CA pensions may be 5X tax revenues in TWO YEARS?!

[RegGuheert]

California, which has the largest U.S. public-pension fund, faces liabilities that may exceed its annual state-tax revenue fivefold within two years unless lawmakers rein in benefits, according to a study.

We've been hearing about unfunded liabilities for many years now, but could it really be this close at hand? :confused: I tend to be a doomer and this shocks even me! Here is the article.

[MBM]

You? A doomer? Nooooo! ;) Btw, are you prepared for winter?

 

Anyway, I thought Illinois was the worst, not California.

 

You'd probably get more accurate information from Contingencies magazine or something similiar. News outlets don't always get the facts straight. I've seen them royally mess up the facts about pension plans.

 

I would like to hear what California's Chief Actuary of pension benefits and advisory board recommend. They're really the ones to listen to, not the media (especially not the media!) or the politicians who will just be asking for the actuaries' advice anyway.

Edited October 20, 2010 by MBM
Way too many reallys.

[jld]

What do you think CA should do, Reg?

[tex-mex]

What do you think CA should do, Reg?

Bite the bullet and repeal Prop. 13 -- and begin taxing properties like other states. It may be their only choice. CalPERS, CalSTRS (I used to belong to that -- moved my 401K out of state years ago) and the UC Retirement may be tanking.

Edited October 21, 2010 by tex-mex

[Pink Fairy]

Let me tell you, it's VERY scary living in California these days. On a personal note, my dh's school district is on the verge of bankruptcy. Really, the entire state is a mess, and I don't know how they'll ever fix it.

[Guest Cheryl in SoCal]

Bite the bullet and repeal Prop. 13 -- and begin taxing properties like other states. It may be their only choice. CalPERS, CalSTRS (I used to belong to that -- moved my 401K out of state years ago) and the UC Retirement may be tanking.

Our property taxes are plenty high with prop 13, thank you very much.

[RegGuheert]

What do you think CA should do, Reg?

As I said, I'm still having problems believing the report. How can it be possible to go from the situation today, even as bad as that may be, and get to 5.5X total tax revenues in two years? I suspect you can't.

 

But at some point, it becomes too late to fix problems. What I read about pensions in CA makes my blood boil, if for no other reason than I suspect similar forms of "legalized fraud" are going on in Virginia as well. Specifically:

 

- I do not think ANY former government employee should EVER receive a $500,000.00 per year pension, yet that is what the highest pensioner in CA now receives each and every year.

- Pension "spiking" needs to come to a halt. It is criminal that government employees can receive MORE income after they retire than while they are working. (In one case I read about, a police chief was making $170,000.00/year as he approached retirement. His pay was "spiked" during his last pay period to around $250,000.00/year. Since his retirement is based on some percentage of his final pay, he is now bringing in $190,000.00/year in retirement.)

 

These are just a couple of examples of the problems which are plaguing California. I'm sure there are many, many more problems with fiscal discipline in that government. Otherwise, they would not be facing the problems they have. Since states do not control the currency the way the federal government does, they have fewer options on how to deal with the sins of the past. So far they've been doing strange things like printing IOUs instead of paying their bills. Who knows what tomorrow will bring? Will there be riots in CA like they are currently experiencing in Europe? Let's hope not.

[MBM]

As I said, I'm still having problems believing the report. How can it be possible to go from the situation today, even as bad as that may be, and get to 5.5X total tax revenues in two years? I suspect you can't.

 

As I see it, newspapers have two problems nowadays: 1) many are in the pockets of politicians, and 2) their reporters -- even Bloomberg reporters -- have a difficult time understanding complex financial problems. You have to look elsewhere to verify the facts. Don't rely on media to get it right.

 

But at some point, it becomes too late to fix problems. What I read about pensions in CA makes my blood boil, if for no other reason than I suspect similar forms of "legalized fraud" are going on in Virginia as well. Specifically:

 

- I do not think ANY former government employee should EVER receive a $500,000.00 per year pension, yet that is what the highest pensioner in CA now receives each and every year.

 

- Pension "spiking" needs to come to a halt. It is criminal that government employees can receive MORE income after they retire than while they are working. (In one case I read about, a police chief was making $170,000.00/year as he approached retirement. His pay was "spiked" during his last pay period to around $250,000.00/year. Since his retirement is based on some percentage of his final pay, he is now bringing in $190,000.00/year in retirement.)

