100% of Education's share of tax increase will go to teacher's pensions (Brea: real estate, attorney)

[Curmudgeon]

Originally Posted by NewToCA

Well, now let's just hold on one moment here and look at this from another angle.

A few years ago, you and I engaged in a discussion thread on this forum where I lamented the 30+% cut in the California SS Supplement funding for handicapped adults. Your response at that time basically was "tough luck, if they have no money they have to make the cuts".

Now, I'd ask you in the same sentiment then...if California doesn't have the money why should they have to make up any annual shortfalls in either CALPERS or CALSTERS? Why wouldn't it be consistent for you to take the point of view that the shortfall(s) in any given year should just be absorbed by current retirees?

After having worked in Health and Human Services for most of my government career, I don't recall having a "tough luck" approach to the plight of handicapped adults. Perhaps I just expressed myself poorly. However, the instant issue is one of legality and morality. Unfortunately, there is also an issue of reality.

The legislature and a succession of governors, aided by the people through the initiative process, have made such a hash of California's budgetary process that there are very few, if any, discretionary funds remaining to which cuts can be made. Most regrettably, those few that are available seem to fall into the Health and Human Services realm. Supplemental funding is not mandated. Therefore, in the budget cycle it presents itself as low hanging fruit.

As to the matter of current retirees absorbing the shortfalls, do consider the fact that for most of us our working years are over. Therefore we lack some of the recovery ability that current employees might have. Regardless, our pensions are prescribed in a formula that was a major part of our employment contract. That kind of takes us full circle back to the issue that if those contracts are violated regardless of the laws enacting them, then what laws and other contracts are safe? I firmly believe that the shortfalls need to be made up going forward, not on the backs of those who are past.

Clearly there is no easy answer and no matter how it is cut or sliced, someone is going to feel the pain. But so long as Californians persist in returning incompetents to Sacramento time after time again, nothing is likely to change. But that's a whole other story, isn't it?

[Ultrarunner]

Originally Posted by Curmudgeon

Actually, it would be both illegal and immoral to break existing contracts. Courts have already ruled on the legality. Hopefully the court of public opinion would rule the same way on the immorality. Binding contracts are not just a promise made to the individuals but a moral obligation to honor them as well. Don't forget, public employee contracts have to be voted on and approved by the people's elected representatives. Were they to break faith with the employees, then any law set by them could be just as easily ignored. I can just imagine the end results.

As some may know... I have experience in the residential rental market.

I wish tenants would have the same consternation regarding the breaking of contracts.

And... there isn't much that can be done if the tenant in question financial circumstances have taken a turn for the worse... if the money is not there... it isn't there.

The firm also managed office space that was leased to California elected officials... more than a few times, the State was in default/delinquent in paying the contracted rents...

Eventually, sometimes after 3 missed payments, the money would come in without penalties or interest.

I hear what you are saying... just have not found it to work that way in reality.

[Bulldogdad]

There are no easy answers during tough times. However it is an illusion to think there are laws that make any contract unbreakable including public employee pensions. That simply is untrue.

Now whether anyone has the political will to force such an issue through the courts or a legislative body is another matter altogether.

Not even Stockton put their employee pensions on the bankruptcy chopping block.

[hoffdano]

Originally Posted by .highnlite

Is anyone able to show that teacher pensions are any greater than what they paid in? I do not think that there are any other monies that go into teacher pensions other than what they pay in.
I may be wrong, show me.

Your understanding is wrong.

Century-old CalSTRS faces lengthy funding gap « Calpensions

CalSTRS down to 69 percent funded | Thoughts on Public Education

California Teachers Retirement System is funded by a combination of employee contributions, employer contributions, and the state of California.

From the second article above:

"CalSTRS contributions currently amount to 18.25 percent of current employees’ $25.6 billion payroll; 8 percent of that comes from employees’ pay, 8.25 percent from districts, and 2.5 percent from the state. (The state must also contribute an additional .25 percent each year until it reaches about 4 percent in 2015.)"

[Curmudgeon]

Originally Posted by Bulldogdad

There are no easy answers during tough times. However it is an illusion to think there are laws that make any contract unbreakable including public employee pensions. That simply is untrue.

Now whether anyone has the political will to force such an issue through the courts or a legislative body is another matter altogether.

Not even Stockton put their employee pensions on the bankruptcy chopping block.

1) courts have already ruled that the states cannot declare bankruptcy, nor can they violate the provisions of binding, public employee contracts for existing retirees.
2) San Bernardino has toyed with the idea of the bankruptcy to negate its public employee retirement deficits.

[Bulldogdad]

Originally Posted by Curmudgeon

1) courts have already ruled that the states cannot declare bankruptcy, nor can they violate the provisions of binding, public employee contracts for existing retirees.
2) San Bernardino has toyed with the idea of the bankruptcy to negate its public employee retirement deficits.

Federal Law trumps State Law. All it will take is the will to take on CalPers all the way to SCOTUS if need be. Or changing the State Constitution. Dont think it will happen in your life time but maybe mine.

Not saying what the outcome would be just that nothing even previous SCOTUS rulings are impervious to being ruled invalid or overturned.

[Curmudgeon]

Originally Posted by Bulldogdad

Federal Law trumps State Law. All it will take is the will to take on CalPers all the way to SCOTUS if need be. Or changing the State Constitution. Dont think it will happen in your life time but maybe mine.

Not saying what the outcome would be just that nothing even previous SCOTUS rulings are impervious to being ruled invalid or overturned.

By the way, Compton is contemplating trying to do the same thing that San Bernardino is.

[Bulldogdad]

Originally Posted by Curmudgeon

By the way, Compton is contemplating trying to do the same thing that San Bernardino is.

Look for many more across the country in the next 18 months.

[Captain Obvious]

Originally Posted by Bulldogdad

Federal Law trumps State Law. All it will take is the will to take on CalPers all the way to SCOTUS if need be. Or changing the State Constitution. Dont think it will happen in your life time but maybe mine.

Not saying what the outcome would be just that nothing even previous SCOTUS rulings are impervious to being ruled invalid or overturned.

It is going to take a lot more than that. There isn't even a chapter in the bankruptcy code covering states. This would mean that you would need Congress to pass this kind of regulation before SCOTUS even sniffs a case such as this.

[spotlesseden]

States can declare bankruptcy. If they do, the fed will take over CA.