Predicting New Jersey Pension Underfunding


In response to an OPRA request I was informed that the July 1, 2012 Actuarial Reports on all plans in the New Jersey Retirement System will not be publicly available until after the Annual Division of Pensions and Benefits Board Meeting commencing March 4, 2013.   As of March 5, 2013, you can retrieve the Actuarial Reports at the following website:  http://www.state.nj.us/treasury/pensions/actuarial-rpts.shtml.

Prior valuations reported underfundings of:

$28.4 billion – 6/30/07

$34.4 billion – 6/30/08

$46 billion – 6/30/09

$53.9 billion – 6/30/10

$36.3 billion – 6/30/10 after revisions

$41.8 billion – 6/30/11

which I interpreted for the five largest plans:

6/30/08: $33 billion, 73% to $133 billion, 31%

6/30/09 – $44 billion, 66% to $150 billion, 30%

6/30/10: $52 billion, 62% to $159 billion, 30%

6/30/11: $40 billion, 68% to $162 billion, 30%

This will be the fifth year that I will interpret these valuation reports into reality and the real funded percentage should remain between 30% and 40% depending on whether you believe the courts will reinstate COLAs.  As to the March 5 headline, my prediction:

N.J. pension fund is underfunded by $50B, as gap continues to grow

The accrued liability should officially rise from $127 to $132 billion and the actuarial (pretend) value of assets has to drop from $87 billion since there is only $71 billion in the plan now and that’s been the number for a while as contributions and inflated earnings replace payouts.   This smoothed asset value is the wild card as more games could still be played.  What do you think?  Forget about the real unfunded number which hovers around $170 billion.  What will they tell the people?

About these ads

36 responses to this post.

  1. Posted by Joel L. Frank on February 24, 2013 at 2:39 am

    Who comprises the NJ Division of Pensions and Benefits Board?

    Reply

    • Don’t know if it matters since they don’t seem to have much say but here’s the latest (2010?) from the NJ treasury website:

      http://www.state.nj.us/treasury/pensions/board_results.htm

      Reply

      • Posted by Joel L. Frank on February 26, 2013 at 12:28 am

        The NJ Division of Pensions and Benefits is the central/common administrative agency for all State-administered retirement systems. There is the Teachers’ Pension and Annuity Fund; The Public Employers Retirement System, The Police and Fire Retirement System, The State Police Retirement System and the Judicial Retirement System. Each of these Defined Benefit pension funds are governed by their own Board of Trustees.

        Having said that, there is no organization known as the “NJ Division of Pensions and Benefits Board” The link you furnished in your reply is simply one of the Defined Benefit plans mentioned above, namely the Public Employees Retirement System (PERS).

        Reply

  2. Posted by eatingdogfood on February 25, 2013 at 9:11 am

    Isn’t It Time For The Abused Taxpayers Of New Jersey To Leave In Masses In Order To End This Unholy Conspiracy Between The Totally Corrupt Democrats And The Equally Corrupt Public Service Unions? It Is Really The Only Way To Finally End This Criminal Activity! Did Anybody Ever Hear Of RICO?

    Reply

  3. Posted by marbs on February 25, 2013 at 9:27 am

    John: I do not think that the COLA will be reinstated. According to this website http://www.afterthebadge.com/ there are no pending legal actions concerning the COLA. Suspending the COLA was a slap in the face to all retired public safety workers. If you planned on receiving what you were promised you are in a bad position now. One can live modestly on a pension that includes the partial (60% of CPI_W) but now every year you will regress. Remember no Social Security benefits and if you relied on the promises made there was really no need to have your own 401K or deferred comp if you planned a modest retirement. At least now the guys still working can plan ahead. Also PFRS Local has reached the threshold for COLA reinstatement but no news on that front. The local governments paid the State did not and I predict will not pay.

    Reply

    • Good summary on that website and it’s nice to see they’re using my videos (more court decisions should be taped and made public) however the Berg case is ongoing and they are in the right (though that’s not the most important factor in the NJ courtrooms I’ve been in lately).

      Reply

      • Posted by marbs on February 25, 2013 at 11:19 am

        Thank you for that information on the Berg case it is very frustrating being retired and not having anyone looking out for your interests. I assume that’s why the gov saw us as an easy target. My pension is modest if I had been told my pension would be fixed upon retirement (as it is in some other states I know PA State Police Cola is at the whim of the legislature) I would have made financial preparations to take that into account like active workers should be doing now but for me its too late.

