[beerbeer]

We didn’t leave Connecticut. Connecticut left us.

But Connecticut’s political class has made it clear that people like us are no longer welcomed. They have created an environment that is hostile toward business, resulting in anemic long-term economic growth. Simultaneously, they have grown state government spending at a faster pace, driven by outrageously generous and unsustainable state employee union contracts.

The twin demographic trends — retirees and young people leaving Connecticut — ought to ring alarms at the state capitol. Unfortunately, the political agenda of the new governor and legislature is simply more of the same. After decades of demonstrably failed policies, we had hoped for a different outcome that held the prospect for a new direction. But like many, we viewed the most recent state election as a tipping point.


https://www.courant.com/opinion/insi...rvhm-story.html

[kidyankee764]

Originally Posted by beerbeer

We didn’t leave Connecticut. Connecticut left us.

But Connecticut’s political class has made it clear that people like us are no longer welcomed. They have created an environment that is hostile toward business, resulting in anemic long-term economic growth. Simultaneously, they have grown state government spending at a faster pace, driven by outrageously generous and unsustainable state employee union contracts.

The twin demographic trends — retirees and young people leaving Connecticut — ought to ring alarms at the state capitol. Unfortunately, the political agenda of the new governor and legislature is simply more of the same. After decades of demonstrably failed policies, we had hoped for a different outcome that held the prospect for a new direction. But like many, we viewed the most recent state election as a tipping point.


https://www.courant.com/opinion/insi...rvhm-story.html

This is exactly how I feel. I like Connecticut, but resent the politicians who have made it what it is.

[Lincolnian]

CT's economic problems have no easy solutions. The state has restructured pension plans for newer hires. There should be a plan to get retired workers off of private healthcare plans when they become Medicare eligible. Covering the cost of the supplementals in lieu of redundant private insurance might be a worthwhile bridge avenue to explore. In any case all new hires should be required to go on Medicare when they retire and pay the full cost of their insurance if they retire prior to Medicare eligibility.

The teacher's pension needs a transition plan to a 401k type plan. Ideally individual municipalities could decide what portion of employee contributions they would match similar to what takes place in the private sector. A key requirement would be switching teachers out of their plan into Social Security. Cooperation with the federal government to eliminate the Windfall Elimination Provision which penalizes teachers with a 40% reduction in their Social Security earnings is an essential change that would be needed along with the switch to SS. However, municipalities would be responsible for the employer contribution to SS. Currently they do not pay anything toward SS because the contribution toward the pension plan is supposed to be made by the state since they are required by statue to pay pension obligations. There does appear to be a method for making this switch retroactive in the statue using pension contributions however this still wouldn't solve the problem funding the pensions of those already retired, many of whom, neither paid in nor are entitled to receive any Social Security.

[SteveM85]

Originally Posted by Lincolnian

The teacher's pension needs a transition plan to a 401k type plan. Ideally individual municipalities could decide what portion of employee contributions they would match similar to what takes place in the private sector. A key requirement would be switching teachers out of their plan into Social Security. Cooperation with the federal government to eliminate the Windfall Elimination Provision which penalizes teachers with a 40% reduction in their Social Security earnings is an essential change that would be needed along with the switch to SS. However, municipalities would be responsible for the employer contribution to SS. Currently they do not pay anything toward SS because the contribution toward the pension plan is supposed to be made by the state since they are required by statue to pay pension obligations. There does appear to be a method for making this switch retroactive in the statue using pension contributions however this still wouldn't solve the problem funding the pensions of those already retired, many of whom, neither paid in nor are entitled to receive any Social Security.

I's amazing so many espouse the virtues of public education in CT as if nothing in the world compares, yet are quick to rip the hearts out the middle class worker by taking away their pensions, in this case teachers who are critical to providing that wonderful education in CT.
NO retroactivity, if someone worked their entire careers under the guise of a pension, then they should be entitled to that pension. It wasn't their fault the state mismanaged. Put new hires in SS and a 401K and no pension, no problem.

[SteveM85]

Originally Posted by beerbeer

We didn’t leave Connecticut. Connecticut left us.

But Connecticut’s political class has made it clear that people like us are no longer welcomed. They have created an environment that is hostile toward business, resulting in anemic long-term economic growth. Simultaneously, they have grown state government spending at a faster pace, driven by outrageously generous and unsustainable state employee union contracts.

The twin demographic trends — retirees and young people leaving Connecticut — ought to ring alarms at the state capitol. Unfortunately, the political agenda of the new governor and legislature is simply more of the same. After decades of demonstrably failed policies, we had hoped for a different outcome that held the prospect for a new direction. But like many, we viewed the most recent state election as a tipping point.


https://www.courant.com/opinion/insi...rvhm-story.html

So what was the Vallo's problem? being rich and living in their beautifully built homes in Glastonbury wasn't enough? Many would give their right arm for that.
I feel so terrible for them. Damn those evil middle class state pensioners.

