I'll Regret This Election Post, But... (insurance, how much, employment)

[CAjerseychick]

Originally Posted by redguard57

We voted for 3 ballot measures that call for spending money, but we turned down the measure needed to raise money. I voted no on 96, 98 & 99, because I knew 97 was going down. I would have voted yes on all if I'd thought 97 would pass. I voted yes on 97.

Where is the money going to come from for the veteran's counselors, the dropout prevention program and the summer camp run by OSU? Oh don't worry, the lottery will pay for everything. Yeah, right.

Typical Americans. We love our bennies but want to avoid paying the bills on them.

we actually agree on something - we voted the same..

[jjpop]

I voted yes on 97, with the full acknowledgement that it is the PERS tax. The PERS obligation is not going away, and the Oregon Supreme Court has made it clear that the State will need to figure out a way to meet the contractual obligation.

Folks, it's going to come via taxes from the public and business one way or another. With all its flaws, 97 seemed like a way to do it to me. Not a great way, but a way.

What the State really needs to do is stop agreeing to pay the employee's PERS contribution (6%) along with the employer's portion when they negotiate the labor agreements, but the unions will never let go of that 35-year-old concession. As a former AFSCME member, I can tell you that would cause a strike.

[PNW-type-gal]

I voted for both school measures because our schools need all the help they can get. This is about the only way to tell the state "we want money spent HERE."

[Larry Caldwell]

Originally Posted by jjpop

I voted yes on 97, with the full acknowledgement that it is the PERS tax. The PERS obligation is not going away, and the Oregon Supreme Court has made it clear that the State will need to figure out a way to meet the contractual obligation.

Folks, it's going to come via taxes from the public and business one way or another. With all its flaws, 97 seemed like a way to do it to me. Not a great way, but a way.

What the State really needs to do is stop agreeing to pay the employee's PERS contribution (6%) along with the employer's portion when they negotiate the labor agreements, but the unions will never let go of that 35-year-old concession. As a former AFSCME member, I can tell you that would cause a strike.

There is no employer's portion, and hasn't been since 2003. The guaranteed 8% earnings were cancelled in 1996 in favor of a market based earnings rate. Government agencies, not just the state, find themselves in a tough spot because they didn't fund the retirement program when it was earned. Instead, they just pushed the bill down the road. Now the bill is due. Life is tough. The current retirement system is entirely employee funded, and doesn't cost the state anything. They will just have to tighten their belt until the original pension system is paid off. Since the only people still in the original pension system where hired over 20 years ago, and none of their contributions have gone into the original system for the last 13 years, annual payments will ease rapidly over the next decade as retirees die of old age.

The problem with the new taxes is that they don't say, "oh, we only need this money for 15 years and then the tax will be cancelled. No, they want to raise the tax forever. It has nothing to do with paying for PERS and everything to do with spending more money. Put a tax increase on the ballot that drops 4% a year for 25 years and then is cancelled completely, and people might be more inclined to vote for it. In 25 years the state will be completely out from under its PERS obligation.

[BLAZER PROPHET]

Originally Posted by jjpop

I voted yes on 97, with the full acknowledgement that it is the PERS tax. The PERS obligation is not going away, and the Oregon Supreme Court has made it clear that the State will need to figure out a way to meet the contractual obligation.

Folks, it's going to come via taxes from the public and business one way or another. With all its flaws, 97 seemed like a way to do it to me. Not a great way, but a way.

What the State really needs to do is stop agreeing to pay the employee's PERS contribution (6%) along with the employer's portion when they negotiate the labor agreements, but the unions will never let go of that 35-year-old concession. As a former AFSCME member, I can tell you that would cause a strike.

When Detroit went bankrupt and bloated pensions were reduced about 40%, it turned the city's economy around and it now starting to flourish.


While Gov. Brown will not do it, I would declare PERS to be insolvent and then let a bankruptcy judge reset it to fit the state's budget. It was a deal with the devil from the very beginning and is an anchor around our necks.