 

I agree with you wholeheartedly about spiking. (As far as I know, spiking does not happen with federal pension plans because they are based on the top three years' earnings and overtime is not part of the calculation.) Allen Milligan, California's Chief Actuary, mentions spiking when he discusses California's dilemma. What the average citizen doesn't realize is how much politics plays into this.

 

These are just a couple of examples of the problems which are plaguing California. I'm sure there are many, many more problems with fiscal discipline in that government. Otherwise, they would not be facing the problems they have. Since states do not control the currency the way the federal government does, they have fewer options on how to deal with the sins of the past. So far they've been doing strange things like printing IOUs instead of paying their bills. Who knows what tomorrow will bring? Will there be riots in CA like they are currently experiencing in Europe? Let's hope not.

 

The two other problems Milligan mentions:

 

1. Employees are living longer.

2. Employees are retiring slightly earlier.

 

Milligan has already listed the ways they plan to rectify this mess.

 

I don't think there will be riots, but who knows? What's happening in France is nuts. They're living longer, so the retirement age must be raised. The same is probably going to happen here in the States, but our generation is living longer, too. (The next one is a different story.)

 

Other issues in our society and economy, especially the financial antics of some of the uber wealthy, make my blood boil, but that's a whole 'nother story.

Edited October 21, 2010 by MBM
removed a sentence

[Perry]

I've never understood why teachers get to retire with pensions at age 59. Who else does that? Seems like those extra 6 years are a massive burden on the system.

[BMW]

I am not educated in ecomonics at all... which I am ashamed of... and I live here in CA and it's really terrible right now.

 

The schools in our county are EXTREMELY depressed. I have watched the high school cut multiple electives. Teens have to take PE all four years because it's cheap for the school to offer PE. All ps "benefits" for children are about down to zero... unless taken care of by volunteers or teachers who choose to do extra. PE teachers are laid off and other teachers asked to fill in. Music programs are not funded. There is one fund raiser after another. Larger class sizes. I know many of you don't care much about public school, but during my divorce, court order insisted on my children being in ps. Now I am sending them to school at their dad's and enjoying them on weekends once in a while so they have better schools and opportunities/programs. (Dh lives in an area that is on the wealthier side and schools near him are doing just fine...)

 

I watch all the political ads and feel disgusted because it's hard to "believe" in any one person to fix the mess here. If it weren't for my kids living in CA and dh's parents being local, I would really, really press dh to quick sell and get out of here!

[RegGuheert]

 

I've never understood why teachers get to retire with pensions at age 59. Who else does that? Seems like those extra 6 years are a massive burden on the system.

I think I read somewhere that police and fire personnel can retire at age 50 in CA!

[Daisy]

I loathe this state. I can't even enter this conversation. I'm so dang conflicted.

 

I certainly want my husband's retirement to stand. As a school teacher, he earns no social security in this state and contributes 18% of his income to CALSTRS. I'm going to be dang pissed off if the state of CA takes his retirement away. They regularly "borrow" from CALSTRS.

 

This state is horrible about managing a budget. They live in an entitlement pipe dream. We already pay a fortune for everything. I'd like to smack people who say raise our taxes some more. Eventually, we have no more money. Period. Tax away. I can't pay anymore. And that rich guy you THOUGHT would pay, just moved out of state. I'd follow him if anyone wanted to buy my lousy house stuck in a neighborhood surrounded by bank-owned abandoned houses.

 

And for the record, I don't know ANY teachers who retire at 59 years old.

[Guest Cheryl in SoCal]

I loathe this state. I can't even enter this conversation. I'm so dang conflicted.

 

I certainly want my husband's retirement to stand. As a school teacher, he earns no social security in this state and contributes 18% of his income to CALSTRS. I'm going to be dang pissed off if the state of CA takes his retirement away. They regularly "borrow" from CALSTRS.

 

This state is horrible about managing a budget. They live in an entitlement pipe dream. We already pay a fortune for everything. I'd like to smack people who say raise our taxes some more. Eventually, we have no more money. Period. Tax away. I can't pay anymore. And that rich guy you THOUGHT would pay, just moved out of state. I'd follow him if anyone wanted to buy my lousy house stuck in a neighborhood surrounded by bank-owned abandoned houses.

