a person they "campaigned for and voted for". A civil service employee submits his application, passes the selection process and is hired to fill a vacant position.

He has done nothing to "deserve" to lose his pension.

Quote from nobama : Why do they deserve to lose their pensions? How do you know that the employees covered by the pension fund are "overpaid"? Does someone who was promised a pension at the time of hiring and has worked all their life at that job with that pension being an essential part of their long range retirement planning "deserve" to have that pulled out from under them any more than anyone working in the private sector?

Certainly, yes. The private sector guards against such through ERISA and the PGBC. Public sector pensioners willingly accepted a program without such safeguards.

They shouldn't have made such investments.

Quote from Krazen1211 : Certainly, yes. The private sector guards against such through ERISA and the PGBC. Public sector pensioners willingly accepted a program without such safeguards. They shouldn't have made such investments.

Yes, they expected (rightfully in most cases, at least so far) that the taxpayers would always be on the hook for their overly generous pensions.

Quote from nobama : I disagree. Most civil service job positions have the salary and benefit packages including pension plans already established before accepting applications for the positions. A person who takes a civil service job does not "negotiate" with a person they "campaigned for and voted for". A civil service employee submits his application, passes the selection process and is hired to fill a vacant position. He has done nothing to "deserve" to lose his pension.

Except how many police officers were hired 20 years ago at $15,000 salaries with 50% pension after retirement only to have the salaries increased to $150,000 today with 90% pensions?

We all know California is a mess.. But there are other states headed for big trouble..

Quote : 10 Worst-Off State Pension Funds (05/03/12) "The toll has been particularly heavy on public pensions, whose troubles with chronic underfunding predate the financial crisis. By one estimate, the nation's 126 largest public pensions were underfunded by at least $800 billion in 2010. By another, 54% of the country's state and local plans will have exhausted their funds as early as 2034. It now seems inevitable that sacrifices will be required from current employees, employers, and in some cases, retirees." Check out the 10 Worst-Off State Pension Funds http://www.thestreet.com/story/11...funds.html

Quote from The2AMBearArms : Yes, they expected (rightfully in most cases, at least so far) that the taxpayers would always be on the hook for their overly generous pensions.

Was it their fault that the pensions that they accepted upon hiring were "overly generous"? Blame the individuals who granted the pensions, not those who accepted and earned them through the years.

Quote from The2AMBearArms : Except how many police officers were hired 20 years ago at $15,000 salaries with 50% pension after retirement only to have the salaries increased to $150,000 today with 90% pensions?

I can only speak for WA state since I have no knowledge of other states' pension plans.

In WA 20 years ago, a rookie officer upon hire enrolled in the WA Law Enforcement Officers and Firefighters Retirement Fund (LEOFF) [wa.gov] which by state law provides for a pension of 2% of the final average salary x years of service, with (at that time) a cap of 60% and a minimum retirement age of 50 for reduced benefits, or age 53 for full benefits depending on years of service.

If an LEO in WA hired 20 years ago and retired at age 53 this year, his pension would only be 40%, not 50% in your example, and to reach the 90% pension in your example, he would have to work for 45 years. I doubt many remain on the job that long.

Further, the employee pays into the pension system out of his wages, and the employer (taxpayer) pays a matching percentage.

If the pension is unreasonable to you, then the blame lies with the state legislators who wrote the laws enacting those pensions and not with the LEO's who accepted those pensions upon hire and who worked the number of years required to be eligible for those pensions. They deserve to be paid what they have earned, and do not "deserve" to lose their pension that they have earned through no fault of their own.

