GASB68 Numbers for New Jersey

In describing the impact of GASB68 on the reporting of pension liabilities for public plans an adviser’s report warns:

This new liability measurement will result in a material impact on net position for most governmental entities. Governments who previously reported a net pension asset (because they contributed more than the ARC) may now report a significant liability and those who reported a net pension liability may now report a much larger liability.

What GASB68 calls for is determining a net pension liability by comparing liability values to assets with a lower interest rate applied to the liability calculation of the underfunding.  It replaces GASB27 which basically made up a net pension obligation amount based on the differences in funding the ARC over the years.  Everyone realized the duplicity of GASB27 except for those who desperately wanted to believe otherwise as the comment above illustrates unequivocally.

The first set of GASB68 reports just came out for the New Jersey plans without much fanfare (possibly because the state did not spoon-feed a number to the media and some arithmetic was involved) and after putting the pertinent data into a spreadsheet, the new number turns out to be:

$113 Billion
.

gasb68

.
Items to note:

1) Latest reported asset value is $74 billion

2) PFRS and PERS include both a state and local element but only one blended interest rate for each plan is used which develops lower liability amounts for the state portions in comparison to the local than if the state and local portions used separate rates (per instructions from Christie’s people?)

99 responses to this post.

  1. Posted by Anonymous on December 20, 2015 at 7:15 pm

    Ponder this; NJ s/b grateful it can’t file for bankruptcy. The way it’s currently handling this situation is much easier and less painful.

    Reply

  2. Posted by Tough Love on December 20, 2015 at 7:34 pm

    John, I believe your 4.68% for State PFRS should be 34.70%.
    —————————————-

    Main takeway from your post ……

    “Everyone realized the duplicity of GASB27 except for those who desperately wanted to believe otherwise …..”

    Reply

  3. Posted by Anonymous on December 20, 2015 at 8:10 pm

    I think I will become a prison guard is soon as possible ha ha!

    Reply

  4. Posted by Tough Love on December 20, 2015 at 9:07 pm

    Hey BH (The Resident Nutcase, or whomever you’re now posting under) ….. can we assume that with the publication of the above 62.14%* funding ratio for LOCAL PFRS, that this Blog’s readers will no longer be subject to your misleading claims about how this Plan is … in such good shape ?

    * a REALLY REALLY poor funding ratio, and just a hair above the 60% cutoff that ……had this been a Private Sector Plan ………… by Gov’t Regulation, no further crediting of pension accruals would be allowed.

    Reply

    • Posted by Tough Love on December 20, 2015 at 9:12 pm

      P.S. …. referencing the OTHER Plans with far worse funding ratios is not relevant, as they’re already “dead men walking”.

      Reply

    • Posted by The Resident Nutcase on December 23, 2015 at 5:22 pm

      Nah……. Let’s use the official number of 76% like we always have.

      Reply

      • Posted by Tough Love on December 23, 2015 at 8:14 pm

        The Resident Nutcase,

        Why does your refusal to accept the true (very LOUSY) position of the LOCAL (as well as State) Plans and your continued “arrogance” not surprise me ?

        Reply

  5. Posted by Tough Love on December 20, 2015 at 9:25 pm

    Quoting….'”2) PFRS and PERS include both a state and local element but only one blended interest rate for each plan is used which develops lower liability amounts for the state portions in comparison to the local than if the state and local portions used separate rates”

    Because Taxpayer Contributions to the STATE and Local PFRS and PERS are the “responsibility” of 2 distinct groups, the use of a “blended” liability discount rate unjustly inflates calculated ARCs in the LOCAL Plans … which wind up in our Local Property Taxes.

    It would appear that NJ’s Local towns, villages, townships, boroughs, Cities, etc. have a legal basis to challenge this “blending” practice for LOCAL ARC calculation purposes.

