[MrGompers]

Originally Posted by Raider111

holy sht, here's the friggin link already.

Teachers' Retirement Board

It's for all teachers before or after 19whatever. GeoffD already posted snippets and did the math for you.
I know, I sleep with a teacher every night (the same one).
Anything else?

I don't know why you're so hard headed. I already know the year cut offs. I already said that legacy employees can have higher amounts, but no matter how you spin it any teacher hired after july 1, 2011 will never get those types of retirement numbers and percentages.

You're wife must have been hired before 1984. If you and your wife are that old then you should also remember that in the 1980's teachers and some other municipal employees were given a choice to join the state retirement fund or remain in their own "legacy fund" which was administered by the TRB or in some instances by the cities themselves.

Every once in a while a legacy employee shows up in the system. There's not many left.

If you are going to constantly nag and whine about benefits you need to start with the facts. IF you go into a union negotiation with that attitude nothing will get accomplished. It gets very tiring hearing all the misinformation that is being spread and I'm not even a Govt employee so I don't really give a ****.

[cttransplant85]

Originally Posted by Henry10

I posted another link sometime ago, basically making the same point:

CT pays its public employees more than it should -- right now 25-46% more than private sector, apples to apples.

IOW -- CT can lower compensation of public employees by at least 20-25% and not fear loss of employees.

CT News Junkie | Study: State Worker Benefits Are 25-46 Percent Above Private Sector in Connecticut

Plus there's just too damn many of them. Florida, whos incomes in the metros have largely caught up to CT's and actually has pretty damn good public schools. Has 98k states employees, CT has 52k BUT Florida has 20.5 million people and CT only has 3.5 million. How the hell does CT justify having that many state employees? It makes no sense.

[Wilton2ParkAve]

Originally Posted by MrGompers

LOL those numbers still are thru 2022, but you told us the Republicans were going to balance the budget in one or two years. Also, the accounting tricks weren't summed. Trust me that was done on purpose. ITs very simple to sum a column in MS Excel. They didn't forget to sum the **** out of those employee savings columns though.

Seriously reading comprehension is eluding you. The $2 billion is over just two years, the 2022 date refers to the state extending its worker benefits contract — which otherwise would expire in 2022 — until 2027. Let me repeat that we are not your safety net.

[MrGompers]

Originally Posted by Wilton2ParkAve

Seriously reading comprehension is eluding you. The $2 billion is over just two years, the 2022 date refers to the state extending its worker benefits contract — which otherwise would expire in 2022 — until 2027. Let me repeat that we are not your safety net.

I hope they don't give up one thin dime because I know it bothers you so much. Whether they get want they want or not your taxes will never go down.

[Wilton2ParkAve]

Originally Posted by MrGompers

I hope they don't give up one thin dime because I know it bothers you so much. Whether they get want they want or not your taxes will never go down.

Keep it up and there won't be anyone here to pay what you think is due the state can adapt now and salvage some retirement benefits or be forced to take a huge haircut later. Thanks for playing though.

[cttransplant85]

The truth is 52k state employees are holding the state hostage. These people need to be dealt with sooner rather than later. They will all be retired soon voting red playing golf living in Florida, the courts will take their side saying well they were promised these benefits. Vote out and certainly dont vote for anyone who will cave to them or else the state will look like Detroit in short time.

[Raider111]

Originally Posted by MrGompers

I don't know why you're so hard headed. I already know the year cut offs. I already said that legacy employees can have higher amounts, but no matter how you spin it any teacher hired after july 1, 2011 will never get those types of retirement numbers and percentages.

You're wife must have been hired before 1984. If you and your wife are that old then you should also remember that in the 1980's teachers and some other municipal employees were given a choice to join the state retirement fund or remain in their own "legacy fund" which was administered by the TRB or in some instances by the cities themselves.

Every once in a while a legacy employee shows up in the system. There's not many left.

If you are going to constantly nag and whine about benefits you need to start with the facts. IF you go into a union negotiation with that attitude nothing will get accomplished. It gets very tiring hearing all the misinformation that is being spread and I'm not even a Govt employee so I don't really give a ****.

You lost me now. In one ear out the other. The site was provided and has links detailing benefits. Not sure what the problem is. I don't know about this 1984 thing, the wife was hired well after that, wasn't even in HS yet in 84. It applies to all teachers now, old, new, and in between.

I wasn't nagging or whining about anything, probably confused with someone else.

[Robert137]

Originally Posted by MrGompers

I don't see how that is possible. Perhaps if you are talking about employees that were hired BEFORE 1984 and BEFORE the various teacher pension funds were rolled up into one state teachers pension fund.

I would love to see a link that supports 70% or 75% of salary as a pension for teachers or other Govt employees.

See this.

TRB: Normal Retirement

The document is a general summary of the Teachers retirement Plan. The 75% applies if the teacher has at 35 years of service and retires at "normal retirement." Most retiring teachers won't get this much.

[CTartist]

I see everyone posting about how many state employees there are. I wanted to see for myself if CT is way higher which I assume we would be. Here is what I found on "governing.com". They are just about the facts/numbers without a political tilt.

The page I have it on is CT but I am not sure if it will show up that way if you click on it. (you need to select CT in the drop down box)

Comparison vs. National Averages

CT Full Time Employees per 100,000.......530
National Average per 100,000.................537
CT Monthly Payroll per 100,000...............$449
National Average per 100,000.................$507

These numbers don't look outrageous compared with other states. So my question is what is going on that things seem/are so bad.

States With Most Government Employees: Totals and Per Capita Rates

[East of the River]

Originally Posted by cttransplant85

Plus there's just too damn many of them. Florida, whos incomes in the metros have largely caught up to CT's and actually has pretty damn good public schools. Has 98k states employees, CT has 52k BUT Florida has 20.5 million people and CT only has 3.5 million. How the hell does CT justify having that many state employees? It makes no sense.

It's a little misleading thanks to FL having county government. If you add local and state employees together CT has 166,000 and FL has over 800,000. they are lower but it'more like 4.7/100 for CT and 4/100 for FL.

Also in CT about 2/3 of those employees are related to education less then half in FL.

For Schools CT is always one of the top states FL is usually below midpack somewhere from #28-32 depending on the study. All the families I know with kids who have moved to FL have sent there kids to private school.