        Reply

      • Posted by muni-man on February 25, 2013 at 2:35 pm

        The UNCOLA will stand because it’s completely constitutional. NJ pensions have no contractual protections per NJSC case law and terms can be altered by NJ unilaterally and prospectively, despite what publics may have surmised from personnel handbooks, union propaganda etc. Poor due diligence on their part.

        Reply

        • Posted by Joel L. Frank on February 26, 2013 at 12:48 am

          In my view the Cola will be re-instated. The legal principle being that the Cola is part and parcel of the basic pension obligation and can only be eliminated for those hired after the effective date of the new law. The new law did not change the pension formula for those hired prior to the effective date of the new law or for those retired, yet when it comes to the Cola the lawmakers eliminated it for those hired prior to the effective date of the new law AND for retirees. This is an impairment of the pension contract and should be reversed on appeal.

          Reply

          • Posted by Tough Love on February 26, 2013 at 1:58 am

            That’s not the law/regs in NJ.

            And it it was …. a reversal would simply hasten the projected date of Plan demise.

          • Posted by muni-man on February 26, 2013 at 8:05 am

            Pensions are NOT contracts in NJ and there is no associated contractual protection for them in NJ’s constitution. NJ doesn’t recognize the ‘pensions are deferred compensation’ argument either. NJ publics just can’t seem to wrap their heads around these snotty facts of life. This ain’t NY or Ca. or Il. where that kind of malarkey is the norm. The COLA was eliminated because NJ can unilaterally change pension plan terms going forward which it did. The decision eliminating the COLA cited NJ Supreme Court governing case law (Spina decision of 1964) as one of several reasons allowing the legislature to do so. The Court nicely summed up the reason behind it’s ruling that pensions are not contractual in nature by noting some legislative history (which has never been overridden and still fully applies today) in a footnote:

            FOOTNOTE 3
            “In 1947, a proposal was made at the Constitutional Convention that retirement benefits be contractual, to be neither diminished nor impaired. The proposal was rejected. III Constitutional Convention of 1947, pp. 103-106. We note that in 1955 Assembly Bill No. 515, relating to another pension plan, provided that “membership of any person in the retirement system shall constitute a contractual relationship with the county.” The Governor vetoed the bill, saying “The quoted language attempts to impose upon the county, without its consent, a contractual obligation which might incorporate a right to receive from the county all of the anticipated benefits of active members and preclude any alterations with respect to the plan, either as to benefits or contributions, which changing economic circumstances might make imperative. If this should be the true import of the quoted sentence, the consequences could be far-reaching.” Veto Messages (1955), p. 125.”

            COLA elimination is perfectly legal. If it weren’t, NJ judges would have filed suit within days/weeks after the bill was passed. Any further COLA appeals will be tossed out and it doesn’t matter if the judge is Republican or Democratic. Trying to venue shop for a sympathetic Dem judge isn’t gonna get COLA’s reinstated either, as the disabled retired cops quickly found out. Continuing in a similar vein, NJ could reduce pension formulas going forward, further hike employee pension/healthcare contribution rates, freeze all defined benefits and convert to a defined contribution system or any number of other changes it may want to make to pensions/healthcare/other benefits, all without any union consent whatsoever.

          • Posted by Joel L. Frank on February 26, 2013 at 10:06 am

            FOOTNOTE 3
            “In 1947, a proposal was made at the Constitutional Convention that retirement benefits be contractual, to be neither diminished nor impaired. The proposal was rejected. III Constitutional Convention of 1947, pp. 103-106. We note that
            in 1955 Assembly Bill No. 515, relating to another pension plan, provided that “membership of any person in the retirement system shall constitute a contractual relationship with the county.” The Governor vetoed the bill, saying “The quoted language attempts to impose upon the county, without its consent, a contractual obligation which might incorporate a right to receive from the county all of the anticipated benefits of active members and preclude any alterations with respect to the plan, either as to benefits or contributions, which changing economic circumstances might make imperative. If this should be the true import of the quoted sentence, the consequences could be far-reaching.” Veto Messages (1955), p. 125.”

            A Constitutional guarantee against impairment simply makes it easier for the
            Legislature when contemplating an impairment to the current formula. It also makes it easier for the Courts that may hear a case challenging a new law. Its quite a leap to say absent an impairment clause in the State’s Constitution gives a current administration a legal green light to do as it wishes.