    Reply

    • If they understood what was going on maybe somebody would challenge it but these GASB numbers are not the contribution amounts. That is done with the valuation reports where they use 7.9% for everyone. These GASB numbers are what localities have to show as their official liabilities which doesn’t mean much when bondbuyers don’t pay attention.

      Reply

      • Posted by Tough Love on December 20, 2015 at 11:24 pm

        Yes, I forgot that the 7.9% is still being used.

        Given a Government’s competing needs for limited resources, I understand that a “Gov’t” must have flexibility in the amount it actually contributes to it’s pension Plans. However, is patently absurd that they can PUBLISH (for ANY purpose), ARC amounts OTHER THAN those based on the CURRENT GASB standards.

        Reply

  6. Posted by Soon to retire Pat on December 20, 2015 at 10:10 pm

    I hope Sweeney (et all) will solve this problem by raising taxes and cutting benefits! I need the Pension Fund to be paying out for at least another 25 years!

    Reply

    • Posted by Tough Love on December 20, 2015 at 10:58 pm

      Soon to retire Pat,

      While the pension accrual rate for the FUTURE Service of all CURRENT PUBLIC Sector workers DEFINITELY “deserves” VERY material reductions (along with an increase in full/unreduced retirement age), I leave it as a financial question-mark if PAST Service pension accruals of those already retired and of current “actives” WILL NEED TO BE reduced (although they CERTAINLY “deserve” such cuts …. their grossly excessive pension “promises” NEVER being justifiable), there is absolutely NO QUESTION that all employer-subsidized retire healthcare benefits should END…. including for those now retired.

      Private Sector retirees VERY VERY VERY rarely get more than an immaterially-small employer-sponsored retiree healthcare subsidy any longer, and Public Sector retirees are NOT “special” and deserving of a better deal on the PRIVATE Sector Taxpayers’ dime.

      I’m sure that as a CPA, you can understand that ………… assuming you can put aside the ….”but I was promised” mindset. Private Sector workers were “promised” a Rose Garden. They got “Weeds”.

      Reply

      • Posted by Anonymous on December 22, 2015 at 9:50 am

        Ok, TL tell the truth you are a Koch Institute fellow (paid intern) using this blog to foster a movement to eliminate public sectors pensions and benefits. Now, is the plan to move the U.S. ( beginning in NJ, CC begin a follower in the Koch Temple )workforce towards a system of indentured servitude, or to align the movement with labor-based worldwide human trafficking. Please consult with your Masters and share their responses.

        Reply

        • Posted by Tough Love on December 22, 2015 at 12:54 pm

          No, It’s long PAST the time to stop unnecessarily (and very materially) OVER-compensating NJ’s Public Sector workers …. via extremely generous (and hence COSTLY) Defined Benefit pensions and Platinum+ healthcare coverage.

          I comment solely as a well educated, well-informed (betrayed & beleaguered) NJ Taxpayer …. nothing more.

          Reply

          • Posted by The Resident Nutcase on December 22, 2015 at 1:05 pm

            …….. Lol!!! All I can do is giggle!

          • Posted by Anonymous on December 22, 2015 at 2:50 pm

            Yeah right, you write like you helped to compose the Koch Institute playbook on whipping the taxpayers to rally against public worker pensions and benefits. Kill unions, control elected officials with campaign donations you know find an actuary who uses a popular pension blog to push the agenda of your Masters. Where is your self worth? How do you allow yourself to become a puppet?

          • Posted by Tough Love on December 22, 2015 at 4:20 pm

            I comment SOLELY as a well-educated, fed-up NJ Taxpayer who fully understands the HUGE cost burden (and/or reduction in service) that will fall upon Taxpayers if the current grossly excessive Public Sector pension & benefit promises do not END.

          • Posted by Tough Love on December 22, 2015 at 5:39 pm

            Quoting Anon ….

            “Yeah right, you write like you helped to compose the Koch Institute playbook on whipping the taxpayers to rally against public worker pensions and benefits.”

            That’s right …. because I’m SMART, and doing what I call for is NJ’s ONLY hope.

