NJ Pension reform about get ugly (2015, health insurance, brokers)
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.
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.
Could not agree with you more. You nailed the point that everyone else seems to be missing! It seems to me that the fifty-five-plus crowd thinks nothing of screwing over their own kids! (The 'kids' I refer to here are the younger workers.)
Regardless of one's feeling about public employee benefits, it's hard to argue the fairness of screwing current workers into paying for the excessive benefits that current (and soon-to-be) retirees legislated for themselves. Yeah, yeah, yeah... I know, the legislature passed those laws, not the people... and how did the legislature buy the votes to get themselves elected?
Younger people should be raising hell about taking any cuts to their benefits and pension plans unless commensurate reductions are made to the benefits of those already retired -- those who elected the bracking fastards who created this mess in the first place!
Could not agree with you more. You nailed the point that everyone else seems to be missing! It seems to me that the fifty-five-plus crowd thinks nothing of screwing over their own kids! (The 'kids' I refer to here are the younger workers.)
Regardless of one's feeling about public employee benefits, it's hard to argue the fairness of screwing current workers into paying for the excessive benefits that current (and soon-to-be) retirees legislated for themselves. Yeah, yeah, yeah... I know, the legislature passed those laws, not the people... and how did the legislature buy the votes to get themselves elected?
Younger people should be raising hell about taking any cuts to their benefits and pension plans unless commensurate reductions are made to the benefits of those already retired -- those who elected the bracking fastards who created this mess in the first place!
I am teacher, a relatively young one at that yet. I am not yet vested in the pension. This reform absolutely directly effects me.
That being said, I 100% support the need to protect those who have already retired or are very close to retiring. These teachers have no recourse if they have been told for 30 years that their pensions will be based on certain formula. I at least have the ability to adjust my own retirement plans and realistically have enough income years to overcome any differences. Asking an 80 year old on a very limited income (which these pensions are) to start paying thousands of dollars a year for their health insurance is just plan old wrong.
On a personal level, I completely agree with upping our pension contributions along with the guaranteed state contributions as put forth in this bill. I also have no issue with paying a portion of our health care. I also think the percentages in the bill are fair for most teachers and admins but I think they are too high for the secretaries who make much less money.
There are only two parts of this bill I part ways with. The most important being prohibiting new hires from entering the SHBP health insurance in favor of making municipalities pay for private insurance. This means that now both the taxpayers money and teachers contributions are going to paying for administrative fees and insurance brokers fees that are not currently being paid by the taxpayer.
Additionally, I am in favor of collective bargaining controls but not doing away with collective bargaining rights.
...That being said, I 100% support the need to protect those who have already retired or are very close to retiring. These teachers have no recourse if they have been told for 30 years that their pensions will be based on certain formula. I at least have the ability to adjust my own retirement plans and realistically have enough income years to overcome any differences. Asking an 80 year old on a very limited income (which these pensions are) to start paying thousands of dollars a year for their health insurance is just plan old wrong.
On a personal level, I completely agree with upping our pension contributions along with the guaranteed state contributions as put forth in this bill. I also have no issue with paying a portion of our health care...
Fact check 1: They haven't been told this for thirty years. It was only a decade ago, in 2001 that the pension formula was changed from N/60 to N/55, yielding a generous 9% increase in the pension payout. This was done by the very same elected legislators who were zero-funding the state's required contributions to the pension system! It was vote-buying, pure and simple, while passing the tab to the kids (future generation of workers).
Fact check 2: Please, please... get the violin out! The same old story about the 80-year-old on very limited income won't play here. We all know better! Pension... plus social security... plus tax-free benefits (that would cost others a mint...) plus tax-preferenced retirement income... that 80-year-old probably takes home more than I do! Indeed, I know he does, because that 80-year-old is my father-in-law and I do his tax return!
I am not denying a worker's right to receive a decent pension and benefits after working a long career. But it was the very 'state retirees' who now (unjustifiably) cry poverty that elected the representatives whose negligence initially created these problems. And they knew it while they were doing it... that they were kicking the can down the road for their kids to pick up the cost. Outrageous!