            The 1955 veto had to do with making membership in a county retirement retirement system a contractual relationship with the county without the county’s
            consent. The key element here is the lack of consent on the part of the County. This was the reason for the veto. Assume there was county consent and the Governor signed the bill. This consent simply means that current employees cannot be negatively impacted by a new benefit formula. The new formula only has application to those hired after the effective date of the new law. One just has to look at the Tier structure of plan membership to see this is the stated policy of the State of New Jersey. This Tier structure can be located on the website of the NJ Division of Pensions and Benefits.

            Back to the issue at hand: If it is lawful to change the pension benefit formula for current employees why was it not done?

        • Posted by muni-man on February 26, 2013 at 11:51 am

          Impairment is not issue at all, because in NJ pensions are NOT contracts to begin with, therefore, there is nothing to impair contractually from the getgo. The legislature can unilaterally amend publics’ benefits as it sees fit and at any time precisely because there are NO contractual provisions with publics that would prevent NJ from doing so. NJ saw fit to eliminate COLA’s and there wasn’t one thing the unions could do to prevent it. In the future NJ may, and I suspect will, reduce pension formulas if not eliminate them outright at some point in the future as the pension plans deteriorate further. The only thing the unions can do is file futile lawsuits that will be thrown out of court because these benefits enjoy no contractual protections at all. A constitutional amendment would be required to establish contractual status on publics’ benefits, and that simply won’t happen – no way, no how. The legislative history on that is long and very clear. NJ wants to keep its full flexibility to change benefit levels and isn’t about to give that up by giving benefits contractual status.

          Reply

          • Posted by Joel L. Frank on February 26, 2013 at 5:29 pm

            For those that wish to have an academic discussion here is the link that shows that there is a Tier structure in the state administered DB pension plans.

          • Posted by Joel L. Frank on February 26, 2013 at 6:27 pm

            Can State and Local Pension Promises Be Altered?
            August 10, 2012, 1:57 PM
            By Alicia Munnell

            The perception is that public employees have much greater protections with respect to their defined-benefit plans than their private-sector counterparts. While the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 — the governing law in the private sector — protects benefits earned to date, state laws or constitutions prevent public-plan sponsors from reducing future benefits for current employees. Thus, if the employer wants to reduce the future accrual of benefits, such a change can apply only to new hires.

            But in a recent blog post, I described how actions taken by plan sponsors have shown that public-sector benefit promises are less secure than one would have thought before the financial crisis.

            Plan sponsors have reduced the pension wealth of current employees by increasing required employee contributions so that while the employee continues to accrue the expected benefit, the net contribution from the employer has been reduced. In the case of retirees, sponsors have reduced or suspended cost-of-living adjustments. And these changes have been upheld in a number of courts.

            Thus, to the extent that protections exist, they must apply only to “core” benefits. Most states protect core benefits under the U.S. Constitution’s Contract Clause or similar provisions in state constitutions. To determine whether a state action is unconstitutional under the Contract Clause, the courts apply a three-part test. First, they determine whether a contract exists. This process determines when the contract was formed and what it protects. Second, the courts determine whether the state action constitutes a substantial impairment to the contract. If the impairment is deemed substantial, then the court must determine whether the action is justified by an important public pur­pose and if the action taken in the public interest is reasonable and necessary.

            The strength of the protections depends on where the protections are located. Constitutional provisions are harder to overcome than statutes or case law. Only three states — Alaska, Illinois and New York — have explicit constitutional provisions that protect future as well as past benefits for current employees. In these states, changing benefits for existing employees is virtually impossible without amending the state constitution. Other states where benefits are protected have statutes that expressly adopt the contract clause theory or judicial decisions that have ruled the relationship to be contractual. Interestingly, for 13 states, the protections apply only once benefits are vested, and eight states protect benefits only once the employee is eligible for retirement.

            Two states that protect benefits under the contract clause — New Jersey and Rhode Island — have passed legislation that explicitly reduces core benefits for current employees. These cuts have been challenged, and the cases are currently in the courts. The outcome of these challenges will provide some information on how much freedom states actually have to change future benefits for current employees. The answer may well hinge on whether the court accepts the argument that there is an important public purpose for such changes.