          • Posted by Anonymous on December 22, 2015 at 9:57 pm

            Most puppets sound SMART expounding the beliefs and desires of their Master, you are no different. Enjoy your bounty, I don’t think your Wizards will continue to hide their nefarious middle-class elimination plan, championed by the likes of you and other warped minded Koch followers, shame on you TL,

          • Posted by Tough Love on December 22, 2015 at 11:15 pm

            Anon,

            It’s not a “nefarious middle-class elimination plan”.

            It’s an ….”end the gross over-compensation of NJ’s Public Sector worker Plan.”

  7. Posted by Tough Love on December 20, 2015 at 11:05 pm

    For anyone interested in reading about how a City (Sandy Springs , Georgia) can prosper WITHOUT the financial burdens of grossly overcompensated Public Sector workers ………..

    http://www.michigancapitolconfidential.com/18713

    and

    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/24/business/a-georgia-town-takes-the-peoples-business-private.html?_r=0

    Reply

    • Posted by Tough Love on December 20, 2015 at 11:30 pm

      And here is a video describing the Sandy Springs transition:

      Sounds a nice City to retire to. No debt, and no “employees” other than Police & Fire”…. who have 401K Plans and NOT the always Taxpayer-strangling Defined Benefit Pensions.
      —————————————————————-

      Taxpayers do NOT have to accept being financially “mugged” by insatiably greedy Public Sector Unions/workers !

      Reply

      • Posted by Anonymous on December 21, 2015 at 9:43 am

        It sounds like financial shangri-la, so what are doing in NJ. FREE MARKET! Spouse posting using different device, YES different ip address – tracking on……..

        Reply

      • Our cost of living indices are based on a US average of 100. An amount below 100 means Sandy Springs, Georgia is cheaper than the US average. A cost of living index above 100 means Sandy Springs, Georgia is more expensive.

        Overall, Sandy Springs, Georgia cost of living is 140.30.

        http://www.bestplaces.net/cost_of_living/city/georgia/sandy_springs

        Reply

        • Posted by Anonymous on December 21, 2015 at 11:46 am

          Pat did you change your mind, I see you’re not posting under Soon to Retire Pat? Just curious. Anyway good info but pointless as TL only acknowledges source data in alignment with their version of reality!

          Reply

          • Posted by Anonymous on December 21, 2015 at 11:48 am

            Based on MJ’s comment in John’s previous post, what’s in an IP address anyway – at least that’s my opinion not necessarily my spouse.

        • Posted by Tough Love on December 21, 2015 at 1:15 pm

          Pat,

          Sandy Springs has an average income FAR above typical Cities (big high-tech employers located there), so this isn’t surprising (some houses costing over $5 Million).

          If their residents are “getting their money’s worth”, the higher cost of living doesn’t matter ………. and without the unnecessary/unjust.unfair/unaffordable BURDEN of grossly overpaid Public Sector workers (AND Safety workers getting 401K and NOT DB pensions …. hence being FAR FAR less costly and eliminating the growth of unfunded liabilities), they certainly appear to “be getting their money’s worth” with respect to City services.

          Reply

        • Posted by Tough Love on December 21, 2015 at 1:20 pm

          FYI, Cost of living index for NYC is 168.

          Reply

        • Posted by Tough Love on December 21, 2015 at 1:27 pm

          Pat, Far better example,……

          Alpine Nj is one of the ritziest towns in NJ (median home price over $2 Million). Can’t imagine that anyone (who could afford it) would not enjoy living there, yet the cost of living index for Alpine is 535,10.

          You see, what matters is the “value” you get in return for living in a higher than average cost city/town.

          Over-compensating Public Sector workers is a “value”-NEGATIVE.