I've got a BIG problem with giving these retirees a free pass on being part of the solution. At absolute minimum, their pension formula should be recalculated at N/60... the formula that was in place for the first 20 of those 30 years you referenced. Your exuberant willingness to pick up grandpa's tab is youthfully ignorant.
Fact check 1: They haven't been told this for thirty years. It was only a decade ago, in 2001 that the pension formula was changed from N/60 to N/55, yielding a generous 9% increase in the pension payout. This was done by the very same elected legislators who were zero-funding the state's required contributions to the pension system! It was vote-buying, pure and simple, while passing the tab to the kids (future generation of workers).
Fact check 2: Please, please... get the violin out! The same old story about the 80-year-old on very limited income won't play here. We all know better! Pension... plus social security... plus tax-free benefits (that would cost others a mint...) plus tax-preferenced retirement income... that 80-year-old probably takes home more than I do! Indeed, I know he does, because that 80-year-old is my father-in-law and I do his tax return!
I am not denying a worker's right to receive a decent pension and benefits after working a long career. But it was the very 'state retirees' who now (unjustifiably) cry poverty that elected the representatives whose negligence initially created these problems. And they knew it while they were doing it... that they were kicking the can down the road for their kids to pick up the cost. Outrageous!
I've got a BIG problem with giving these retirees a free pass on being part of the solution. At absolute minimum, their pension formula should be recalculated at N/60... the formula that was in place for the first 20 of those 30 years you referenced. Your exuberant willingness to pick up grandpa's tab is youthfully ignorant.
I am sorry if I wasn't clear. I thought I said that my issue with changing retires benefits is specifically making them pay 23% of their health care premium, which equates to thousands of dollars. It will be even more if the SHBP is killed due to stopping new hires from entering it and those retirees have to go on private insurance.
While we are doing "fact checks" and 80 year old would have retired much longer ago than 2001. That means the retired on n/60.
And if you are going to offer anecdotal stories as evidence so can I. My aunt retired in 1993 after 31 years as a middle school math teacher, with the top of her guide being around 64K. That would put her monthly around a little over 1K and social security would be what? 1.5K? Obviously she was getting COLAs but thats hardly raking it in. I am also sorry that is more than you make.
I am also not ignorant, nor particularly youthful. I may not be a vested teacher but I worked in private industry for years, I am well aware of the multitude of issues that have lead to this problem but I recognize that in a civilized society we should not pull the chair out from our retirees who have far fewer years to react to this sea change.
Teachers should lobby for new teachers to be made eligible for the Alternative Benefit Plan that is available to Higher Education educators. It is a significantly better plan than the current pension terms new teachers are eligible for.
Maverick you do know that with the 9% pension boost the members had their contributions raised 60-70% right
Simply put: the current system is unsustainable, and changes are needed.
Why shouldn't workers contribute more towards their pension and health benefits.
They also need to require that retirees to pay for part of heir health benefits; who else gets free health benefits for life?
I'm all for the unions protecting worker rights, but think collective bargaining has gone too far, and helped get us into this mess. Most of the federal government is covered by unions, but do not have collective bargaining rights. The jobs have specific salary ranges and benefits, and that's that.
For some reason it makes me smile to see the NJEA attacking democrats.
You're not the only one, when even the democrats are exiting the public employee union ship as it joins the Titanic on the ocean floor - perhaps it is time for the absolute morons leading the public employee unions to wise up.
When I read the NYTimes article about how their health benefit contributions are only ONE POINT FIVE percent - I nearly choked!
"Currently, most state and local employees pay 1.5 percent of their salaries for health insurance."
Are these ppl f--king serious?
They are protesting having to pay just a bit more for their health plan? Someone should tell these absolute idiots they are welcome to quit at any time, and find a job ANYWHERE on this planet with such a good deal. If America is going to go down the tubes, it is due to the obscene, selfish attitudes of trash like this.
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.
Note to state pension recipients -- Stop screwing the kids!!!