            A failure to permit such changes would have serious consequences. First, limiting pension reductions to new workers reduces pension costs only slowly over time. Second, exempting current workers from cuts creates a two-tiered compensa­tion system under which workers doing similar jobs would receive different amounts based solely on when they were hired. Finally, allowing public employees to enjoy greater protections than their private-sector counter­parts is perceived by many as unfair.
            ————————————————————————————————-
            The author is the Director of the Center for Retirement Research at Boston College. As you can see she asserts that the NJ Defined Benefit pension system is governed by the contract clause. This should not be interpreted as meaning that the Cola will or will not be reinstated. The Court may ultimately decide that only core benefits are a protected right and can only be changed for the unborn. The Cola, they may decide, is not a core benefit and is, therefore, not a protected benefit—we will just have to wait for the decision.

            In my view the Legislature did not change the core pension formula for current workers because it knew it violated the Tier Structure. They did it with the “extra” benefit known as the COLA where they are hoping for a favorable Court decision.

            In Spina v. Consolidated Police/Fire Pension Fund Commission; 197 A.2nd 169 (NJ 1964) the Supreme Court held that the pension benefit rather than being protected under contract law is protected under property law.

            Having said all this, this issue will have to be decided by the NJ Supreme Court.

    • Posted by Tough Love on February 25, 2013 at 10:25 am

      Quoting …. “Suspending the COLA was a slap in the face to all retired public safety workers.”

      Oh BS, a multi-year-long slap in the face has been to the TAXPAYERS by the greedy Public Sector Unions & workers who, while earning no less in cash pay that their Private Sector counterparts feel they are somehow “special” and entitled to pensions, the taxpayer paid-for share of which is ROUTINELY 2-4 times (5+ times for safety workers) greater in value at retirement then that of those Private Sector counterparts.

      And, if you (as a Public Sector worker) accumulate ALL of YOUR pension contributions (INCLUDING the investment earnings thereon) to the date of your retirement, RAERLY would it accumulate to a sum sufficient to buy more than 10-20% of your VERY VERY rich pension. The TAXPAYERS’ contributions and the earnings thereon (earnings that would have stayed in the Taxpayers’ pockets for THEIR OWN retirement, in the absence of the need to fund your overstuffed pensions) are responsible for the 80-90% balance.

      It is a VERY rare Private Sector pension indeed that includes a post-retirement increase …. EVER.

      Go STUFF IT !

      Reply

      • Posted by marbs on February 25, 2013 at 11:13 am

        IF the state and local jurisdictions had contributed their fair share (lets just say what they would have paid into Social Security being I am not eligible so they don’t pay it) into an account that I and all other Public Safety workers also put in their share (was 8% now 10&) and invest that money conservatively without stealing any of it ,upon retirement every Public Safety worker could be given a check in excess of one million dollars. I would gladly take that invest it myself and run. But being that would put you in cardiac arrest as you obviously are extremely jealous and hateful of public safety employees if they just put the contributions into the fund as they should have PFRS would be fully funded. I bet the state and locals can’t tell the feds they are going to skip paying into social security like they skipped contributing to the pension system for many years. I will now stoop myself to your level and tell you to GO STUFF IT…LOL

        Reply

        • Posted by Tough Love on February 25, 2013 at 11:58 am

          That’s quite presumptuous …. clearly the contribution that the Taxpayers WOULD HAVE MADE into SS on your behalf was contemplated as part of that excessive pension. In addition, you GREATLY benefited from NOT being in SS as ONLY the lowest paid get a good deal from SS. For all other it’s a lousy deal. Don’t believe me? Read about it here (scroll to “Fallacy #8″):

          http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2013/02/nine-fallacies-used-to-defend-public-sector-pensions

          And as to that $1 Million Check ….. the value at retirement of the TYPICAL NJ policeman’s pension after 25 years (with typical promotions) is closer to $2 Million …….. completely absurd in size, and more typical of the pension a Private Sector executive making $400K-$500K annually would get. Why should Taxpayers pay 80-90% of the cost of such an extrordinaryly generous pension ….. while most suffer with little in retirement savings?

          And FYI, I am neither jealous nor hateful of any Public Sector worker, but having a much greater (that most) financial understanding of the TRUE COST of the excessive promises made (by our elected representatives whose favorable votes on pay, pensions, and benefits were bought with Union campaign contributions and election support), I have every right to protest that financial injustice perpetrated upon the Taxpayers of NJ.