 

And for the record, I don't know ANY teachers who retire at 59 years old.

I couldn't agree more!! I do know several teachers who retied at or before 59 but I'm sure they are now considerably older than your dh so perhaps things have changed some since they received their pensions.

[Perry]

And for the record, I don't know ANY teachers who retire at 59 years old.

I wonder if that's a regional or state tradition. I believe it's the norm here. Both mil and fil retired at 59.

[Perry]

I wonder if that's a regional or state tradition. I believe it's the norm here. Both mil and fil retired at 59.

What's really outrageous is these huge package deals that the superintendents receive when they retire, and then they go get a superintendent job elsewhere, so they get their salary PLUS their pension.

[Pippen]

And for the record, I don't know ANY teachers who retire at 59 years old.

 

Until recently in Illinois the requirements were 35 years of teaching and minimum age of 55 to receive full benefits. Many retire around age 57 because there's no financial advantage to work longer. The older teachers didn't pay into social security, although that has changed.

 

I believe it's been raised to 67, which is the highest age for teacher retirement in the nation. My kids went to a school that already had a high average age and many were already burning out by this lower age--can't imagine what it will be like down the road.

[Daisy]

I wonder if that's a regional or state tradition. I believe it's the norm here. Both mil and fil retired at 59.

 

My husband in his nearly 20 years of teaching has never known a CA teacher (outside of illness) who retired so early. They simply cannot afford to do it in this state. Not to mention that most of his older coworkers are divorced/widowed women and often the sole income in their families.

 

I love when people outside of California think they have the fix for California. Until you live here, you have absolutely no clue. Teachers, firemen, and policemen pensions are not the problem in this state.

 

I'd tell you what the problem is but that would be getting political and is against board rules.

[MBM]

Definitely eliminate waste, fraud and abuse, but be careful not to throw the baby out with the bath water. Frankly, I don't mind paying pensions to teachers.

 

Go after the big kahunas in the private sector who are effectively stealing by setting up these sorts of fraudulent tax shelters. This man is just one of many, and there are others who've done the same or worse.

 

http://www.pioneerlocal.com/winnetka/news/2820976,winnetka-attorney-102010-s1.article

 

I also don't think upper level executives should be receiving outrageous salaries and Golden Parachutes especially when their company is tanking.

[Perry]

My husband in his nearly 20 years of teaching has never known a CA teacher (outside of illness) who retired so early.

I don't claim to know what California's problems are, or how to fix them. But since the issue of inability to fund pensions was raised, it seems reasonable to discuss age of retirement as one important cause.

 

ASCA

More specifically, the initiative increases the minimum retirement age for classified, educators and other public employees to Social Security retirement age, currently age 67. The average retirement age for CalSTRS members is now 61 and for members of the California Public Employees Retirement System, 60.

 

 

If average age of retirment is 61 in California, there are a whole lot of teachers retiring at age 59.

[Mejane]

I'm sure you've all seen this:

 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20101019/ts_afp/francestrikepoliticspensions_20101019170314

 

 

People need to start realizing that the present economies of most countries do not support this type of benefit. It's just fiscal realism.

 

What's going on in Great Britian is a prime example. They're cutting their budget to the bone. It's going to hurt a lot of people, but is it better to throw the country into insolvency? I think the US should be doing the same. Nothing should be sacred, imo, and that includes government pensions, social security, medicare/medicaid and the military. Very unpopular sentiment, I know.

Edited October 21, 2010 by Mejane

[Guest Cheryl in SoCal]

I'm sure you've all seen this:

 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20101019/ts_afp/francestrikepoliticspensions_20101019170314

 

 

People need to start realizing that the present economies of most countries do not support this type of benefit. It's just fiscal realism.

 

What's going on in Great Britian is a prime example. They're cutting their budget to the bone. It's going to hurt a lot of people, but is it better to throw the country into fiscal insolvency? I think the US should be doing the same. Nothing should be sacred, imo, and that includes government pensions, social security, medicare/medicaid and the military. Very unpopular sentiment, I know.