          Reply

      • Posted by Rex the WOnder Dog! on December 21, 2015 at 4:10 pm

        Awesome Reason.com video. I think it was smart to outsource. But I question if many, much less most, muni’s cold find a “management company” as good as the one they have at Sandy Springs. Sandy Springs also did NOT outsource fire and police (which accounts for the pension and budget deficits in nearly all muni’s) but do NOT give away the farm in a DB pension and instead have DC and 401K pensions. The fact is if ALL muni’s used a 401K and DC pension for fire and police 99% would not be BK today.

        Reply

        • Posted by Anonymous on December 22, 2015 at 4:57 am

          It would be interesting to see what the turnover rate is in the police and fire dept if officers can get into a DB by transferring. My guess would be that the salaries are considerably higher than surrounding areas to attract and more importantly retain talent.
          Look at the Camden county pd turnover rates. Huge when compared to state average.

          Reply

          • Posted by Anonymous on December 22, 2015 at 5:03 am

            I can also see a point in time 20 yrs from now when stagnation of police salaries (you now see contract after contract of very small raises) will cause towns to beg to keep a DB plan. At some point due to capped raises, the job will revert back to what it was in the 50’s. A lower middle class salary with a small pension. Take the pension out of the equation and you make the job, already taxing-no pun intended, virtually undesirable without losing the cap on raises. Interesting to see when I will become a historian as opposed to a prophet.

          • Posted by Anonymous on December 22, 2015 at 5:21 am

            So after comparing the sandy springs website to the Atlanta pd website, I found top pay for patrol to be $57000 for Atlanta pd and $70000 for sandy springs. Is that enough to retain people? I don’t know. It appears the cheif is a retired cheif from elsewhere (I’m sure he is getting a pension) Atlanta did away w pensions for new hires in 2001. Except for police and fire. Hmmmmmm? Any guesses why? (I know TL, union poison)

          • Posted by Tough Love on December 22, 2015 at 1:07 pm

            Anon, over time there will be few Public Sector DB pensions with which to compare, as they will all have gone the way of the dinosaur……. being unnecessary, unjust, unfair to Taxpayers, and clearly unaffordable.

            What’s sad is that by DELAYING the inevitable, our gutless self-interested elected officials ony make the problem WORSE for ALL of the stakeholders.

  8. Posted by S Moderation Douglas on December 21, 2015 at 2:30 pm

    For what it’s worth, the cost of living index in Lafayette, California is 241. Compared to 136 for California as a whole.

    In 2012, estimated median household income in Lafayette was over 150,000 dollars, more than double the statewide average and nearly triple the national average.

    http://www.ci.lafayette.ca.us/why-lafayette/lafayette-is-different

    If it works for them, I’m happy for them, and for Sandy Springs. But that doesn’t mean it is right for every community.

    Reply

    • Posted by Tough Love on December 21, 2015 at 2:54 pm

      Sandy Spring’s approach to providing City “services” is INDEED “right for EVERY community” ………….. outsource all but Safety, and Safety gets a modest 401K DC Plan, NOT the very typical, UNNECESSARY, and financially strangling grossly excessive DB pension.

      Reply

      • Posted by Anonymous on December 22, 2015 at 5:07 am

        Keep telling yourself that qualified folks will take those pd jobs TL.

        Reply

        • Posted by Tough Love on December 22, 2015 at 1:41 pm

          Sooner than you think, that will be their ONLY option as all DB Plans will have ended … out of financial necessity.

          Oh the pain of it all ……… only getting EQUAL TO their Private Sector counterparts …….. but no longer MORE, MUCH more.

          Reply

          • Posted by Anonymous on December 23, 2015 at 8:21 pm

            Your going to need to seriously raise salaries to retain qualified people for a entire career. People jump from job to job and career to career all the time, however that does not work so well in the law enforcement field. It is quite expensive to train people to be cops and retention of good ones equates to good law enforcement. The bad ones should be fired anyway but that is a topic for another blog

          • Posted by Tough Love on December 23, 2015 at 9:09 pm

            Quoting …”The bad ones should be fired anyway but that is a topic for another blog”

            Why put off discussing bad/incompetent/unproductive workers ? That’s one of the biggest abuses against taxpayers in Public Sector employment.

