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.
Uh ...yeah. Oh, wait, did you mean "in New Jersey"? Then, I have no idea but if it's low it's because there's so much demand for the sweet unionized jobs. So now we're supposed to feel badly for teachers because they have such a sweet deal that everyone wants in on it?
i'd venture a guess that far more people STOP teaching at around 30 than START
the State budget has approximately 10-15 billion in funds that are used for discretionary spending that could be used to pay for pensions. That does not include funds that could be realized by staff cuts.
Notice how everything can be sacrificed to maintain the pensions? I mean, if we can use $10-15 billion to pay for pensions ...then that sort of implies that we can do without the $10-15 billion in discretionary spending, regardless. But I bet if, independent of the pension issue, I had just come here and said "hey, let's cut $10-15 billion in discretionary spending," the same people would be like "oh ho, so it's true, you do want people to die!!" Similarly, notice how suddenly staff cuts are on the table?
Notice how everything can be sacrificed to maintain the pensions? I mean, if we can use $10-15 billion to pay for pensions ...then that sort of implies that we can do without the $10-15 billion in discretionary spending, regardless. But I bet if, independent of the pension issue, I had just come here and said "hey, let's cut $10-15 billion in discretionary spending," the same people would be like "oh ho, so it's true, you do want people to die!!" Similarly, notice how suddenly staff cuts are on the table?
tom's just pointing out that the sky isn't falling and NJ isn't crumbling, and if it really got to the point where the state couldn't meet current pension obligations, there are measures that can be taken.
tom's just pointing out that the sky isn't falling and NJ isn't crumbling, and if it really got to the point where the state couldn't meet current pension obligations, there are measures that can be taken.
why didn't the state take measures before the state's credit rating from being downgraded (twice)?
If the state wouldn't take measures to prevent a downgrade in its rating and an increase in borrowing costs, what's the infliction point that makes the state act? How bad do things have to get for action to take place?
What the credit agencies basically said is, "we don't believe you will take action to address your problems." That being said, you seem to have greater confidence in the state to take action on its financial problems than the rating agencies do in the state's ability to deal with its issues. Interesting point of view in light of the fact that the state has almost no historical track record of dealing with its financial problems.
what's the infliction point that makes the state act?
He's saying that as long as the checks go out, we can all relax. But as soon as he doesn't get his check, then we need to start slashing billions from government in order to make sure his check arrives.
What I am saying is that politicans and idealogues lie. The cost of the pensions on a year to year basis are not as costly as people make them out to be. In fact if you convert individuals to a 401k which I am not against on a go forward basis the savings do not amount to that much if anything.
Next I am pointing out that many people who say things have no idea what they are talking about. They have no real understanding of the budget, no real understanding of the pension terms or how it is to be funded. They also do not understand when you have creditors and you want to default those creditors are involved in how you disburse funds and assets.
I have 35 years of contributions to the pension in which the State dictated the terms of what I would receive. See I am not in a union and was told that I must contribute to a plan with certain terms. I am fine with that. Give me 35/55 and move me to a 401k going forward. I will happily sign up for the 401k plan that exists in state government where I contribute 5% of my pay since I currently contribute 7% and the State gives me a match of 8% because they currently contribute 4% of my pay for the pension.
For those that are unaware the State 401k type plan is called the Alternative Benfit Plan. Feel free to check it out.
People must be fine with it because their is no public outrage to change it and Christie never mentions it.
why didn't the state take measures before the state's credit rating from being downgraded (twice)?
If the state wouldn't take measures to prevent a downgrade in its rating and an increase in borrowing costs, what's the infliction point that makes the state act? How bad do things have to get for action to take place?
What the credit agencies basically said is, "we don't believe you will take action to address your problems." That being said, you seem to have greater confidence in the state to take action on its financial problems than the rating agencies do in the state's ability to deal with its issues. Interesting point of view in light of the fact that the state has almost no historical track record of dealing with its financial problems.
I know you meant 'inflection', but 'infliction' has some overall meaning here too.
What I am saying is that politicans and idealogues lie. The cost of the pensions on a year to year basis are not as costly as people make them out to be. In fact if you convert individuals to a 401k which I am not against on a go forward basis the savings do not amount to that much if anything.
Next I am pointing out that many people who say things have no idea what they are talking about. They have no real understanding of the budget, no real understanding of the pension terms or how it is to be funded. They also do not understand when you have creditors and you want to default those creditors are involved in how you disburse funds and assets.
All you did there was make a very nebulous and unproven (and unproveable) claim. So people say that pensions cost $100 billion and you just say "not really." Huh, so what do they cost? "I don't know, but not that." So where did the people who calculated go wrong? "There was no calculation, they just made up the number." I could just do that with any number. How much debt does America have? And then, no matter what number you say, I just say "...nope, that's just a lie by an ideologue."
Then your next paragraph is more of the same, where you just airily mention that nobody knows what's going on, other than yourself, apparently. Not that you explain it to us, mind you, you just note that you know. "Too complicated to explain, but trust me." Uh ...OK.
why didn't the state take measures before the state's credit rating from being downgraded (twice)?
If the state wouldn't take measures to prevent a downgrade in its rating and an increase in borrowing costs, what's the infliction point that makes the state act? How bad do things have to get for action to take place?
What the credit agencies basically said is, "we don't believe you will take action to address your problems." That being said, you seem to have greater confidence in the state to take action on its financial problems than the rating agencies do in the state's ability to deal with its issues. Interesting point of view in light of the fact that the state has almost no historical track record of dealing with its financial problems.
I don't know why they didn't. maybe because a credit rating downgrade isn't truly that large of a deal to them?
i'd love for the state to take measures to shore things up.
my personal opinion - things would have to be near the cliff for the state to take action.
i don't have greater confidence than the agencies do. i think the downgrades are appropriate. but we weren't downgraded to junk. we're just not top tier anymore.
Go do some research and read the pension trustee and acturial reports instead of posting incorrect information. Per the trustee reports the PERS pension should be funded with a 4% contribution from the employer and a 7% contribution from the employee. This year State payroll is $5 billion so for State employees the pension contribution is about $200 million. The budget is $34 billion.The contribution of $650-690 million includes that $200 million and the contribution for every teacher in the State. Because as I am sure you know the State picks up that cost not the Local BOE's.
As I am sure you are also aware that the pension as an average return of around 8.5-8.9% over the past 30 years. All of this is public you can find it easily if you wanted factual information.
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.