:iagree:

[Daisy]

I don't claim to know what California's problems are, or how to fix them. But since the issue of inability to fund pensions was raised, it seems reasonable to discuss age of retirement as one important cause.

 

ASCA

 

If average age of retirment is 61 in California, there are a whole lot of teachers retiring at age 59.

 

Well, looks like you have the evidence.

 

I imagine the average has dropped in the last 2-3 years simply because CA districts are begging (and in some places even using strong arm tactics) veteran teachers to retire so they can replace them with lower-cost newbie teachers. It is a cost-saving measure for the districts.

 

Endless stupid cycle. CA steals from districts. Districts push retirement on veteran teachers. Veteran teachers start pulling THEIR pension (which they paid plenty of money into). CA whines and "borrows" indefinitely from CalSTRS to pay for a million stupid props that should never have been approved on some dumb ballot. And it goes on and on.

 

If CA would never stolen from Paul to pay Peter, they wouldn't be up a creak without a paddle.

 

I'm sick of it.

 

Frankly, I'd be THRILLED if CA would stop stealing from my husband's paycheck to fund his pension (or should I say CA's general fund). I'd rather put that money in my own bank where at least the CA politicians would keep their grubby hands off of it.

Edited October 21, 2010 by Daisy

[MBM]

I'm sure you've all seen this:

 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20101019/ts_afp/francestrikepoliticspensions_20101019170314

 

 

People need to start realizing that the present economies of most countries do not support this type of benefit. It's just fiscal realism.

 

What's going on in Great Britian is a prime example. They're cutting their budget to the bone. It's going to hurt a lot of people, but is it better to throw the country into insolvency? I think the US should be doing the same. Nothing should be sacred, imo, and that includes government pensions, social security, medicare/medicaid and the military. Very unpopular sentiment, I know.

 

Please.

 

The French are fighting because their retirement age is being raised. It is completely prudent to do so when people are living longer, and it's not uncommon. It will likely happen here, too.

 

Go after the fraud instead.

[1bassoon]

I think I read somewhere that police and fire personnel can retire at age 50 in CA!

 

Yup.

 

Last month, my cousin came for a visit. He's riding his motorcycle all around the country - from CA down to FL, up through AL, to his daughter in KS, back to CA.

 

Guess who he worked for? Yup, Orange County Sheriff, CA.

 

It kinda makes me cringe when he starts talking about "his wonderful life". Yeah. On the backs of the taxpayers.

 

Crazy.

[wapiti]

Just thinking out loud about public pensions in general (and I admit I don't live in CA anymore), the current system involves the governing entity putting off what ought to be current salary payments to the future by promising these pensions. I don't know what the answer is for current state employees nearing, or in, retirement. But for the young state employees going forward, I'd rather see them paid their retiremement dollars now (be it via 401k or whatever). Their salaries could possibly be much higher (or at least it would be interesting to watch what market forces wrought), and there would be no future liabilities for the governing entity decades from now. It would be so much easier to compare compensation to that available in the private sector. Pensions, like health insurance benefits, are not always as easily quantifiable in today's dollars as salary is for many employees, which distorts markets. More easily available/more accurate information = a more efficient market. Unfortunately, the pyramid scheme is in full swing and it sounds like they don't even have the money for the pensions that need to be paid out today, let alone 401k-style plans that could be paid today in place of future pensions.

 

just my two cents :tongue_smilie:

[Vida Winter]

Although I am a native Californian I have not lived there in years and you could not pay me to move back. States that are that upside-down financially need to be allowed to go bankrupt (not an option currently). At that point they could renegotiate their debt and restore some sanity.

 

No, it would not be pretty. The alternative - something's gotta give. People will not put up with being taxed to their eyeballs to pay for someone else's retirement. They'll leave (or refuse to pay), and the government will not be able to pay for even basic services, let alone pensions. As bad as it would be, it would be a kindness if California were to hit the rock-bottom point sooner rather than later so they could begin to restructure things (and no federal bailouts this time, please).

 

CA is experiencing something very much like (pick a European country - Greece, Great Britain, France). Many other states are headed this way.

[Mejane]

Please.

 

The French are fighting because their retirement age is being raised. It is completely prudent to do so when people are living longer, and it's not uncommon. It will likely happen here, too.

 

Go after the fraud instead.