            Private Sector employers don’t put with such employees. What should the Taxpayers have to put up with and PAY FOR it.

          • Posted by Actuary on December 27, 2015 at 4:13 am

            These are affluent communities, right? They probably have too much law enforcement for the level of crime that they actually have. That gives them a buffer against any losses to other cities.

            Also, Sandy Springs is increasing its minority population. In 2000 they were 12% black and 3% Asian. In 2010 they were 20% black and 5% Asian. You want some turnover in the police force so that you can maintain a racial balance.

            When white flight emptied America’s cities in the 1960s and 1970s, the lack of turnover in police departments became a real problem. A position only opened up if someone died or retired. You had police forces that were 95% white, policing cities that were majority black. It was ugly.

            Obviously, high turnover is bad, but low turnover can also be bad. You want a moderate amount of turnover. Then you could hire continually, so that the demographics of the police force do not drift too far from the overall population.

      • Posted by Anonymous on December 22, 2015 at 4:39 pm

        Spoken like a true Koch disciple TL, eliminate pensions and benefits, turn all public workers into third party contingent workers, severely reduce the middle-class job opportunities nationwide, make the free market labor force subservient. What a source of workplace evil you advocate. So glad there are alternatives to the likes of you and the Koch labor traffickers. Where’s the water bucket to throw on the wicked TL?

        Reply

        • Posted by Tough Love on December 22, 2015 at 5:42 pm

          Anon, You Champion GREED ….. self-interested GREED.

          Reply

          • Posted by Anonymous on December 22, 2015 at 10:10 pm

            TL you champion the desires of the Koch Brothers to eliminate the American middleclass. You advocate eliminating earned pensions and benefits for American workers and subcontracting public sector jobs and you advocate the very terrible 401k retirement saving accounts. You are the enemy of public workers, go enjoy your spoils and leave public workers alone.

          • Posted by Tough Love on December 22, 2015 at 11:12 pm

            Label it any way your very little mind wants, but I advocate for EQUAL Private/Public Sector “Total Compensation” (pay + pensions + benefits) in reasonable comparable jobs ….. and RIGHT NOW, there exists a VERY VERY material advantage in favor of NJ’s PUBLIC Sector workers.

            THAT must end and for CURRENT as well as new workers.

            Public Sector workers are NOT “special” and deserving of a better deal on the Private Sector Taxpayers’ dime.

    • Posted by Tough Love on December 21, 2015 at 6:33 pm

      I just added up the “waste” in the bullets (in your linked article) plus the other $8 Million. It adds up to $46.2 Million.

      While it’s not peanuts, it’s not even a flea on the wall compared to the $113 BILLION under-funding in NJ’s Public Sector pension Plans ….. and NOT because of a willful desire to under-fund, but because NJ’s Public Sector pension Plans are so grossly excess that it not possible to find sufficient money to fund them ….. even IF NJ’s Taxpayers were stupid enough to allow the decades-long financial “mugging” of NJ’s PRIVATE Sector Taxpayers to continue.

      Reply

      • Posted by Anonymous on December 21, 2015 at 11:54 pm

        All is good if the end justifies the (you and yours – not the taxpayers) means!

        Reply

      • Posted by Anonymous on December 22, 2015 at 1:44 pm

        I wasn’t aware that there was much of a private sector left in NJ? maybe more up north closer to NY? South Jersey (Sweeney’s domain) is desolate and negative growth, high foreclosure rates, closed businesses, empty endless strip malls and the rural counties are even worse.

        Reply

        • Posted by Tough Love on December 22, 2015 at 4:16 pm

          While North NJ is still “OK”, it too is loosing businesses (moving to Southern States) as taxes and the cost of living increase …… due to the CURRENT untenable level of taxes, and anticipated future INCREASES in taxes …. if we ever actually have to pay for the BLOATED pension & benefit promises that our self-interested/taxpayer-betraying Elected Officials granted their Public Sector workers.