[jjpop]

Originally Posted by Larry Caldwell

There is no employer's portion, and hasn't been since 2003. The guaranteed 8% earnings were cancelled in 1996 in favor of a market based earnings rate. Government agencies, not just the state, find themselves in a tough spot because they didn't fund the retirement program when it was earned. Instead, they just pushed the bill down the road. Now the bill is due. Life is tough. The current retirement system is entirely employee funded, and doesn't cost the state anything. They will just have to tighten their belt until the original pension system is paid off. Since the only people still in the original pension system where hired over 20 years ago, and none of their contributions have gone into the original system for the last 13 years, annual payments will ease rapidly over the next decade as retirees die of old age.

The problem with the new taxes is that they don't say, "oh, we only need this money for 15 years and then the tax will be cancelled. No, they want to raise the tax forever. It has nothing to do with paying for PERS and everything to do with spending more money. Put a tax increase on the ballot that drops 4% a year for 25 years and then is cancelled completely, and people might be more inclined to vote for it. In 25 years the state will be completely out from under its PERS obligation.

I thought at least Tier 1 people still got the guarantee. Is that wrong? I was never Tier 1 or Tier 2, so I didn't pay strict attention to a benefit that I was never going to get.

And I can tell you that when I was a State employee in 2011 (then subsequently laid off due to the budget), the State picked up my 6% OPSRP contribution. That was on top of the pension that I was enrolled in, but I'll never collect on the pension because I did not have the vesting required of Tier 3/OPSRP PERS participants--I was laid off about 15 months before I would have been vested. I made absolutely no contribution to my retirement while I was a PERS employee, but recently rolled over the OPSRP portion into my IRA--to the tune of about $18k. Not great, but not bad for working for the State for only 3 1/2 years and contributing zero. I thank the Obama stock market run-up for that.

[jjpop]

Originally Posted by BLAZER PROPHET

When Detroit went bankrupt and bloated pensions were reduced about 40%, it turned the city's economy around and it now starting to flourish.


While Gov. Brown will not do it, I would declare PERS to be insolvent and then let a bankruptcy judge reset it to fit the state's budget. It was a deal with the devil from the very beginning and is an anchor around our necks.

Well, if she won't do it, maybe her successor will... At some point it will break, and I think that will be before the Tier 1 and Tier 2 employees die off.

[redguard57]

I'm a member of the PERS system. I was hired in 2012, so I'm part of phase 3 or whatever. Phase 1, which ended in 1996 I think, is what's messing everything up from what I can tell.

What's sad is that I'll be the one to pay for someone else's folly, because they pay us less on the argument that we get almost double our salary in the form of benefits, notably the PERS contribution.

To tell the truth I really don't understand PERS, how it works, or what the effing problem with it is, but I'm quite sure it will be "fixed" in such a way that I don't get a pension. I mean, I'm from Texas where teachers don't even pay into social security. How it works here is beyond me, I just hear an administrator knash his teeth every once in a while.

[jjpop]

Originally Posted by redguard57

I'm a member of the PERS system. I was hired in 2012, so I'm part of phase 3 or whatever. Phase 1, which ended in 1996 I think, is what's messing everything up from what I can tell.

What's sad is that I'll be the one to pay for someone else's folly, because they pay us less on the argument that we get almost double our salary in the form of benefits, notably the PERS contribution.

To tell the truth I really don't understand PERS, how it works, or what the effing problem with it is, but I'm quite sure it will be "fixed" in such a way that I don't get a pension. I mean, I'm from Texas where teachers don't even pay into social security. How it works here is beyond me, I just hear an administrator knash his teeth every once in a while.

This is what they told me when I was a State employee. And you know what--I insured my family of 4 for zero employee contribution and very low co-pays and did not have to contribute to PERS, so it really was like getting paid more. I was pretty happy there.

However, after getting laid off I got another job in my field paying about 25% more than when I left the State. Even though I had to pay a portion of medical/dental and retirement, I still made out better than the measly wage I was paid by the State. Financially, getting laid off was the best thing that could have happened to me.

[Larry Caldwell]

Originally Posted by BLAZER PROPHET

When Detroit went bankrupt and bloated pensions were reduced about 40%, it turned the city's economy around and it now starting to flourish.


While Gov. Brown will not do it, I would declare PERS to be insolvent and then let a bankruptcy judge reset it to fit the state's budget. It was a deal with the devil from the very beginning and is an anchor around our necks.

States cannot declare bankruptcy.