 

So, you're agreeing with me then? It's hard to tell.

[MBM]

So, you're agreeing with me then? It's hard to tell.

No.

[KrissiK]

What's wrong with raising the retirement age? I admit to not knowing much about pensions and all that, but good grief. People are living longer and are much healthier than they were when they put the retirement age at 65. People can life 15-20 years longer after they retire at age 65, and a lot of people do it in relatively good health. A lot of people go on to have second careers after they retire. I don't think 67 or evey 68 is inappropriate for retirement age nowdays. I do live in California and I know a lot of PS teachers who did not retire at 59. My mom retired at 65. She does have a good retirement, though, and even though I'm glad she has it, I think that govt. workers have too cushie of retirements and they should have to work out their retirements just like the rest of us in the private sector.

 

And FWIW, the only reason we're sticking around this stinkin' state is that both dh's and my families are all here and I'm all my parents have. I will not leave them and take their grandkids. Other than that, we'd be OUT OF HERE!

[Mejane]

My fil retired from a NYC job at 55. He will be 83 on his next birthday and is going strong. He's been drawing a $24,000 annual pension for 28 years. You do the math. (That's chump change compared to what employees retiring now will earn.)

[Mejane]

No.

 

 

That's fine. I agree with you about waste and fraud, but I also think the average citizen might need to lower their expectations a bit in light of the poor economy.

Edited October 21, 2010 by Mejane

[MyLittleWonders]

What's wrong with raising the retirement age? I admit to not knowing much about pensions and all that, but good grief. People are living longer and are much healthier than they were when they put the retirement age at 65. People can life 15-20 years longer after they retire at age 65, and a lot of people do it in relatively good health. A lot of people go on to have second careers after they retire. I don't think 67 or evey 68 is inappropriate for retirement age nowdays. I do live in California and I know a lot of PS teachers who did not retire at 59. My mom retired at 65. She does have a good retirement, though, and even though I'm glad she has it, I think that govt. workers have too cushie of retirements and they should have to work out their retirements just like the rest of us in the private sector.

 

And FWIW, the only reason we're sticking around this stinkin' state is that both dh's and my families are all here and I'm all my parents have. I will not leave them and take their grandkids. Other than that, we'd be OUT OF HERE!

I don't mind raising the retirement age, necessarily, but the way it's set up out here, at least for teachers as far as I understand, you have to stick with teaching in public schools until retirement age to be able to fully draw on your retirement. Being a former PS school teacher and watching dh in that job now, asking people who started teaching in their mid-20's to stick it out, especially in the climate of schools now, for 40+ years is asking a heck of a lot of them. If they could change jobs/careers/industries and take their retirement with them, then maybe it wouldn't be such a deal. Teachers are not allowed to have 401Ks (they can have 403Bs) and do not pay into social security (not that there will be any of that left by the time our generation retires). So to "earn" full retirement, you have to stay within the system that for most teachers, seems to be slowly killing them each day. Just my thoughts; I do not know a lot of how the retirement system works (I was in the system for only 7 years and dh is young enough that we haven't done a lot of research - I know, that's not an excuse). I do know that FIL retired when he was able (62 1/2, IIRC) and has to continue to work outside of teaching to help supplement his retirement, so it's not like retired teachers are rolling in the dough. :lol:

[jld]

 

Other issues in our society and economy, especially the financial antics of some of the uber wealthy, make my blood boil, but that's a whole 'nother story.

 

 

I'd like to hear that story. And thanks for what you posted about the tax shelters.

[creekland]

Teachers... do not pay into social security (not that there will be any of that left by the time our generation retires).

 

Since when and where? Both my parents were full time teachers in NY, are now retired, and have reached the age where they are collecting social security. They paid in, so get that and their NYS pension.

 

I work in a school district in PA and the largest deduction I have is for social security. They send me annual updates on how much I should be able to collect at x age.

 

Where is this not happening?

 

And I'm all for increasing retirement age and cutting perks as well as going after fraud. For far too long we (the people) have voted ourselves too much out of the cookie jar. That's been the downfall of nations for eons and the cycle continues.

[1bassoon]

Since when and where? Both my parents were full time teachers in NY, are now retired, and have reached the age where they are collecting social security. They paid in, so get that and their NYS pension.