          FREEZE the pensions, halve subsidies to “active”-worker healthcare, and END all Retiree healthcare subsidies. Private Sector workers RARELY get any employer-sponsored retiree healthcare subsidies any longer, and Public Sector workers are NOT “special” and deserving of a better deal on the PRIVATE Sector taxpayers’ dime.

          Reply

          • Posted by Anonymous on December 22, 2015 at 11:10 pm

            Oh TL, take a break, “have a Koch and a smile”, your influence here is waning.

          • Posted by Tough Love on December 23, 2015 at 5:05 am

            Anon,

            I don’t seek to “influence”, I seek to educate those who don’t understand the magnitude to the financial “mugging” being perpetrated upon them by the insatiably greed Public Sector unions/workers and ENABLED by the Elected Officials BOUGHT with Public Sector union campaign contributions and election support.

          • Posted by S Moderation Douglas on December 23, 2015 at 10:47 am

            “I seek to educate”

            Consistently high on opinions and short on facts and logic.

            Physician heal thyself.

          • Posted by Tough Love on December 23, 2015 at 1:30 pm

            SMD, Not an unexpected response from one now riding the Public Sector pension/benefit gravy train.

          • Posted by S Moderation Douglas on December 23, 2015 at 3:31 pm

            The truth hurts, don’t it, Love?

            “Public sector workers retire 10 to 15 years earlier than private sector.”
            ” those PRIVATE-Firm-workers that build our roads and firetrucks most definitely do NOT get Defined Benefit Pensions (of ANY type, …….”
            “in the last 20, most Public Sector wages have caught up to the Private Sector.”

            And other lies.

            Live with it, Love.

          • Posted by Tough Love on December 23, 2015 at 5:27 pm

            SMD,

            Truthful and without material omissions from you ?

            Don’t make me laugh.

        • Posted by S Moderation Douglas on December 23, 2015 at 7:27 pm

          It’s this simple, Love.

          When you see a post claiming police and fire deserve early retirement because they have shorter life expectancy, you correct them. Fine, I’ve corrected them several times myself.

          When someone says public workers retire 10 to 15 years before the private sector, I call Bee Ess.

          You say construction workers “definitely do NOT get Defined Benefit Pensions (of ANY type, …….” and when proven wrong, follow up with “what I REALLY meant was……”

          How can you call that anything but lies (or ignorance)?

          “I seek to educate”

          Pfft!

          Reply

          • Posted by Tough Love on December 23, 2015 at 9:01 pm

            SMD,

            Pfft!

            I answered all of these accusations already …… grow up and move on.

            Perhaps you can drum-up some MORE nonsense to try to justify the overall 23%* greater NJ PUBLIC Sector “Total Compensation” (pay + pensions + benefits) advantage over their Private Sector counterparts.

            It’s hard to not wonder ….. how much better would PRIVATE Sector retirements be if THEY had 23% more in wages to save and invest (tax deferred no less … as are NJ’s grossly excessive Oublic Sector pensions & benefits) in ever year of their career.

            * per Figure 6 of the AEI Study found here:

            https://www.aei.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/-biggs-overpaid-or-underpaid-a-statebystate-ranking-of-public-employee-compensation_112536583046.pdf

          • Posted by S Moderation Douglas on December 23, 2015 at 11:11 pm

            You answered squat, little corporal. You’re still lying through your teeth.

            You don’t know Jack about public pensions, just running off at the mouth.

            It’s painful to watch. Must be hell on your conscience. Live with it.

            “Yeah, but what I REALLY meant was……..”

            Pfft

          • Posted by Tough Love on December 23, 2015 at 11:37 pm

            SMD, Looks like I hit a nerve …………..

            Oh, so I …..”don’t know Jack about public pensions”

            Why don’t we let this Blog’s readers decide ….. instead of YOU, someone personally benefiting from this injustice of gross excess and betrayal of Private Sector Taxpayers.

