[Lalalally]

Originally Posted by mlassoff

There are many factors leading to decline, despite increased tax receipts--

1) We now pay for expanded police departments that retired 30 years ago, one that retired 10 years ago and the one currently working. Expanding an unsustainable pension and insurance obligations are costing us QOL and increased taxes.

2) There are more poor than during the pre-income tax modern period. This stresses state resources.

3) The infrastucture that was passable 25 years ago, is now in crisis state.

4) We're paying municipal workers, relatively, higher salaries and the upward pressure continues. $90K to be an only moderately experienced railroad conductor? Really? Cops making $150K? I don't begrudge anyone a living, but municipal salaries are getting out of hand.

5) Federal mandates, legislation (such as the Education for All Handicapped Children act), and the results of court cases (Sheff v O'Neil, and others) have dramatically driven up the cost of education. Education budgets in most towns have grown MUCH more quickly than inflation.

.

x2

[HeadedWest]

Originally Posted by mlassoff

My bet that primal would be:

• Increased number of pensioners
• Increased number of state workers
• Significantly higher salaries (in adjusted dollars) for state workers

This, plus high pension payouts per salary dollar due to very generous retirement terms.

[MrGompers]

In regards to education in 1986 CT made some changes in an effort to attract and improve the quality of teachers. Among those efforts were increases in salary. I can not find a news paper article going that far back, but I did find this report online.

Recruiting and Retaining Teachers: What Matters Most and What Can Government Do? | The Forum for Education and Democracy

CT named their program BEST (better educator support and training) if you want to read that section you can search for best or (best) using CTL+F (the document doesn't have page numbers)

There is more info in appendix A on this document which notes some of the changes CT made.

North Carolina made similar changes at the same time so data in appendix A references both states.

Quote

"Such teacher reforms began paying off early on. After Connecticut’s $300 million 1986 initiative, for instance, the higher salaries and improved pay equity, combined with the tougher preparation and licensing standards and an end to emergency hiring, swiftly raised teacher quality. An analysis found, in fact, that within three years, the state not only had eliminated teacher shortages, even in cities, but also had created surpluses (Connecticut State Department of Education, 1990)"

Also, when I was in college at CCSU in the 90's the university announced they wanted at least 50% of their professors to have PHD's. Those PHD professors aren't cheap. This may have been restricted to the business school though I don't remember.

There's some interesting info on CT in this New York Times article dated Sept 6, 1987

http://www.nytimes.com/1987/09/06/ny...r-tax-cut.html

Towards the end of the article it also mentions CT's teacher reforms including the increased salaries.

(The quote is talking about where some of the surplus will go.)

"The largest portion - $193 million - will go into the state's Educational Excellence Trust Fund to be available in future years to help municipalities pay for higher teacher salaries established last year by the legislature."

[Konig1985]

Originally Posted by clutchrider

I would love for the income tax to disappear and the sales tax be raised. I'd honestly be OK with an 8-9% sales tax simply because you can take home more of your earned money and spend the tax on things you buy instead. Who knows it may make some people more fiscally responsible when it comes to tossing money at consumer products without care. But who am I kidding, the state will just raise the sales tax and keep taking over 30% of your income.

Fat chance seeing that happening unless the government can collect all the internet taxes owed. Amazon is just tip of the iceberg.

[bobtn]

Originally Posted by mlassoff

There are many factors leading to decline, despite increased tax receipts--

1) We now pay for expanded police departments that retired 30 years ago, one that retired 10 years ago and the one currently working. Expanding an unsustainable pension and insurance obligations are costing us QOL and increased taxes.

2) There are more poor than during the pre-income tax modern period. This stresses state resources.

3) The infrastucture that was passable 25 years ago, is now in crisis state.

4) We're paying municipal workers, relatively, higher salaries and the upward pressure continues. $90K to be an only moderately experienced railroad conductor? Really? Cops making $150K? I don't begrudge anyone a living, but municipal salaries are getting out of hand.

5) Federal mandates, legislation (such as the Education for All Handicapped Children act), and the results of court cases (Sheff v O'Neil, and others) have dramatically driven up the cost of education. Education budgets in most towns have grown MUCH more quickly than inflation.

Something's got to give.

.

Just my $.02...

IMO, in every state, every government employee, even if unionized, should via laws/amendments be banned from using collective bargaining to negotiate Health Insurance. It should be tied directly to private employer median percentage paid in the nation. The last study I saw showed employees on average pay 28% of the premiums, and that should be required from all government employees. So if the family plan costs $2k/month, employee deduction from paycheck each month = $560.

Do the same with a 401k, and have no pension. Private sector median employer match becomes, automatically, government employee match.

Allow them to negotiate gross pay. Nothing else. FDR was correct to oppose, on principle, unions in the public sector, who use their votes as extortion against the true public servents, a/k/a the tax-paying public.

[mlassoff]

Originally Posted by bobtn

Do the same with a 401k, and have no pension. Private sector median employer match becomes, automatically, government employee match.

I've never understood why a well managed 401K wasn't appropriate for state workers. I've done much better in my 401K (albeit I have probably 20 years before I want to retire), than I would have done in a pension plan.

[nep321]

Originally Posted by mlassoff

I've never understood why a well managed 401K wasn't appropriate for state workers. I've done much better in my 401K (albeit I have probably 20 years before I want to retire), than I would have done in a pension plan.

The 401k is one of the worst things that happened to America. It was introduced by Reagan in the 80's in an effort to have more faith in free markets and phase out the traditional pension. I think we need to return to the days of the pension, which provides stable, guaranteed income. A 401k fluctuates way too much, with peaks and valleys, and doesn't provide income indefinitely, after retirement. Most people would prefer a nice pension over a 401k.

[mlassoff]

Originally Posted by nep321

The 401k is one of the worst things that happened to America. It was introduced by Reagan in the 80's in an effort to have more faith in free markets and phase out the traditional pension. I think we need to return to the days of the pension, which provides stable, guaranteed income. A 401k fluctuates way too much, with peaks and valleys, and doesn't provide income indefinitely, after retirement. Most people would prefer a nice pension over a 401k.

Most 401K programs include many options for how you invest-- Providing a strategy for all levels of risk tolerance. When I worked for big companies-- and now with my own-- the plans included a company match that immediately doubled the money I put in.

No risk... No reward.

[Wilton2ParkAve]

Originally Posted by nep321

The 401k is one of the worst things that happened to America. It was introduced by Reagan in the 80's in an effort to have more faith in free markets and phase out the traditional pension. I think we need to return to the days of the pension, which provides stable, guaranteed income. A 401k fluctuates way too much, with peaks and valleys, and doesn't provide income indefinitely, after retirement. Most people would prefer a nice pension over a 401k.

Except for the taxpayers that support it, since pensions resemble a ponzi scheme that are unsustainable long term unless the employee base expands in perpetuity. Retirement ages also need to be pushed out to keep plans solvent.

I'm not sure how any municipality ever approved a pension for employees that are expected to live in retirement for more years than they actually worked. Totally unsustainable.

Pensions are investing in the same securities as 401k's.

[Mr_250]

Originally Posted by nep321

The 401k is one of the worst things that happened to America. It was introduced by Reagan in the 80's in an effort to have more faith in free markets and phase out the traditional pension. I think we need to return to the days of the pension, which provides stable, guaranteed income. A 401k fluctuates way too much, with peaks and valleys, and doesn't provide income indefinitely, after retirement. Most people would prefer a nice pension over a 401k.

Who will pay for these pensions?

An interesting little bit of knowledge I learned was from my brother. He is a recent State employee and I asked him about why they are hiring so many people. He said that many of the State workers are planning on retiring in the next 2-3 years so they are trying to get people trained ahead of time. Which good planning, however, if the amount of people they expect to retire and CT has to pay more pensions, it will put a major strain on the already weak economy.

I think a 401K is a great system. If you know how to manage it well, put the correct amount of funds and keep an eye on it you can do well.

Most people would prefer a Ferrari to a Kia, but hey, you take what you can get and make the most of it.