[Lincolnian]

Originally Posted by SteveM85

I's amazing so many espouse the virtues of public education in CT as if nothing in the world compares, yet are quick to rip the hearts out the middle class worker by taking away their pensions, in this case teachers who are critical to providing that wonderful education in CT.
NO retroactivity, if someone worked their entire careers under the guise of a pension, then they should be entitled to that pension. It wasn't their fault the state mismanaged. Put new hires in SS and a 401K and no pension, no problem.

I'm not advocating taking pensions away from existing teachers. It is a reality however, that the current plan for young teachers is problematic for them. If they leave teaching they received no SS security credit for the years they worked as a teacher. If they taught for under 10 years they are not vested and wouldn't receive a pension or SS for that service only a small lump sum. Additionally, those who work more than 10 years but less than 20 would have very small pensions and it is conceivable that they would have a number of years where they had Social Security earnings but the current Windfall Elimination Provision would reduce the SS they earned outside of teaching by 40% penalizing them for having worked a part of their career as a teacher. When the WEP was enacted the world was a very different place and that provision does not work properly for modern times.

Any changes for existing employees would have to be negotiated. Pensions of those retired need to be protected. Not yet hired employees are a different story. When it comes to healthcare I personally favor a move toward expanded Medicare. As a retired public employee, I do not see how I could advocate expanded Medicare without being willing to have it myself.

[SteveM85]

Originally Posted by Lincolnian

I'm not advocating taking pensions away from existing teachers. It is a reality however, that the current plan for young teachers is problematic for them. If they leave teaching they received no SS security credit for the years they worked as a teacher. If they taught for under 10 years they are not vested and wouldn't receive a pension or SS for that service only a small lump sum. Additionally, those who work more than 10 years but less than 20 would have very small pensions and it is conceivable that they would have a number of years where they had Social Security earnings but the current Windfall Elimination Provision would reduce the SS they earned outside of teaching by 40% penalizing them for having worked a part of their career as a teacher. When the WEP was enacted the world was a very different place and that provision does not work properly for modern times.

Any changes for existing employees would have to be negotiated. Pensions of those retired need to be protected. Not yet hired employees are a different story. When it comes to healthcare I personally favor a move toward expanded Medicare. As a retired public employee, I do not see how I could advocate expanded Medicare without being willing to have it myself.

I was just pointing out the hypocrisy of it all. I know YOU personally weren't advocating and I was referring to individuals closer to retirement age. I should have been more clear.
Fyi, I have no skin in the game. I'm not a public employee nor are any family members.

[MrGompers]

Originally Posted by SteveM85

I's amazing so many espouse the virtues of public education in CT as if nothing in the world compares, yet are quick to rip the hearts out the middle class worker by taking away their pensions, in this case teachers who are critical to providing that wonderful education in CT.
NO retroactivity, if someone worked their entire careers under the guise of a pension, then they should be entitled to that pension. It wasn't their fault the state mismanaged. Put new hires in SS and a 401K and no pension, no problem.

This is one of the biggest reasons Govt employees need unions, especially teachers. Most people also do not know that teachers do not pay into social security.



The pension issue isn't as big as people think because the owed money to vested employees are not due today nor tomorrow. They are due some time in the future. This is the "time value of money"
The news stories we read crying about pensions never mention this.



The actuaries have all this data. I would defer to them.

[MrGompers]

Originally Posted by beerbeer

We didn’t leave Connecticut. Connecticut left us.

But Connecticut’s political class has made it clear that people like us are no longer welcomed. They have created an environment that is hostile toward business, resulting in anemic long-term economic growth. Simultaneously, they have grown state government spending at a faster pace, driven by outrageously generous and unsustainable state employee union contracts.

The twin demographic trends — retirees and young people leaving Connecticut — ought to ring alarms at the state capitol. Unfortunately, the political agenda of the new governor and legislature is simply more of the same. After decades of demonstrably failed policies, we had hoped for a different outcome that held the prospect for a new direction. But like many, we viewed the most recent state election as a tipping point.


https://www.courant.com/opinion/insi...rvhm-story.html

Who gives a _______ ? More crying and whining from millionaires. They can take their ball and go home now.


Go start a business and make millions in Republican controlled West Virginia then get back to us.

[beerbeer]

Originally Posted by SteveM85

I's amazing so many espouse the virtues of public education in CT as if nothing in the world compares, yet are quick to rip the hearts out the middle class worker by taking away their pensions, in this case teachers who are critical to providing that wonderful education in CT.
NO retroactivity, if someone worked their entire careers under the guise of a pension, then they should be entitled to that pension. It wasn't their fault the state mismanaged. Put new hires in SS and a 401K and no pension, no problem.

NO ONE is taking away their pensions. But the corrupt relationship between the public sector unions and the Democrats has to end. It can be reformed or it can go bankrupt. Pick your poison.