          Reply

      • Posted by Fed up on February 26, 2014 at 1:37 am

        Tough love needs a history lesson. He should investigate where a large portion of the PFRS pension funds went. They were taken to help balance the state budget. To simplify, it’s no different from stealing money from your child’s piggy bank and then punishing him for it when there’s not enough money in it.
        Public sector employees have made their contributions without fail throughout the existence of the plan. It was funded at 104% until our trusted politicians looted it. And now, it’s MY fault?

        Reply

  4. Posted by marbs on February 25, 2013 at 12:33 pm

    Maybe a pension is worth 2 million but that was not the point the point being that if they just took my percent and their contribution (based on 7%) invested it conservatively and did not steal it I could get a one million dollar check and would be responsible for my own financial destiny.

    Taxpayers do not pay 80-90 percent of the cost of the pension that’s absurd the taxpayers are only responsible for their contribution.which matched mine, typically 8-10%. All the distributions and expenses come out of the fund. IF the state had not stolen the contributions they were supposed to make and give towns and counties pension holidays to give taxpayers their precious rebates the funds would be adequately (not fully due to the stock market crash) funded . BTW the stock market has rebounded and the pensions are getting good returns on their prudent investments.

    You do have every right to protest the so called financial injustice but blame who is at fault the politicians from governors past and present who salivated at seeing such a huge pile of money just sitting there earning more money. They have dug a hole so deep that they decimated a flourishing pension fund for political gain and are now pointing fingers at the public employee who made every contribution required of them when they have to repay the money they stole by getting it from the taxpayers.

    Reply

    • Posted by Tough Love on February 25, 2013 at 1:11 pm

      Set up a spreadsheet (it’s easy) take each of your actual contributions and add compound interest (at a rate representative of that period) to it from the date made to the date of retirement. You will likely find that the accumulated sum is between $250-$400K, not $1 Million.

      Your $2 Million pension is many times that (and that IS THE POINT), and as I said in my earlier comment, only 10-20% of the cost is paid for by you. The share passed along as the responsibility of taxpayers is completely absurd … by ANY measure.

      And you said …”Taxpayers do not pay 80-90 percent of the cost of the pension that’s absurd the taxpayers are only responsible for their contribution.which matched mine, typically 8-10%. ”

      While you are correct that the State (meaning Taxpayers) have not been appropriately funded the Plan, that doesn’t change the fact that YOUR contributions (including investment earnings) only pay for 10-20% of the total Plan costs, so unless you are agreeing to accept LESS that your promised pensions, you are insisting that the Taxpayers pay the balance (even thought to date they have not been doing so).

      Yes …. the politicians are the primary ones to blame (along with the insatiable greed shown by your Union), but the financial beneficiaries of those unjust promises are the Public Sector workers, so that’s where Taxpayers must go to seek recourse to right this wrong ….. via very significant pension reductions (and NOT just for new workers).

      Reply

      • Posted by muni-man on February 25, 2013 at 2:39 pm

        Trying to explain this to publics is an exercise in futility. They don’t have the faintest understanding of how compounding works in either annuity or lump-sum scenarios, so they’ll never understand the true cost of their pensions, not that they really want to anyhow. They’ve spent their whole careers in that supposedly impervious employment cocoon where gooberment is supposed to take care of all their needs forever. Well, that cocoon is now starting to unravel and will eventually largely disappear and that’s got a lot of them rattled.

        Reply

        • Posted by Tough Love on February 25, 2013 at 3:29 pm

          If we don’t put an end to, (or VERY materially reduce by AT LEAST 50%) further growth in Public Sector Pensions, there is no question that America will become Greece in short order. Hopefully it’s not ALREADY beyond the tipping point.

          The re-statement of Public entity balance sheets under the new GASB and Moody’s bases will hopefully be the wake up call for Pension reform.

          Reply

          • Posted by muni-man on February 25, 2013 at 4:07 pm

            I think the new regs will definitely have gooberments’ up in arms, but I don’t know if that will be enough of a catalyst for serious reforms. I’m guessing a major, prolonged market dump is what will finally lance this festering public sector benefits sore once and for all, including Fed entitlements. We’re definitely nearing the 1/16th pole, but it’s tough to say when the music finally stops.