            Recall my 2 long mathematical demonstrations that VERY CLEARLY demonstrated how Public Sector pensions are ROUTINELY multiples greater in value at retirement than those of Private Sector workers retiring at the SAME age, with the SAME pay, and the SAME years of service …. in fact OVER 5 TIMES GREATER for Police?

            Well here they are again for your reading pleasure ….. comment #s 95 and 96 out of the 99 total comments following this earlier Blog-post from Mr. Bury.

            https://burypensions.wordpress.com/2015/05/14/its-embarsaing-and-im-tired-of-hearing-this-i-want-what-i-was-promised/#comments

          • Posted by S Moderation Douglas on December 24, 2015 at 12:48 am

            Still GIGO, little corporal. E for effort. F for logic.

            Tell me about retiring 10 to 15 years earlier. What you “believe”, as opposed to what Gallup and other surveys found.

          • Posted by Tough Love on December 24, 2015 at 1:23 am

            SMD,

            I figured that you would respond with your standard GIGO line (never being able to point out ANYTHING wrong in those calculations)….. and then quickly changing the subject because you KNOW that PUBLIC Sector pensions are grossly excessive, and that there is simply ZERO justification for this decades-long PUBLIC Sector pension/benefit-driven financial “mugging” of Private Sector Taxpayers.

          • Posted by S Moderation Douglas on December 24, 2015 at 2:00 am

            “quickly changing the subject ”

            That was the subject, liar. You’re the one changing it. Going back to your fallback rant.

            “Public sector workers retire 10 to 15 years earlier than private sector.”

            ” those PRIVATE-Firm-workers that build our roads and firetrucks most definitely do NOT get Defined Benefit Pensions (of ANY type, …….”

            “in the last 20, most Public Sector wages have caught up to the Private Sector.”

            Lies

            Lies

            Lies

          • Posted by Tough Love on December 24, 2015 at 2:47 am

            SMD,

            I’m STILL waiting for you to point out even ONE specific error in my 2 demonstration the SHOWS that Public Sector pensions are ROUTINELY multiples greater than those of comparably situated Private Sector workers who retire at the SAME age, with the SAME pay, and the SAME year of service.

            NJ Pensions that are undeniably way TOO generous and very materially underfunded is the focus of this Blog ……….. not minutia that you REPEATEDLY bring up in an attempt to divert the readers attention from what is IMPORTANT and MUST be addressed.
            —————————

            Greedy bag of gas !.

          • Posted by S Moderation Douglas on December 24, 2015 at 8:44 am

            It must be very uncomfortable for you to be STILL waiting while your head is up your ass. I have told you countless times I have no problem with your math. It’s your logic that is faulty. You are not comparing equivalent workers. All the data shows that if you have a private sector and a public sector doctor retiring at the same age with the same years of service, their pay will NOT have been the same. Assume all you want. The data does not support that. Ergo all your math is irrelevant.

            Still GIGO

            …………minutia………

            Tough Love BELIEVES (?) that public workers retire 10 to 15 years younger.

            Tough Love BELIEVES that road builders “do NOT get Defined Benefit Pensions (of ANY type, …….”

            Tough love BELIEVES “Public Sector wages have caught up to the Private Sector.”

            All demonstrably incorrect.

            Tough Love BELIEVES that “NJ Pensions that are undeniably way TOO generous…..”

            Why should anyone believe Tough Love on the conclusion if he is ignorant (or lying) about so many components of the whole?
            “Public Sector wages have caught up to the Private Sector.” is not
            “minutia.”

          • Posted by Tough Love on December 24, 2015 at 1:25 pm

            SMD continues with the …”same old “…

            Ok so now the “math” is correct ….. HUM, 3 times (5 times for Safety workers) greater pensions than Private Sector workers making the SAME pay, with the SAME years of service, and retiring at the SAME age.