 

 

My dh and I were both public school teachers in CT. I taught from 91-96, he taught from 95-2005. Neither one of us paid into Social Security. Dh has a pension - he's vested for working 10 full years in CT. It will be a pittance.

[creekland]

My dh and I were both public school teachers in CT. I taught from 91-96, he taught from 95-2005. Neither one of us paid into Social Security. Dh has a pension - he's vested for working 10 full years in CT. It will be a pittance.

 

Wow, I had no idea different states did that differently. I had no idea they COULD do it differently. I wonder how they manage to do that legally (curiosity)? Does anyone know? I thought pretty much everyone had to pay in. If I could get out of it, I definitely would. I've never been a fan of social security! Let me invest my own money...

[Perry]

Wow, I had no idea different states did that differently. I had no idea they COULD do it differently. I wonder how they manage to do that legally (curiosity)? Does anyone know? I thought pretty much everyone had to pay in. If I could get out of it, I definitely would. I've never been a fan of social security! Let me invest my own money...

Some answers here.

[MyLittleWonders]

In CA, we do not pay into social security. (Sorry I did not make that clear in my first post ... )

[Sophia]

Wow, I had no idea different states did that differently. I had no idea they COULD do it differently. I wonder how they manage to do that legally (curiosity)? Does anyone know? I thought pretty much everyone had to pay in. If I could get out of it, I definitely would. I've never been a fan of social security! Let me invest my own money...

 

Some states have their teachers pay into a TRS (Teachers Retirement System) instead of Social Security.

My bil was a teacher in Illinois who spent his entire career in one district.

It paid off for him~he retired at 55 with a sizable retirement and gets to supplement with coaching positions at his former school.

 

It's not just him, all the teachers in that district do really well for themselves.

But now Illinois (like California) is also in a financial mess and some of the politicos are looking at the huge teacher pensions that are being doled out, and people like bil are writing letters to the editor blaming big state spending...things are gonna get ugly up there come election time.

[MyLittleWonders]

What I don't understand (well, there are many things!), if a person (teacher, government employee) pays into a state-funded retirement system for their career (I'm thinking CALSTRS and CALPERS out here), and somewhere along the way the government "borrows" heavily from those funds, shouldn't the person retiring still be entitled basically to their money? As I said before, I don't fully understand how the whole thing works, but it seems that things could be changed for all new hires, but for those already in the system, doesn't the state have an obligation to pay out the benefits?

[Mrs Mungo]

- I do not think ANY former government employee should EVER receive a $500,000.00 per year pension, yet that is what the highest pensioner in CA now receives each and every year.

 

I agree. Federal employees have limitations, according to the Executive Schedule. It would be a good idea for state employees as well.

 

- Pension "spiking" needs to come to a halt. It is criminal that government employees can receive MORE income after they retire than while they are working. (In one case I read about, a police chief was making $170,000.00/year as he approached retirement. His pay was "spiked" during his last pay period to around $250,000.00/year. Since his retirement is based on some percentage of his final pay, he is now bringing in $190,000.00/year in retirement.)

 

In the military they average your pay for the final 3 years that you are on active duty. Seems like a system like that would be easy to implement.

 

I think the US should be doing the same. Nothing should be sacred, imo, and that includes government pensions, social security, medicare/medicaid and the military. Very unpopular sentiment, I know.

 

It gets really tricky, because you could save a lot in the military by removing certain procurement requirements set by Congress via earmarks. Would they do that? Or would they rather keep their barrels of pork and cut veteran's programs?

 

How about raising the military retirement age, expand the military, do away with certain "up or out" programs and cut contracting jobs? I know TONS of people who have retired and go to work as a contractor the next day, doing the same job they were doing before and making twice the money.

 

Please.

 

The French are fighting because their retirement age is being raised. It is completely prudent to do so when people are living longer, and it's not uncommon. It will likely happen here, too.

 

Go after the fraud instead.

 

The *young* French are fighting the retirement age issue because they want the old people to retire and open up jobs.

 

Why not do both?

[kokotg]

Some states have their teachers pay into a TRS (Teachers Retirement System) instead of Social Security.

 

 

DH teaches in GA and pays Social Security and a mandatory 5% of his income to the TRS. He also has the option of putting additional money in a 403b.

