I'll Regret This Election Post, But... (Portland, Salem: homes, elementary schools, taxes)

[Larry Caldwell]

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.

No, you are not a member of the PERS system. It was abolished in 2003. Your employer is picking up your individual contribution because if they paid the money to you they would have to also fund your SS retirement account, your workers comp and your unemployment insurance. They get a big discount by just putting the money in your savings account, plus they can whine about how generous they are and how ungrateful you are.

When you retire you can either take the money and run, or use it to fund an annuity. It's your money. They contribute nothing, though they try to make it sound like they do. The money is all part of your wages.

If you have co-workers who were hired before 2003, they still have a PERS account, but nothing they have earned since 2003 has gone into that account.

[PNW-type-gal]

Another good turnout in Oregon, 78.9% of eligible voters vs 56% nationwide. And remember that we have the motor voter law, so we have a higher percentage of eligible voters than most states do. All time high, interestingly enough, highest turnout was 85.6% in 1960, when Oregonians chose Nixon over JFK (hmmm, we lost that one).

[Silverfall]

Originally Posted by Larry Caldwell

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 canceled. 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 canceled 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 really struggled with Measure 97 and ultimately voted yes, despite thinking it wasn't a good law. As a parent with kids in middle and high school, what is happening in Oregon education is gravely concerning. I can tell you that my kids' teachers, for the most part, are good to exceptional. The education in Oregon isn't a teacher qualification issue. I can also tell you that there are 40-45 kids in the Algebra II classes at Sprague. This is a required class for graduation and teachers are totally overwhelmed and can't help all of those kids learn. My son is in Honors so has a smaller class. It isn't good for our country to churn out kids that have the ability to learn, but can't learn because their class sizes are too large and their teachers lack time to help them individually. It isn't good for us to have an ignorant population.


The schools can't keep going on like this. As a business owner, I'm highly opposed to gross receipts taxes, but something has to be done to lower class sizes. I see absolutely no action on the part of the government to reduce the income tax and create a needed sales tax. From my perspective Measure 97 was a sales tax in reverse. As such, I voted yes.

[Yankeemama]

Originally Posted by Silverfall

I really struggled with Measure 97 and ultimately voted yes, despite thinking it wasn't a good law. As a parent with kids in middle and high school, what is happening in Oregon education is gravely concerning. I can tell you that my kids' teachers, for the most part, are good to exceptional. The education in Oregon isn't a teacher qualification issue. I can also tell you that there are 40-45 kids in the Algebra II classes at Sprague. This is a required class for graduation and teachers are totally overwhelmed and can't help all of those kids learn. My son is in Honors so has a smaller class. It isn't good for our country to churn out kids that have the ability to learn, but can't learn because their class sizes are too large and their teachers lack time to help them individually. It isn't good for us to have an ignorant population.


The schools can't keep going on like this. As a business owner, I'm highly opposed to gross receipts taxes, but something has to be done to lower class sizes. I see absolutely no action on the part of the government to reduce the income tax and create a needed sales tax. From my perspective Measure 97 was a sales tax in reverse. As such, I voted yes.

Yes to everything you said. Oregon students need to be competitive with the rest of the country. Oregon needs to catch up with the times.

[jjpop]

Originally Posted by Larry Caldwell

No, you are not a member of the PERS system. It was abolished in 2003. Your employer is picking up your individual contribution because if they paid the money to you they would have to also fund your SS retirement account, your workers comp and your unemployment insurance. They get a big discount by just putting the money in your savings account, plus they can whine about how generous they are and how ungrateful you are.

When you retire you can either take the money and run, or use it to fund an annuity. It's your money. They contribute nothing, though they try to make it sound like they do. The money is all part of your wages.

If you have co-workers who were hired before 2003, they still have a PERS account, but nothing they have earned since 2003 has gone into that account.

I don't think that's 100% true. I started with the state in 2008 and ended my employment with them in 2011 and I have documentation that shows I was in PERS, which consisted partly of a pension (OPSRP) and partly of an individual account (IAP). It was the IAP that I was able to roll over--I think I misstated that in my previous post. Combined, they made up my account with the Public Employees Retirement System.

[Larry Caldwell]

Originally Posted by jjpop

I don't think that's 100% true. I started with the state in 2008 and ended my employment with them in 2011 and I have documentation that shows I was in PERS, which consisted partly of a pension (OPSRP) and partly of an individual account (IAP). It was the IAP that I was able to roll over--I think I misstated that in my previous post. Combined, they made up my account with the Public Employees Retirement System.

