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.
Ya, I've read that. My point is that retiress are protected here through various means. It is likely that new employees will suffer through higher premiums or having to work longer to earn those pensions or both. They already did that as the article states in 2009. The state has a problem with the health benefits too. By our constitution they must pay not only the retirees those benefits but exisiting employees too.
Like one of those other articles or studies said, it is lilkely the tax payer will pick up the bill since these payouts are mandated by law. Not just in Nevada, but in many states.
Still, I believe that many of the shortfalls indicated are due to accounting methods. I may be way off base, but I believe they must account for all future liabilities like employees who have just become vested, but cannot take into account the future contributions or something like that. It may be good accounting practice, but it doesn't necessarily indicate whether or not they are funded well enough to pay exisiting retiree benefits, only if they can pay all percieved benefits now and in the future. In other words, they may not have enough on hand to pay they guy that retires in 25 years, but have enough to pay the guy that retires tomorrow. Am I off base?
Ya, I've read that. My point is that retiress are protected here through various means. It is likely that new employees will suffer through higher premiums or having to work longer to earn those pensions or both. They already did that as the article states in 2009. The state has a problem with the health benefits too. By our constitution they must pay not only the retirees those benefits but exisiting employees too.
Like one of those other articles or studies said, it is lilkely the tax payer will pick up the bill since these payouts are mandated by law. Not just in Nevada, but in many states.
Still, I believe that many of the shortfalls indicated are due to accounting methods. I may be way off base, but I believe they must account for all future liabilities like employees who have just become vested, but cannot take into account the future contributions or something like that. It may be good accounting practice, but it doesn't necessarily indicate whether or not they are funded well enough to pay exisiting retiree benefits, only if they can pay all percieved benefits now and in the future. In other words, they may not have enough on hand to pay they guy that retires in 25 years, but have enough to pay the guy that retires tomorrow. Am I off base?
If you read my previous posts on the topic you will see that we are very much in agreement and you are on topic. If you read between the lines, my links to the American Enterprise group suggest that the very people issuing the report that cdlena is quoting are the ones who help create the account rules you refer to.
A cynic might say that the easiest way to shrink the size and influence of government is to limit their ability to recruit top talent. When Wall Street sends their 6 million dollar a year attorneys against the 120K a year guys with the SEC who do you think wins?
Next month my wife collects here first pension check from state government.
It isn't all that much, she worked 10 years and 3 days with 10 years being the minimum to get any retirement, but it's $300 a month and like found money on the sidewalk. It starts at age 60 and goes a lifetime with survivorship for the spouse.
With her first check we decided to go out to dinner blowing maybe $40 and from there save it for 10 years. 10x12x$300=$36,000 plus interest for when we really do retire.
A few years back the state government suggested pension funds be merged with the general fund so they could be "invested" in things like education. Government workers, knowing a con is a con, said absolutely not and the money is kept separate.
But she also maxed her deferred compensation and that is dong great!
Next month my wife collects here first pension check from state government.
It isn't all that much, she worked 10 years and 3 days with 10 years being the minimum to get any retirement, but it's $300 a month and like found money on the sidewalk. It starts at age 60 and goes a lifetime with survivorship for the spouse.
With her first check we decided to go out to dinner blowing maybe $40 and from there save it for 10 years. 10x12x$300=$36,000 plus interest for when we really do retire.
A few years back the state government suggested pension funds be merged with the general fund so they could be "invested" in things like education. Government workers, knowing a con is a con, said absolutely not and the money is kept separate.
But she also maxed her deferred compensation and that is dong great!
Great post and yeah pension funds are loaded with money. I posted a few links and everyone wants a piece of the action. FDIC wants state pension funds to invest in failed banks.
Very, very interesting who some of the AEC scholars are ("leading architects of the second Bush aministration's public policy"). That is the policy which contributed substantially to bringing this country to its knees and partially destroying the middle class; do these boys have the best interest of the common people at heart? No, they want to keep enriching big banks, big insurance, big pharma, etc.
My second point is that the public pension funds in this country are many and varied (state, county, city, police, fire, school teachers, and more), so their financial status also varies all over the map. Some have relatively sustainable levels of retiree benefits and some do not, ditto with their funding levels. Example from California: The state-wide teacher's retirement system (in which all school districts must participate) does not pay any medical benefits at all, but individual school districts have the option to grant these to retirees. Most school districts either do not provide any retiree medical at all, or it ceases at age 65. In contrast, the Los Angeles Unified School District gives lifetime medical coverage. This is huge, is not sustainable, and is a source of public resentment.
If you read my previous posts on the topic you will see that we are very much in agreement and you are on topic. If you read between the lines, my links to the American Enterprise group suggest that the very people issuing the report that cdlena is quoting are the ones who help create the account rules you refer to.
A cynic might say that the easiest way to shrink the size and influence of government is to limit their ability to recruit top talent. When Wall Street sends their 6 million dollar a year attorneys against the 120K a year guys with the SEC who do you think wins?
I wasn't arguing, just stating my opinion of the article you linked. Just like when the retirement gurus tell us we need 105% of our present salaries to retire or that we should put it off for this reason or that, these guys have an agenda. There are good reasons to keep people working and saving so they can keep their habits of consumption up when they finally retire. There are also good reasons to understate the ability of governments to fund there pension obligations. I would guess one is so they can eventually be dismantled. If business can stop the states from offering these Cadillac pensions, they won't have to compete and they can shift the burden back to the employee. I would also guess it takes the spot light off of the private pension shenanigans going on.
I wasn't arguing, just stating my opinion of the article you linked. Just like when the retirement gurus tell us we need 105% of our present salaries to retire or that we should put it off for this reason or that, these guys have an agenda. There are good reasons to keep people working and saving so they can keep their habits of consumption up when they finally retire. There are also good reasons to understate the ability of governments to fund there pension obligations. I would guess one is so they can eventually be dismantled. If business can stop the states from offering these Cadillac pensions, they won't have to compete and they can shift the burden back to the employee. I would also guess it takes the spot light off of the private pension shenanigans going on.
I knew you were not arguing and were on the same page as I was. I was trying to avoid getting in to it with another person. We are of similar thinking
Very, very interesting who some of the AEC scholars are ("leading architects of the second Bush aministration's public policy"). That is the policy which contributed substantially to bringing this country to its knees and partially destroying the middle class; do these boys have the best interest of the common people at heart? No, they want to keep enriching big banks, big insurance, big pharma, etc.
My second point is that the public pension funds in this country are many and varied (state, county, city, police, fire, school teachers, and more), so their financial status also varies all over the map. Some have relatively sustainable levels of retiree benefits and some do not, ditto with their funding levels. Example from California: The state-wide teacher's retirement system (in which all school districts must participate) does not pay any medical benefits at all, but individual school districts have the option to grant these to retirees. Most school districts either do not provide any retiree medical at all, or it ceases at age 65. In contrast, the Los Angeles Unified School District gives lifetime medical coverage. This is huge, is not sustainable, and is a source of public resentment.
They are also the same crew who gave us weapons of mass destruction and scared us into the Iraq war! Wonder where they stand on SS.
I knew you were not arguing and were on the same page as I was. I was trying to avoid getting in to it with another person. We are of similar thinking
Do you have a link to the Goldman Sachs report? I'd like to read the underlying assumptions.
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.
