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 posted a link to this article in another thread, but I think it deserves a thread of its own.
Quote:
....A close look at state and local pension plans across the nation, and a comparison of them to those in the private sector, reveals a more complicated story. However, the short answer is that there’s simply no evidence that state pensions are the current burden to public finances that their critics claim.
Read more: Actually, employee pensions aren’t bankrupting states - Florida (http://www.miamiherald.com/2011/03/06/2100243/actually-employee-pensions-arent.html#ixzz1Fs87TGRw - broken link)
Heres the thing, is it right for Public employees to have a pension that they don't pay into?
I don't think it is. So that should be changed, regardless if it costs the tax payer a lot of money or not.
However, its not going to fix their budget, its low lying fruit and playing politics by the Republicans in the state. Wisconsins budget problems run much deeper. If the state was serious about resolving its budget it would work a plan to release non violent offenders from jail, legalize drugs to keep law enforcement numbers and employment down, and review state contracts that are overbudget and aren't working.
- The State Employees Retirement System (SERS), which now covers some 107,000 retired state workers, currently costs state taxpayers about $226 million a year. This is due to rise sevenfold -- to $1.7 billion -- by fiscal 2012-13.
- The Public School Employees Retirement Fund (PSERS), which covers about 168,000 retired teachers, now costs state and local taxpayers a combined $616 million. This obligation will increase to $3 billion -- nearly five times as much --by fiscal 2012-13.
- There are more than 3,000 municipal pension programs, ranging from Philadelphia and Pittsburgh to any rural borough with more than three employees. They cover retired police, firemen and non-uniformed workers (no one really knows how many) and they are already behind in their current obligations by at least $5 billion. That is not a typo. They are behind by $5 billion.
FYI this was looming issue before the financial crisis, that just made it worse.
Illinois government employees, downstate teachers and university staff have been promised $139 billion worth of retirement benefits, but the pension systems have only $63 billion in assets
The key word in the article you linked was "current".
That's another thing, if they are basing this on current numbers they would probably be accurate. We are only at the start of this, and it's going to worse.
Heres the thing, is it right for Public employees to have a pension that they don't pay into?
I don't think it is. So that should be changed, regardless if it costs the tax payer a lot of money or not.
However, its not going to fix their budget, its low lying fruit and playing politics by the Republicans in the state. Wisconsins budget problems run much deeper. If the state was serious about resolving its budget it would work a plan to release non violent offenders from jail, legalize drugs to keep law enforcement numbers and employment down, and review state contracts that are overbudget and aren't working.
Exactly which public employees, and where, don't pay into their pension plan? You say that a lot but never seem to say which ones. Not being argumentative but I am curious.
As a public employee I have paid into my pension plan since day one. The only jobs I didn't pay into a pension plan was when working for a manufacturer and then a railroad. Both pension plans for those were 100% company funded. And when I was in the Navy. Of course with that one you're not vested for 20 years.
Heres the thing, is it right for Public employees to have a pension that they don't pay into?
I don't think it is. So that should be changed, regardless if it costs the tax payer a lot of money or not.
However, its not going to fix their budget, its low lying fruit and playing politics by the Republicans in the state. Wisconsins budget problems run much deeper. If the state was serious about resolving its budget it would work a plan to release non violent offenders from jail, legalize drugs to keep law enforcement numbers and employment down, and review state contracts that are overbudget and aren't working.
i agree to a point, right now the lavish pensions, and lavish health care benefits are not going to bankrupt the states, and if things were to remain the same from here on out in regards to how much is paid out, then no it wont bankrupt the states in the future. the problem is that pensions are going up, and health care costs are going up, and state workers are not paying much at all, far less than half of what their private sector counterparts are paying, and that WILL bankrupt the states.
having the state workers pay more for their retirement and health care needs to happen now, and, in my opinion, the public unions need to be eliminated and let the civil service laws already on the books determine what the public employees should be paying. public employees should never have been allowed to form a union, and should never have been allowed to collectively bargain for wages and benefits.
Heres the thing, is it right for Public employees to have a pension that they don't pay into?
I don't think it is. So that should be changed, regardless if it costs the tax payer a lot of money or not.
However, its not going to fix their budget, its low lying fruit and playing politics by the Republicans in the state. Wisconsins budget problems run much deeper. If the state was serious about resolving its budget it would work a plan to release non violent offenders from jail, legalize drugs to keep law enforcement numbers and employment down, and review state contracts that are overbudget and aren't working.
If you read the article, you will discover that there are only 4 states in which employees do not contribute.
Quote:
n fact, only four states have non-contribution public pension plans— one of them being Florida. The others are Utah, Oregon and Connecticut. [LEFT]
Read more: Actually, employee pensions aren’t bankrupting states - Florida - MiamiHerald.com (http://www.miamiherald.com/2011/03/06/2100243_p2/actually-employee-pensions-arent.html#ixzz1FsEOfJm9 - broken link)
[/LEFT]
I posted a link to this article in another thread, but I think it deserves a thread of its own.
Right. Spending massive amounts of money does not create debt. When things don't sound correct, usually they are not.
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.