Quote from nobama : Was it their fault that the pensions that they accepted upon hiring were "overly generous"? Blame the individuals who granted the pensions, not those who accepted and earned them through the years. I can only speak for WA state since I have no knowledge of other states' pension plans. In WA 20 years ago, a rookie officer upon hire enrolled in the WA Law Enforcement Officers and Firefighters Retirement Fund (LEOFF) [wa.gov] which by state law provides for a pension of 2% of the final average salary x years of service, with (at that time) a cap of 60% and a minimum retirement age of 50 for reduced benefits, or age 53 for full benefits depending on years of service. If an LEO in WA hired 20 years ago and retired at age 53 this year, his pension would only be 40%, not 50% in your example, and to reach the 90% pension in your example, he would have to work for 45 years. I doubt many remain on the job that long. Further, the employee pays into the pension system out of his wages, and the employer (taxpayer) pays a matching percentage. If the pension is unreasonable to you, then the blame lies with the state legislators who wrote the laws enacting those pensions and not with the LEO's who accepted those pensions upon hire and who worked the number of years required to be eligible for those pensions. They deserve to be paid what they have earned, and do not "deserve" to lose their pension that they have earned through no fault of their own.

Except the money just isn't there in many cases. SOMEONE is going to get screwed. Given the choice between it being government employees who retired at age 55 with far better benefits than anyone in the private sector gets and the taxpayers, I'd pick the former any day.

Quote from nobama : Was it their fault that the pensions that they accepted upon hiring were "overly generous"? Blame the individuals who granted the pensions, not those who accepted and earned them through the years. I can only speak for WA state since I have no knowledge of other states' pension plans. In WA 20 years ago, a rookie officer upon hire enrolled in the WA Law Enforcement Officers and Firefighters Retirement Fund (LEOFF) [wa.gov] which by state law provides for a pension of 2% of the final average salary x years of service, with (at that time) a cap of 60% and a minimum retirement age of 50 for reduced benefits, or age 53 for full benefits depending on years of service. If an LEO in WA hired 20 years ago and retired at age 53 this year, his pension would only be 40%, not 50% in your example, and to reach the 90% pension in your example, he would have to work for 45 years. I doubt many remain on the job that long. Further, the employee pays into the pension system out of his wages, and the employer (taxpayer) pays a matching percentage. If the pension is unreasonable to you, then the blame lies with the state legislators who wrote the laws enacting those pensions and not with the LEO's who accepted those pensions upon hire and who worked the number of years required to be eligible for those pensions. They deserve to be paid what they have earned, and do not "deserve" to lose their pension that they have earned through no fault of their own.

20 years of service should not get anyone a 40% pension. how farking ridiculous. majority of america works far longer for far less. I dont care who we blame, but the excessive pensions gotta go.

Quote from SigX : 20 years of service should not get anyone a 40% pension. how farking ridiculous. majority of america works far longer for far less. I dont care who we blame, but the excessive pensions gotta go.

I don't think you realize that 40% is in lieu of social security in many local and state government systems, and that those employees paid into that retirement fund.

The 3% at 50 retirements in places like California make the state of Washington retirements look pretty austere by comparison.

Quote from Elmer : I don't think you realize that 40% is in lieu of social security in many local and state government systems, and that those employees paid into that retirement fund. The 3% at 50 retirements in places like California make the state of Washington retirements look pretty austere by comparison.

And the fact that in California, pensions were increased retroactively, which is just absurd.

And the salaries are out of control in CA too, so the 90% at age 50 leads to an absurd pension.

Quote from Elmer : I don't think you realize that 40% is in lieu of social security in many local and state government systems, and that those employees paid into that retirement fund. The 3% at 50 retirements in places like California make the state of Washington retirements look pretty austere by comparison.

fair enough. the devil is in the details for sure.

Quote from nobama : Was it their fault that the pensions that they accepted upon hiring were "overly generous"? Blame the individuals who granted the pensions, not those who accepted and earned them through the years. I can only speak for WA state since I have no knowledge of other states' pension plans. In WA 20 years ago, a rookie officer upon hire enrolled in the WA Law Enforcement Officers and Firefighters Retirement Fund (LEOFF) [wa.gov] which by state law provides for a pension of 2% of the final average salary x years of service, with (at that time) a cap of 60% and a minimum retirement age of 50 for reduced benefits, or age 53 for full benefits depending on years of service. If an LEO in WA hired 20 years ago and retired at age 53 this year, his pension would only be 40%, not 50% in your example, and to reach the 90% pension in your example, he would have to work for 45 years. I doubt many remain on the job that long. Further, the employee pays into the pension system out of his wages, and the employer (taxpayer) pays a matching percentage. If the pension is unreasonable to you, then the blame lies with the state legislators who wrote the laws enacting those pensions and not with the LEO's who accepted those pensions upon hire and who worked the number of years required to be eligible for those pensions. They deserve to be paid what they have earned, and do not "deserve" to lose their pension that they have earned through no fault of their own.

