100% of Education's share of tax increase will go to teacher's pensions (Sacramento: 2015, rental market)

[expatCA]

Originally Posted by .highnlite

You did not answer my question. You merely stated information with no facts to back it up. It is my understanding that teacher pensions are fully funded by the teachers with no additional money added, as I said, show me i am wrong. Simply telling me what you think is not showing anyone anything.

OK,

CalPERS adjusts employer contribution rates every year based on whether the pension fund experiences actuarial gains or losses.[15]



Contributions
The Board of Administration of CalPERS agreed to increase state government contributions to the retirement fund in the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2010. The State contribution is projected by CalPERS staff to be approximately $600 million more than the contribution of $3.3 billion in FY2011. School districts will pay an additional $108 million to cover retirements of non-teaching personnel.[17] The State Legislative Analyst’s Office estimates the actual contribution could be as low as $481 million with recent projections of lower payroll growth and that the estimated increase to the State general fund budget will be $184 million. The rest of the increase will be paid with non-general-fund revenues generated by self-funded agencies – commonly referred to as special fund agencies.[17]


Due to the unfunded pension liabilities cities and counties must more to the funds as of March 2011, adding an extra $26 to the Sacramento region to the $200 million in contributions.[21]
The study has its critics. Dan Pellisier, president of California Pension Reform, published a rebuttal that claims the report is an attempt to divert attention from the unfunded liability and the losses the fund sustained.[23] "So while CalPERS vainly tries to convince Californians they are helping the economy, their increasing demands for tax dollars is gobbling up the money we need to fund our schools,

Read more: http://sunshinereview.org/index.php/California_public_pensions#ixzz2AYSwQ5bH

OK,

Who is the "employer" and where does that money come from

Where does the "State" get the funds to make it's payment.

Where do the cities and counties get their funds to pay their share?

Increasing demands for "Tax" dollars, and the Tax dollars come from where?

[crescent22]

> It is my understanding that teacher pensions are fully funded by the teachers with no additional money added

Not sure what idiot educated you but you can do any Google search if your basic knowledge is lacking and figure out the CALSTRS pension is less than 80% funded, 80% being an accepted long-term minimum level to be considered halfway healthy, and that contributions come from both districts and the state government in addition to the teachers.

[.highnlite]

1.

OK,

CalPERS adjusts

Are California teacher pensions under Calpers?

2.

School districts will pay an additional $108 million to cover retirements of non-teaching personnel.

Note use of the term "non-teaching personnel"

3.

Not sure what idiot educated you

Did you think any human would read beyond your first 6 words?

So far you boys are batting 0.

[NewToCA]

Conversation has been going pretty well in this thread...let's keep it civil, please

[steelstress]

Originally Posted by .highnlite

1. Are California teacher pensions under Calpers?

Yes If you hadn't decided to ignore Curmudgeon's link, you would have seen that in the 2nd sentence of the article. Here it is:

California public pensions - Sunshine Review

Just read up to the 2nd sentence. You'll find your answer there.

[Curmudgeon]

Originally Posted by steelstress

Yes If you hadn't decided to ignore Curmudgeon's link, you would have seen that in the 2nd sentence of the article. Here it is:

California public pensions - Sunshine Review

Just read up to the 2nd sentence. You'll find your answer there.

Let me help with that:

CalSTRS sources of funds

Teachers and administrators pay 8% of their annual salary into the CalSTRS system, approximately $2 billion each year. School districts contribute 8.25%, about $2.2 billion. The state of California makes two annual payments of 2.017% and 2.5%, approximately $1.2 billion a year.

[SportyandMisty]

Originally Posted by expatCA

Legally those contracts can only be changed if both parties agree. ...

Yes and no.

There is nothing either illegal or immoral about breaking a valid contract.

Let me repeat that: it is not against the law to break a valid contract. It happens all the time.

In the current case, I believe contracts between public sector unionized employees and their respective governmental entities (teachers & school districts) can certainly be found to be invalid due to fraud, coercion and certainly public policy. Having a contract that encumbers unborn future citizens to pay for outrageous pensions of current working public sector employees is bad public policy regardless of the words on the paper contract.

The current approach to public sector pensions is now crowding out services for the most needy among us. A tax increase is like putting a bandaid on a large gushing artery -- it doesn't solve the problem of how to ensure the most needy have a safety net.

[Captain Obvious]

Originally Posted by SportyandMisty

Yes and no.

There is nothing either illegal or immoral about breaking a valid contract.

Let me repeat that: it is not against the law to break a valid contract. It happens all the time.

In the current case, I believe contracts between public sector unionized employees and their respective governmental entities (teachers & school districts) can certainly be found to be invalid due to fraud, coercion and certainly public policy. Having a contract that encumbers unborn future citizens to pay for outrageous pensions of current working public sector employees is bad public policy regardless of the words on the paper contract.

The current approach to public sector pensions is now crowding out services for the most needy among us. A tax increase is like putting a bandaid on a large gushing artery -- it doesn't solve the problem of how to ensure the most needy have a safety net.

You would be wrong. No court is going to find that the contracts were invalid due to fraud, coercion, or being against public policy. Fraud is a term of art in context of contract law and it is a high bar. Courts are hesitant to overturn contracts especially when both parties are sophisticated.

If the state ceased to honor pensions they would lose the litigation and have to pay damages and the attorneys fees of the employees' represenation.

[Curmudgeon]

Originally Posted by SportyandMisty

Yes and no.

There is nothing either illegal or immoral about breaking a valid contract.

Let me repeat that: it is not against the law to break a valid contract. It happens all the time.

In the current case, I believe contracts between public sector unionized employees and their respective governmental entities (teachers & school districts) can certainly be found to be invalid due to fraud, coercion and certainly public policy. Having a contract that encumbers unborn future citizens to pay for outrageous pensions of current working public sector employees is bad public policy regardless of the words on the paper contract.

The current approach to public sector pensions is now crowding out services for the most needy among us. A tax increase is like putting a bandaid on a large gushing artery -- it doesn't solve the problem of how to ensure the most needy have a safety net.

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.

[NewToCA]

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.

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?