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.
Will upstate be seeing large reductions in aid like LI districts will? I can only assume, given our teachers are paid more generously than upstate, that we'll be feeling the pension shortfall more than our upstate counterparts?
Why are they expecting/demanding these rates of return in this day and age:
Quote:
each will have to pay a rate of about 17.53 percent of every pension dollar paid for the 2014-15 fiscal year. That's up from the current rate of 16.25 percent.
As buckthedog noted above, the most recent real rate of return was 10.38%.
They just want to slaughter the taxpayers, that's why ... with completely UNREALISTIC and UNFAIR expectations. We have to fund our own retirements too, you know!
Can't we change the law that they cannot be allowed to pick numbers out of the sky and do this to us?
If the teachers/superintendents/administrators must have these pie in the sky unrealistic rates of return, let THEM fund it, since THEY are the only ones who are going to be benefiting from it!
Why are they expecting/demanding these rates of return in this day and age:
As buckthedog noted above, the most recent real rate of return was 10.38%.
They just want to slaughter the taxpayers, that's why ... with completely UNREALISTIC and UNFAIR expectations. We have to fund our own retirements too, you know!
Can't we change the law that they cannot be allowed to pick numbers out of the sky and do this to us?
If the teachers/superintendents/administrators must have these pie in the sky unrealistic rates of return, let THEM fund it, since THEY are the only ones who are going to be benefiting from it!
Taxpayers paid 6.19 of every pension dollar in 2008-2009, now with a 10.38% return in the general fund (I assume the teachers fund is the same) and the taxpayer rate has tripled, I think we have a rather large problem.
Taxpayers paid 6.19 of every pension dollar in 2008-2009, now with a 10.38% return in the general fund (I assume the teachers fund is the same) and the taxpayer rate has tripled, I think we have a rather large problem.
No large problem. The revenue model on LI is they need money, to continue living fat, dumb, and happy, you pay. They raise your taxes. You don't pay your taxes, they take your house. No problem, as long as you keep paying.
It seems like I'll have to work longer to keep on paying these onerous property taxes, while funding some wonderfully plush retirements for my kids teachers. It's for the kids, right?
No large problem. The revenue model on LI is they need money, to continue living fat, dumb, and happy, you pay. They raise your taxes. You don't pay your taxes, they take your house. No problem, as long as you keep paying.
It seems like I'll have to work longer to keep on paying these onerous property taxes, while funding some wonderfully plush retirements for my kids teachers. It's for the kids, right?
Actually there WILL be a problem in the future, as many won't be able to pay their taxes, along with new buyers won't buy houses here, because of the high taxes. Its a time bomb waiting to explode.
Will upstate be seeing large reductions in aid like LI districts will? I can only assume, given our teachers are paid more generously than upstate, that we'll be feeling the pension shortfall more than our upstate counterparts?
yesterday's snoozeday had a graphic of NY state with the changes by region. Upstate did not do as badly as LI, (40 to 50 percent will be getting less) , but it seems no part of the state did well, including NYC. That was a surprise to me.
I always believed Cuomo wanted to punish LI alone for its high salaries and pension costs, but even in the Adirondacks, where teachers earn $30,000 to $40,000, they are seeing cuts (I think 46% of schools will see less).
Remember his mandates warrented much higher costs (something like $56K per year for one special ed student now).
What upsets me is districts like Brentwood are still getting increases (they are getting around 250 million in state aid) while other districts are getting significant cuts. We all know some of this $$ is paying for Tropicana OJ in the free breakfasts, something we can no longer afford at home.
Throwing money at a problem. Not the answer.
yesterday's snoozeday had a graphic of NY state with the changes by region. Upstate did not do as badly as LI, (40 to 50 percent will be getting less) , but it seems no part of the state did well, including NYC. That was a surprise to me.
I always believed Cuomo wanted to punish LI alone for its high salaries and pension costs, but even in the Adirondacks, where teachers earn $30,000 to $40,000, they are seeing cuts (I think 46% of schools will see less).
Remember his mandates warrented much higher costs (something like $56K per year for one special ed student now).
What upsets me is districts like Brentwood are still getting increases (they are getting around 250 million in state aid) while other districts are getting significant cuts. We all know some of this $$ is paying for Tropicana OJ in the free breakfasts, something we can no longer afford at home.
Throwing money at a problem. Not the answer.
It was in the Feb 6 Newsday, actually some of the regions in NY didn't fare much better than LI, Albany area, Hudson. Cuomo indicated the cuts were because of drops in enrollment, makes sense.
I don't believe it has anything to do with salary levels but a lot to do with balancing the playing field for less wealthy districts. They should be doing more about addressing their costs rather than whining about state aid cuts. Spending $20K per student, they have bigger problems than just state aid.
Special ed costs per student are not $56K, more in the high $20K's.
I'll admit that I don't know much about finances, the market, and pensions. But my thought when scanning all these posts was what if public pensions were not defined payouts (i.e.. a specific dollar amount per year) but a share of the total pot (pension fund), so that when the market does poorly (and the fund becomes worth less), payees still get their share of the pot. The size of the pot would be smaller, so a recipient's payout becomes proportionally smaller. This way the individual districts wouldn't have to come up and make up the shortfall. I don't know if this makes sense to all of you, but that's how I envision a solution that would make sense for recipients and taxpayers alike.
I'll admit that I don't know much about finances, the market, and pensions. But my thought when scanning all these posts was what if public pensions were not defined payouts (i.e.. a specific dollar amount per year) but a share of the total pot (pension fund), so that when the market does poorly (and the fund becomes worth less), payees still get their share of the pot. The size of the pot would be smaller, so a recipient's payout becomes proportionally smaller. This way the individual districts wouldn't have to come up and make up the shortfall. I don't know if this makes sense to all of you, but that's how I envision a solution that would make sense for recipients and taxpayers alike.
You're talking about defined benefit plans. The pension was/is an upfront contractually agreed upon percentage of the average of your final 2-5 years of employment (depending on the entity); usually the longer you're employed there, the higher your pays gets=higher pension.
Example: your average annual salary for the last five years is $90,000 and your agreed upon percentage is 60% (varies, some are lower, some are higher!), then your lifetime pension is $54,000/yr (plus Social Security). There is an assumed rate of return for the monies invested by the entity in the retirement fund. When that rate is achieved or exceeded, all is well; when that return falls below the assumed rate, the entity has to make up the shortfall. The amounts are calculated by actuaries.
In the corporate world, the end of the defined benefit plans was introduced quite some time ago (depending on contract negotiations, etc.), in part because of the inability to properly predict investment returns and the subsequent financial burden on the entity. In its place came the defined contribution plans - you get what you (and the entity) put in plus (or minus) any returns, and there's your individual pot. Pretty much the advent of the 401(k) (there are a few other options but I'm trying to keep it simple here)
However, many or most (union) contracts for government workers, plus schools and police still have defined benefit plans in place. Some have been negotiated downwards, but unless they're able to establish a new tier with a radically changed structure, we're going to be laboring under this system for some time. And increased longevity only burdens the system further.
From what I've heard from the Superintendent of North Babylon Schools (Pat Godek), our school tax dollars don't necessarily stay on LI. We're subsidizing upstate schools as well. If our tax dollars stayed here just for LI schools, I don't think we'd be in quite as bad a mess as we now are.
That aside, NY State declaring bankruptcy is the solution.
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.