[MBM]

I'd like to hear that story. And thanks for what you posted about the tax shelters.

 

I'm afraid I could get banned if I get too specific! It's political. Not saying all politicians are bad -- they aren't -- but some are less than honorable.

[Rhonda in TX]

Where is this not happening?

 

Texas teachers don't pay into SS, either. They have their own retirement system. My dad was a teacher and has a nice retirement. He does collect some SS from other jobs he's had in his lifetime, but not much.

 

The money in the Texas teacher retirement system is separate from the state budget, so I'm pretty sure they can't borrow from it.

[MBM]

I agree. Federal employees have limitations, according to the Executive Schedule. It would be a good idea for state employees as well.

 

In the military they average your pay for the final 3 years that you are on active duty. Seems like a system like that would be easy to implement.

 

That's what they do with the non-military federal plans. It's the three highest paid years that are used. Sometimes an employee earns more in earlier years. Odd, but it happens.

 

And just want to mention that spiking isn't available to everyone!

 

The *young* French are fighting the retirement age issue because they want the old people to retire and open up jobs.

 

Why not do both?

 

Yes, sorry. That's what I meant. Is it just about opening jobs, though, or are the younger people upset they might not have it as good as the older people? I haven't watched much coverage, but what I've read -- it's nuts!

 

 

***********

Typically, if benefits change, it will affect the younger employees. Older ones close to retirement would keep their pension bennies unless something really drastic happens.

[FlockOfSillies]

How in the world does repealing Prop 13 fix a PENSION problem??? It would just make it easier for the pols to raise our taxes as high and as often as they wanted to, in order to pay for all kinds of flim-flam, not just these Cadillac pensions.

 

It would actually be more effective to bite the bullet and do two things -- 1) renegotiate these pension agreements to something more realistic, and 2) prohibit public employees from unionizing. Time to get the fox out of the henhouse.

[Mejane]

 

It gets really tricky, because you could save a lot in the military by removing certain procurement requirements set by Congress via earmarks. Would they do that? Or would they rather keep their barrels of pork and cut veteran's programs?

 

Probably this (the greedy b*stards.)

 

How about raising the military retirement age, expand the military, do away with certain "up or out" programs and cut contracting jobs? I know TONS of people who have retired and go to work as a contractor the next day, doing the same job they were doing before and making twice the money.

 

:iagree: I have a family member who will retire from the Navy soon and go to work for the company he's been contracting with at $150,000+ salary in addition to his $80,000+ pension. Nice work if you can get it.

 

 

 

 

.

Edited October 22, 2010 by Mejane

[CAMom]

How in the world does repealing Prop 13 fix a PENSION problem??? It would just make it easier for the pols to raise our taxes as high and as often as they wanted to, in order to pay for all kinds of flim-flam, not just these Cadillac pensions.

 

It would actually be more effective to bite the bullet and do two things -- 1) renegotiate these pension agreements to something more realistic, and 2) prohibit public employees from unionizing. Time to get the fox out of the henhouse.

 

EXACTLY!:iagree:

 

The California politicians have clearly shown that they are poor money managers. If our taxes are raised, what reason to we have to believe that they would fix anything? The safer bet is that they would waste even more money.

 

They need a Dave Ramsey class to learn how to live within their means and sock some away.;)

[vonfirmath]

Texas teachers don't pay into SS, either. They have their own retirement system. My dad was a teacher and has a nice retirement. He does collect some SS from other jobs he's had in his lifetime, but not much.

 

The money in the Texas teacher retirement system is separate from the state budget, so I'm pretty sure they can't borrow from it.

 

 

My mother was a teacher for a few years in Texas. and still is getting her (pittance) of a Texas retirement now that she is of age even though she did not retire as a teacher.

[Daisy]

Texas teachers don't pay into SS, either. They have their own retirement system. My dad was a teacher and has a nice retirement. He does collect some SS from other jobs he's had in his lifetime, but not much.

 

The money in the Texas teacher retirement system is separate from the state budget, so I'm pretty sure they can't borrow from it.

 

Legally that is true of California also, but it sure hasn't stopped them from dipping into it when times got tough. They are required by law to pay it back, but when the state can't, what will happen then?