I actually totally agree with this. If it's possible I think the people who were promised pensions should get them. Take my mom for example. She's a teacher and legitimately works 10 months a year. She's been teaching for nearly 30-35 years and on top of her Bachelors has a couple years "interning" (can't remember the actual name for it) before she could teach on her own and get an actual salary. Later on she got a masters, and has to get continued education every year. All those things were out of her pocket. She doesn't make all that much $$, and could have likely made a lot more $$ if she became an executive assistant for example but stayed in teaching because she knew that while the salary during her working years weren't stellar she'd be taken care of nicely once she retired. Not to mention she liked the job as well.

It's not fair to all of a sudden and say "sorry, you're getting 1/2 pension benefits because we ran out of cash". Out here in CA the teachers pension plan is separate from other gov't workers so while she looks ok non-teachers may not be. What they need to do is create a new bracket of employees that no longer get pensions, or get a reduced pension however with pay that would be closer to fair market value. The problem is the teachers unions 9and others) stall those discussions whenever they're raised because it's somehow unfair to new teachers. Either you start solving the problem or you're left with a considerably larger one later on. As a teacher, my Mom doesn't have a say whether she's union or not, and while she has a vote in the leadership of the union and their direction she's only one vote. She's actually all for the different bracket of employees that maybe get paid more $$ in salary and have a 401k while not having a pension plan but it's the majority of them that are against it.

And to what Elmer said, even though my Mom contributed to SS more than 40 quarters, and never married after her and my Dad split while she is eligible for SS every dollar she would get paid is deducted from her pension plan. It's not like she gets both SS and her pension plan. Personally I find that to be BS when the person that worked 40 quarters gets benefits on top of their 401k while she doesn't but whatever...

Hopefully they can fix the problem before they have no other choice but to abandon it but who knows. With everyone just saying what people want to hear so they can get elected until it gets bad enough I don't see much actually changing.

Quote from The2AMBearArms : Except the money just isn't there in many cases. SOMEONE is going to get screwed.

In St. Paul, MN, property owners will be getting screwed.
http://www.realclearmarkets.com/a...99661.html

Quote : Thanks to promises made over the years by the St. Paul school board, taxpayers in the Minnesota city owe teachers and other education workers some $409 million in retirement health benefits that the district hasn't funded. So the school system has taken advantage of a new state law that allows local governments to levy a special property tax to help finance these benefits. This year, the district anticipates collecting an additional $12.8 million from property owners thanks to this new, so-called "other post-employment benefits" levy, according to the St. Paul Pioneer Press. --------------- Boston, the group discovered, owed $7.5 billion. To pay that off in 30 years with property taxes would require a 118 percent increase in the local levy. Total cost to the average Boston homeowner: $97,825 over 30 years. Even that was nothing compared to the potential tab in the town of Lawrence: a 255 percent tax increase, or $181,604 over 30 years for the average homeowner to pay off the town's promises to workers. In Chicago, the Civic Federation estimates, the average resident owes nearly $15,000 as a share of the city's share of municipal, county and state pension obligations. Last year the city's former chief financial officer estimated that just adequately funding the municipal pension debt over 25 years could raise property taxes by 50 percent. If you consider this all speculative and doubt it could happen, think of St. Paul, or of Oakland. Property owners in the California city have been paying a surcharge on taxes for decades to finance a pension system that went bust in the 1970s. The average homeowner today pays $419 in additional taxes to help wind down the system, according to the Oakland Tribune.