      • Posted by marbs on February 25, 2013 at 5:41 pm

        You are wrong again. You probably forgot raises and investing. Going backward assuming only earning 5% return mine and the cities share (had they contributed) would grow to $ 1,037,266 over 25 years. I would much rather be given that at retirement I could invest it myself and then the pension plan would be off the hook. Remember I was forced to join the pension and was promised certain benefits such as a cola every year if it was called for. That said I will get my cola back at some point. It is too nice out ( see I used my “boat check” to buy a winter home in Fla where the taxes are low and the beaches are free)to keep going back and forth on here even though I am sure you are quite sincere would be pointless and cut into my beach time,you have your views and I have mine so I will just leave it at that. BTW my primary residence is not in Jersey either just a little west where the US begins, you can keep Jersey just keep sending the check.

        Reply

        • Posted by Tough Love on February 25, 2013 at 6:12 pm

          Only YOUR annual contribution (your “share”) is fixed and known, and that piece will accumulate with investment returns to only $250K-$400K by retirement depending in pay. BY DEFINITION, there is no fixed employers’ (meaning Taxpayers’) share, the Taxpayers “share” being at least “theoretically” whatever it takes (without limit) to pay the full pension.

          Did you notice I said “theoretically” ? That’s because while the Taxpayers may “theoretically” be on the hook for these grossly excessive pensions (granted via the collusion of our elected representatives and your Union), the actual MONEY to fund your Plan will have to come from the cheated Taxpayers, and I can assure you that they have absolutely ZERO intention of topping up these seriously underfunded Plans.

          I wouldn’t count on the check for too long. You see, NJ’s Pension Plans all have less than 10 years to go before they’re out of funds (some, quite a few years less) and pay-as-you go (with the HUGE tax increase it would entail) will never fly in NJ.

          Oh … and keep that Florida home fully insured … that’s hurricane territory.

          Reply

          • Posted by 4everunion on February 26, 2013 at 10:47 pm

            I had made a New Year’s resolution that I would try not to argue with simple minded morons (i.e.; Tough Love, muni-man) but I guess now is a good time to break it.

            “(granted via the collusion of OUR ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES and your Union), the actual MONEY to fund your Plan will have to come from the cheated Taxpayers, and I can assure you that they have absolutely ZERO intention of topping up these seriously underfunded Plans.”

            Well….that says a lot…..you left out “our DULY elected reps.” who agreed to it. You don’t/didn’t like that they made such agreements….too bad! Get yourself a crayon from your well used Crayola box (if you can stop chewing on them) and write your “elected” rep. and tell him what you think (as he/she is still probably pandering to said union reps. even more now to line up support).

            Until now, I would bet that most did not know that you spoke for and could “assure” everyone on the taxpayers’ intentions. Can you make such assurances that, as standard bearer for the TPs, they also can refuse to “top off” welfare, state aid, etc.??? Gee….How would NJ ensure the payments for those kept coming….Oh yeah….a mandatory withholding from your paycheck.

            Oh….and your wet dreams of the pensions going asunder are just that. You and your ilk are just too delusional in believing that…..Know why???…..Because then what happens to all those on the pension rolls if the funds run out???…..What, they go on welfare?? (You’ll still have to pay)…..Or do you (I’m sure jovially while wringing your crayon stained hands) envision thousands of homeless, hungry, retired former public employees (many in some cases retired already for 20 years +, who relied on a pension & DON”T GET Social Security) roaming the streets and living on street corners in cardboard boxes? Also…NJ Unemployment is at (cough, cough!!) supposedly 9.6% – Imagine throwing all those now pension-less/job-less workers (500k +) into the now unemployed %…..yeah….might happen (NOT!)

            The pensions will be paid…..if NJ has to raise taxes or cut elsewhere to do it they will…..and please don’t back to your old chestnut threat/dream of multitudes of NJ taxpayers making an exodus (with I’m sure you dreaming of yourself as leading on a white horse) from NJ like some sort of pilgrimage to Mecca…..ain’t gonna happen…..People still have roots/families/friends/jobs/homes, etc. which will keep them here….Sure, they’ll gripe but when it all comes down you and them will have to foot the bill.

          • Posted by Tough Love on February 26, 2013 at 11:24 pm

            4everunion, Nice handle and clearly identifies you as one riding the Public Sector gravy train. muni-man certainly had YOU & your ilk in mind when he said …”they’ve spent their whole careers in that supposedly impervious employment cocoon where gooberment is supposed to take care of all their needs forever. “+

            Quite a stunning rant there … let’s see:
            (1) I don’t believe (nor did I ever say) that the pensions would
            be reduced to zero…although 50% of promised amounts is not unreasonable.
            (2) Sorry about leaving the 50% on the Table as I guess that (and the fact that most retirees own houses & other “assets”) will preclude your Welfare nonsense
            (3) You misread what will likely happen. Your “ilk” depends on the support of our “Elected Reps”, and they on you for your money & support, but what our reps really want is get elected & reelected above all, and that requires votes. While your ilk vote as a block, you’re still not the majority of voters, and those voters will eventually protest sufficiently that our elected reps will change sides and throw you & your Union under the bus.

