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.
If one want to get a better look at state and liabilities look at congressional hearing report on State of the States. It actually goes much deeper in state liabilities far beyond that. Only two state had pubic pensions that were endangered as I remember but other liabilities; deficit and how they were covered posed more problem than public pensions.
Sorry, Lucky. You are referencing a lower court decision. Since that decision was issued, the New Jersey Supreme Court reversed that decision and ruled in favor of Christie.
The above Supreme Court decision had to do with the funding demand lawsuits by the public workers unions. The decision (laughably) basically said that the state could not be made to follow a law they pushed for and passed as to funding the pensions.
The COLA case is separate and distinct as was not part of this recent decision - it also never reached the NJ Supreme Court as it was decided at the Appeals Court level and remanded to a lower court where it remains in planned purgatory as long as they can keep it there.
Last news I heard about it was that it was on "hold" until the Supreme Court ruled on the contribution lawsuit (the one you linked to). Now that that has been decided the COLA case is supposed to be addressed by the lower court but I can't find any current news about it.
The whole thing is very confusing but the COLA case is Berg vs. Christie and was not part of the funding lawsuit which was Burgos, et al vs Christie......of course one had to be Berg and the other Burgos resulting in soundalike names making it even more confusing.....better if one was Sipowitz or MacGillicuddy.
Then something is wrong with your data. I'm in the PA state pension system and we are around 65% funded as of the last quarterly report- and we get hammered for being one of the LOWEST funded state pension plans.
Here is a report from Standard and Poor's. June 2014, so it's recent. Their funding numbers for PA align with what I receive from SERS quarterly reports so it's accurate.
only 10 states are below 60% funded, and as you can see only 3 are below 50%. As another poster alluded to, 80% is considered "fully funded", since it's impossible for everyone within state employment to retire simultaneously. 90%+ funding ratios are overkill. basically insurance in case the market takes a dive.
Municipal funds are a different ballgame, there are a lot of poorly funded MUNICIPAL plans, but they are handled very differently than state plans, and all state taxpayers are not necessarily on the hook for that.
Last edited by Burger Fan; 07-24-2015 at 01:27 PM..
The above Supreme Court decision had to do with the funding demand lawsuits by the public workers unions. The decision (laughably) basically said that the state could not be made to follow a law they pushed for and passed as to funding the pensions.
The COLA case is separate and distinct as was not part of this recent decision - it also never reached the NJ Supreme Court as it was decided at the Appeals Court level and remanded to a lower court where it remains in planned purgatory as long as they can keep it there.
Last news I heard about it was that it was on "hold" until the Supreme Court ruled on the contribution lawsuit (the one you linked to). Now that that has been decided the COLA case is supposed to be addressed by the lower court but I can't find any current news about it.
The whole thing is very confusing but the COLA case is Berg vs. Christie and was not part of the funding lawsuit which was Burgos, et al vs Christie......of course one had to be Berg and the other Burgos resulting in soundalike names making it even more confusing.....better if one was Sipowitz or MacGillicuddy.
Oh, dear. I missed the COLA part of the discussion. My apologies. Thanks for the names of the cases. I looked for the Burgos decision but couldn't find it (without knowing the name of the case). I especially want to read Berg. Thanks again to you and Tom1944 for the correction and additional information.
Actually, they aren't. In most states, the city pension fund and state pension fund are the same. In Caliifornia, for example, way over 95% of the cities belong to CALPERS, as does the State of CA. The Counties, on the other hand, are mostly under the 1937 Act, in which the County has it's "own" retirement system.
There are a few exceptions. There are a few cities that have their own pension system, but very, very few in CA.
Oh, dear. I missed the COLA part of the discussion. My apologies. Thanks for the names of the cases. I looked for the Burgos decision but couldn't find it (without knowing the name of the case). I especially want to read Berg. Thanks again to you and Tom1944 for the correction and additional information.
No problem....many people I've talked to are very confused about the different cases and think they're all together. Not only that, NJ's illustrious, megalomaniac & tub o' guts Gov. has convinced the majority of the public that the pension "system" is in critical shape. Problem is there are several different systems inside the umbrella of the overall "system". I believe there are a total of 7 sub systems....local police/fire (PFRS) , state police (SPRS) , teachers (TPAF), public employees (PERS) , judges (JRS), etc.
For instance, there is the Local part for police & fire (PFRS) which is well funded....this is because it is funded not only via employee contributions but the individual municipalities who pay in and who have never been allowed to skip payments (which is why the system is solvent) unlike the state which has created the majority of the state pension "disaster" by taking many years off from not funding or severely underfunding the suggested/required payments.
Then something is wrong with your data. I'm in the PA state pension system and we are around 65% funded as of the last quarterly report- and we get hammered for being one of the LOWEST funded state pension plans.
Here is a report from Standard and Poor's. June 2014, so it's recent. Their funding numbers for PA align with what I receive from SERS quarterly reports so it's accurate.
only 10 states are below 60% funded, and as you can see only 3 are below 50%. As another poster alluded to, 80% is considered "fully funded", since it's impossible for everyone within state employment to retire simultaneously. 90%+ funding ratios are overkill. basically insurance in case the market takes a dive.
Municipal funds are a different ballgame, there are a lot of poorly funded MUNICIPAL plans, but they are handled very differently than state plans, and all state taxpayers are not necessarily on the hook for that.
Well, there may be something wrong with the data, but it wasn't my data. I was quoting from the link provided by another poster. It would be interesting to reconcile the substantial differences between the two links.
Well, there may be something wrong with the data, but it wasn't my data. I was quoting from the link provided by another poster. It would be interesting to reconcile the substantial differences between the two links.
Actually, last I checked my home state of South Dakota, where I'm retiring to (no state income tax, much cheaper to live than CA, etc.) is more than 92% funded. I'm just hoping my CA pension doesn't fizzle before I'm dead. But I think the libs can kick the can down the road another 20 years and that's all I'm asking for.
Sometimes the OPEB "Other Post Employment Benefits"...(i.e. healthbenefits) aren't included in some of the funding figures....CALPERs in CA offers full medical for individuals and sometimes families which haven't been funded and aren't even reported in the funding liability levels...so that could be part of the story...
Many ways to fudge the numbers.
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.
My apologies. Thanks for the names of the cases. I looked for the Burgos decision but couldn't find it (without knowing the name of the case). I especially want to read Berg. Thanks again to you and Tom1944 for the correction and additional information.