No, you are not in PERS. The Oregon Public Service Retirement Plan is an entirely employee funded retirement annuity, which you can either pay for with your IAP or take the cash and do without the annuity, your choice. I don't know what the vesting requirements are for OPSRP. In the old days you had to stick around for 5 years to get vested in PERS. In any case, the state contributed nothing to your retirement. It was all your money.

[jjpop]

Originally Posted by Larry Caldwell

No, you are not in PERS. The Oregon Public Service Retirement Plan is an entirely employee funded retirement annuity, which you can either pay for with your IAP or take the cash and do without the annuity, your choice. I don't know what the vesting requirements are for OPSRP. In the old days you had to stick around for 5 years to get vested in PERS. In any case, the state contributed nothing to your retirement. It was all your money.

Well my paperwork had "PERS" all over it. Don't you think it odd that they would bill themselves as "PERS" if I did not participate in PERS?

I certainly was not Tier 1 or 2, but I did participate in the PERS system, and I absolutely did not have payroll deductions to fund my IAP. Technically I suppose they could have grossed up my pay and deducted it, but it was never sold to employees as anything other than "the State's contribution to PERS on your behalf."

You can come back and continue to say I'm all wrong, but I know what I had. That's the last I have to say, probably much to the relief of other posters here...

[BLAZER PROPHET]

Originally Posted by Silverfall

I really struggled with Measure 97 and ultimately voted yes, despite thinking it wasn't a good law. As a parent with kids in middle and high school, what is happening in Oregon education is gravely concerning. I can tell you that my kids' teachers, for the most part, are good to exceptional. The education in Oregon isn't a teacher qualification issue. I can also tell you that there are 40-45 kids in the Algebra II classes at Sprague. This is a required class for graduation and teachers are totally overwhelmed and can't help all of those kids learn. My son is in Honors so has a smaller class. It isn't good for our country to churn out kids that have the ability to learn, but can't learn because their class sizes are too large and their teachers lack time to help them individually. It isn't good for us to have an ignorant population.


The schools can't keep going on like this. As a business owner, I'm highly opposed to gross receipts taxes, but something has to be done to lower class sizes. I see absolutely no action on the part of the government to reduce the income tax and create a needed sales tax. From my perspective Measure 97 was a sales tax in reverse. As such, I voted yes.

I agree about needing more money for education. But as you said, this was just too poorly written. But the pecking order was that it was a PERS funding bill first and foremost. Then after that, much would be funded back to unions. Then of anything was left over some might have filtered down to schools.

If they had wanted tax money earmarked for education alone that wasn't a punitive tax against business, I think it might have passed. I would have voted for something like that.

[oregonwoodsmoke]

Originally Posted by BLAZER PROPHET;4i6170181

I agree about needing more money for education. But as you said, this was just too poorly written. .........

There is obviously something wrong with education in Oregon, but I don't think it is money. Oregon keeps coming in at the bottom for education, but Oregon is right in the middle for dollars spent per student. So half the country is doing better with education but spending less money to get that result. Whatever it is that is wrong, that needs to be fixed and it is possible that shoveling more money at the problem isnt going to fix the problem.

[Silverfall]

Originally Posted by oregonwoodsmoke

There is obviously something wrong with education in Oregon, but I don't think it is money. Oregon keeps coming in at the bottom for education, but Oregon is right in the middle for dollars spent per student. So half the country is doing better with education but spending less money to get that result. Whatever it is that is wrong, that needs to be fixed and it is possible that shoveling more money at the problem isnt going to fix the problem.

In my opinion, it is classroom sizes. Oregon is always at the bottom and has been for years. We are asking way too much of our teachers. Many states have laws restricting the size of classrooms.

Cost per student isn't an effective way to look at school spending, in my opinion, due to cost of living/doing business. The cost of land for a school in Idaho, for example, will be much cheaper than the cost of buying a parcel of land here for a school. That will impact how much you have to get for a student just to pay for the physical building. Lower cost of living means you can have lower salaries, which again means you can spend less per student.

This article tries to address that disparity for comparison. It still doesn't address the land issues which are unique to Oregon with our UGB's. Schools absolutely need more money.