            I suggest you start saving outside of your pension…. you’re going need it.

          • Posted by 4everunion on February 27, 2013 at 12:01 am

            “(1) I don’t believe (nor did I ever say) that the pensions would
            be reduced to zero”

            Hmmm…..from your post I responded to:

            “I wouldn’t count on the check for too long. You see, NJ’s Pension Plans all have less than 10 years to go before they’re OUT OF FUNDS (some, quite a few years less) ”

            So…..you were obviously implying the funds would be at ZERO in the not too distance future or you (being the rational, logical thinker you put yourself out there as being) would not have written “out of funds” and not “count(ing) on the check too long” . Now you post that you never said that……no wonder you love Christie….you two have a lot in common!

            Oh….and your previous quip to marbs about keeping the home in FL insured as it’s hurricane country……did you hear about Hurricane Sandy or have you been out of the loop in your panic room (protecting yourself from the oh so scary, blood sucking public workers) typing contradictory, delusional postings by candlelight like some sort of modern day Nostradamus?

          • Posted by Tough Love on February 27, 2013 at 2:28 am

            4everunion, You’re pretty thick……….

            While the “fund” may run to zero, there will still be pension contributions from the actives (still being suckered into thinking THEY too will get their pensions), and likely some allocation from general revenue … from which 50% pension payment are still likely.

            Speaking of delusional … re-read a few of your comments.

            Are you one of the Public Sector’s “Best and Brightest” we keep hearing about ?

          • Posted by 4everunion on February 27, 2013 at 2:57 am

            So……in your theory the TP’s will refuse to shore up a failed/ponzi type scheme but active PEs will continue to pay into something that everyone can see is collapsing???? Not gonna happen…..they’re much shrewder and not as dumb as the sheep private worker world you’re part of.

            Yes….I like to think I am one of the best and brightest but even if I was last in that class I’d still be able to see the tops of the heads of the whiny, don’t let anyone have more than I have private workers. You know…..those that are boiling over with jealousy & rage that may PE’s were smart enough to get a job with a pension & bennies and can leave at an age while they can still enjoy life instead of working till they have 1.5 feet in the grave…..something tells me you’re gonna be stuck in the position which explains your anger & chagrin.

            Re: the thick comment……I’ve been complimented by women in some past encounters about that……. how’d you hear about it. They also loved the fact that I was retired young and available all the time with a secure pension & benefits (and a boat provided by NJ taxpayers via my “boat check”)….can you blame them?????

          • Posted by Tough Love on February 27, 2013 at 3:46 am

            4everunion, Oh, so the Taxpayers that pay your salary, your pension, and your benefits are “whiny” …how appreciative.

            And no, I really don’t think the actives are quite THAT stupid. At SOME point, I anticipate that they will realize how hopeless these overstuffed DB Plans are, agree to accept DC Plans going forward, and leave you retirees (with woefully underfunded Plans) to fight it out with the Taxpayers as to just how much you’re actually going to get .

            P.S. …don’t expect much.

            Hey John,

            Did you catch his latest remark (above)…….”Re: the thick comment……I’ve been complimented by women in some past encounters about that……. how’d you hear about it.”

            Kind of sets a new “lowest standard” for your blog.
            (from one of the Public Sector’s “Best and Brightest”)

          • Posted by muni-man on February 27, 2013 at 10:22 am

            What a hoople! He likes to believe he’s one of the ‘best and brightest’, NOT. 4everunion=yerkes primate, yes.

        • Posted by muni-man on February 25, 2013 at 6:36 pm

          You won’t get your COLA back. Click on the link for a reality check and something you can meditate on while catching some rays:

          http://www.principlesofaccounting.com/ART/fv.pv.tables/pvof1.htm

          Reply

  5. [...] week the 6/30/12 actuarial valuations will be released and if my projections pan out they will show the underfunding ballooning to $50 billion* with a funded percentage of 62%* even [...]

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 232 other followers

%d bloggers like this: