Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
What I am saying is that politicans and idealogues lie. The cost of the pensions on a year to year basis are not as costly as people make them out to be. In fact if you convert individuals to a 401k which I am not against on a go forward basis the savings do not amount to that much if anything.
Next I am pointing out that many people who say things have no idea what they are talking about. They have no real understanding of the budget, no real understanding of the pension terms or how it is to be funded. They also do not understand when you have creditors and you want to default those creditors are involved in how you disburse funds and assets.
I have 35 years of contributions to the pension in which the State dictated the terms of what I would receive. See I am not in a union and was told that I must contribute to a plan with certain terms. I am fine with that. Give me 35/55 and move me to a 401k going forward. I will happily sign up for the 401k plan that exists in state government where I contribute 5% of my pay since I currently contribute 7% and the State gives me a match of 8% because they currently contribute 4% of my pay for the pension.
For those that are unaware the State 401k type plan is called the Alternative Benfit Plan. Feel free to check it out.
People must be fine with it because their is no public outrage to change it and Christie never mentions it.
the "benefit" of converting to a 401k approach isn't so much annual savings as it is better predictability of future expenses. you're removing much of the variability from the state, and pushing it to the workers.
companies don't change to a 401k because it's necessarily cheaper, they change because it's more predictable. it changes your cash flow and it's accounting trickery, really. if you contribute 4% of employees' salaries to a pension or you match 4% of employees' salary to a 401k, you're spending the same amoutn in either case each year. but you also know exactly how to project what you'll need 5 years from now, because you don't have to factor in gains or losses of a pension plan since that's no longer your concern.
i'm not opposed to switching to the 401k model for state and local employees either. i just don't think it's as beneficial as people perceive.
Per the Governor the required pension contribution for the PERS-State, State Poice and Teachers pension was either $654 or 698 million. One of those numbers was for 2014 and one for 2015 budgets.
The State budget for 2015 is $34 billion. I have no idea what all the local BOE budgets amount to but as you can see the pension contribution is not a large % of the total budget.
Per the Governor the required pension contribution for the PERS-State, State Poice and Teachers pension was either $654 or 698 million. One of those numbers was for 2014 and one for 2015 budgets.
The State budget for 2015 is $34 billion. I have no idea what all the local BOE budgets amount to but as you can see the pension contribution is not a large % of the total budget.
I'm not asking you what the state has budgeted for it, as that's a totally different thing. You said that the number that was cited for the total cost of pensions was false and just me lying. So what's the total cost?
I don't know why they didn't. maybe because a credit rating downgrade isn't truly that large of a deal to them?
i'd love for the state to take measures to shore things up.
my personal opinion - things would have to be near the cliff for the state to take action.
i don't have greater confidence than the agencies do. i think the downgrades are appropriate. but we weren't downgraded to junk. we're just not top tier anymore.
Bingo! Crisis Management FTW! That never ends well for taxpayers.
That is the cost of the required funding. Are you asking what would be needed to make up the 20 plus years of payments that were missed because that is a different question.
That is the cost of the required funding. Are you asking what would be needed to make up the 20 plus years of payments that were missed because that is a different question.
I notice you're still not answering. Any reason for that?
I will answer your question as still as understand what it is. Are you asking me what the normal required pension payment is or what the pension payment is that is needed to makle up for 20 years of missed payments?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
