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.
I like Christie. But let's not forget he is a politician. I'm just happy if he isn't lying most of the time. And if I have to pick what he sticks to and what he lies about, personally I'll take the no new taxes over the doomed to failure pension system.
I was hoping that some one could break down the exact changes that will take place with the new legislation. I know that the retirement age was raised to 65, what age was it previously? Also how much do NJ publiic employees contribute to their health benefits andf pension now,as opposed to under the new rules.I have yet to read an article that outlines the changes.Thank You!
This is because it varies widely based on which group of employees you are talking about.
Originally Posted by tom1944 He vetoed the tax when it was passed. That is how.
"So he didn't pass a new tax. That is certainly not the same thing as giving tax breaks to anyone."
The Dems under corzine had the opportunity and the votes to pass the 'millionaires tax' but they chose not to.
Ask them why they decided not to tax 'millionaires".
Ask The D-party why they agreed with CC to oppose the millionaires tax. could it be they deferred the decision to CC at the expense of the voters just to create a rallying point and 'enemy of the people' to play out the D-party strategy of 'class warfare'?
No one is defending the dems. Yes they played political games. Do you deny the Christie told a bold face lie to teachers, cops and firemen regarding their pensions when he was running for office?
With this bill, he handed a nice payday to his buddy Norcross with the medical limitations. He's funneling clients into the norcross facility by not allowing treatment in PA right across the river. The provision was put in with no discussion or notification of the other legislators. Norcross gets whatever he wants and has already bought the Governor's office.
This part of the bill incenses me - both Christie and Sweeney have strong ties to Norcross. It would prevent workers from using hospitals outside of NJ, unless it is determined that similar care could not be provided in a NJ hospital.
I watched NJN's Senate hearing. The treasury department stated that they had done no cost analysis on this measure. Sen. Buono stated that she thought it would cost the state more, since out-of-network hospitals are paid less than in-network. She also pointed out that they would have to set up a whole government department to deal with people asking for treatment outside NJ.
So why would Sweeney add this provision to the bill when it would actually cost the State money? (not to mention that it is an unwarrented restriction on the right of an individual to pick where they want to go for medical care). Could it be that it would benefit their buddy George Norcross?
why would Sweeney add this provision to the bill when it would actually cost the State money?
To pay off Christie's buddy and benefactor by diverting all the health care business to his hospital firm. No one even is trying to deny the fact. Nor did most of the politicians even know about it. Sleazy politics at its best. what is really amazing is that they no longer even try to hide it thinking they have free reign to do whatever they please.
In a nut shell, its time for young people to leave NJ and let the Retirees pay for their own benefits. If you are young, DO NOT BUY in NJ as you will always be behind on the ponzi scheme now.
Why should any public employee NOT have to, at the very least, contribute to the majority of what their "benefits" cost - and well before they retire?
Time for public employees to wake up and get over the fact that they don't deserve anything more than, in my opinion, an increase in salary and should be on their own when it comes to funding their own health care - at the very least, 60% of it.
Let them save for their own retirement too. Like everyone else has to - and take the hits when the market crashes instead of being guaranteed the same rate of return while pretending the market didn't crash/dip/dive. And when the "company" they're getting matching contributions or any type of contribution toward their retirement fund from goes into bankruptcy and ceases to exist or is running in the deep red and has to make major cut-backs including "contributions" toward employee "benefits" is done away with....welcome to reality.
Why should any public employee NOT have to, at the very least, contribute to the majority of what their "benefits" cost - and well before they retire?
Time for public employees to wake up and get over the fact that they don't deserve anything more than, in my opinion, an increase in salary and should be on their own when it comes to funding their own health care - at the very least, 60% of it.
Let them save for their own retirement too. Like everyone else has to - and take the hits when the market crashes instead of being guaranteed the same rate of return while pretending the market didn't crash/dip/dive. And when the "company" they're getting matching contributions or any type of contribution toward their retirement fund from goes into bankruptcy and ceases to exist or is running in the deep red and has to make major cut-backs including "contributions" toward employee "benefits" is done away with....welcome to reality.
I do not think workers close to retirement should have a promised pension changed. They paid into it, and they should get it. However, I do think everyone needs to contribute more to keep the fund afloat.
I also believe retirees should contribute towards their health benefits like most of the real word does; free health benefits for life need to go away like the rest of the donosaurs. How many of you "Retirees" get a free "Premium" health benefit plan for life?
If you require a retiree to make a significant hc payment should they be able to return to their jobs first. They were promised free hc and may not have retired if they knew they were to pay. For example many would have waited until they were 65 for Medicare.
I do not think workers close to retirement should have a promised pension changed. They paid into it, and they should get it. However, I do think everyone needs to contribute more to keep the fund afloat.
I think pensions should be done away with completely for new employees. Give the others back what they invested, no matter how far or close to retirement they are with interest, and let them invest in their own retirement funds. No guaranteed anything - like everyone else has to deal with.
Quote:
I also believe retirees should contribute towards their health benefits like most of the real word does; free health benefits for life need to go away like the rest of the donosaurs. How many of you "Retirees" get a free "Premium" health benefit plan for life?
Is it only the teacher retirement HC plan that is free? My MIL just retired, she did work for the state, but not a teacher. She doesn't have free HC as a retiree - has Medicare and pays just under $300/month for supplemental insurance.
I'm a few decades away from the standard retirement age. At the same time, I'm self employed, so I have to pay for my own healthcare, 100% out of pocket, and save for my own retirement. No matching 401K plan, no pension.
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.
short attention span theater rules NJ electorate