            So now it’s …… but they’re not comparable? We’ll I agree it’s not easy to find Private Sector Police, but it’s certainly NOT difficult to find the BLS’s list of the most dangerous jobs, and (with the exception of airline pilots) the ALL likely make HALF or less than police, so saying the high “RISK” of Police work justifies their extraordinarily high compensation doesn’t cut it.

            Are you saying there AREN’T Private Sector jobs with reasonably comparable requirements for education, experience, knowledge, and skills……. doubt it, even you aren’t THAT dumb.

            So how do you justify NJ’s bedroom community Police having a BASE PAY typically at $125,000+ after just 5-7 years of service …… such a salary after so few years of experience is a VERY VERY rare bird in the Private Sector … and like reserved for doctors and a very few other very level professionals.

            And THEN we layer ON TOP of that absurd salary, pensions that are 5 times MORE generous than those of comparably situated Private Sector workers and add Platinum + healthcare both while active and retired (and with a full/unreduced pension typically starting at age 55).

            You support this, and you think MY head is up MY ass ???

          • Posted by S Moderation Douglas on December 24, 2015 at 3:01 pm

            You are as dense as your compadre SurfPuppy. It took him three friggin’ years to figure out that SB400 was not a 50% increase. Even though I told him countless times. With links.

            Once more, your friend Andrew Biggs gave a clear example of two workers with the SAME pay who would have greatly different pensions, even if they retire at the same age with the same years of service.
            A private sector worker with a Bachelor’s degree makes $62,823 in wages.
            A public sector worker with a Master’s degree makes $62,834 in wages.

            $11 a year difference. SAME pay
            But, if they retire at the SAME age.
            And they each have the SAME years of service,

            The public sector worker will have a much higher pension.
            Because they’re not the SAME level of employee.

            This is the logic I have been trying to tell you is missing from your “math”. One SAME is missing. They are NOT THE SAME LEVEL OF EMPLOYEE.

            As I said many times before and I reiterate, one SAME is missing.

            They are NOT THE SAME LEVEL OF EMPLOYEE.

            The pension comparison is invalid because….

            They are NOT THE SAME LEVEL OF EMPLOYEE.

            The private sector BA has a total compensation of $87,987, whereas the public MA has $109,056.

            It is still, after all these years, called deferred compensation. The public sector MA has about the SAME pay as the private sector BA, because part of his compensation is held back and invested and paid to him in retirement.

            This is not a hypothetical comparison. This is actual data culled from nationwide statistics.

            Are Biggs and Richwine trying to deceive you? Are they omitting material facts? Are they suckling at the public teat?

            For TL and anyone interested, this data is from table 4, page 60, of “Overpaid or Underpaid? A State-by-State Ranking of Public Employee Compensation”

            The same study which states the same “minutia” that Public Sector wages have …..NOT…. caught up to the Private Sector.”

            You can work out your police obsession with your city council, or your therapist.

            PS: I’m not saying your “math” is correct. I am saying it it irrelevant if you are not comparing equivalent employees.

          • Posted by Tough Love on December 24, 2015 at 3:25 pm

            SMD,

            We’ve gone through this line of your FLAWED reasoning several times before.

            Essentially you are AGAIN tying to say that pensions are are only one element of “Total Compensation” (the others being wages and benefits) and that Public Sector workers earn less in “wages” so they are entitled to higher pensions & benefit to offset those lower wages.

            Fine in THEORY, but it’s FALSE, especially in NJ …. as I have pointed out many times.

            The AEI Study (linked in my earlier comment above) shows in Figure #1 that while NJ’s Public Sector workers (taken together as one group*) do indeed earn 4% LESS in “wages” than COMPARABLE Private Sector counterparts, that Public Sector worker disadvantage SHIFTS to a NJ Public Sector worker ADVANTAGE once pensions and benefits are included…… indeed, a 23% of pay ADVANTAGE per Figure #6 of that AEI Study.

            And as I stated earlier ……

            It’s hard to not wonder ….. how much better would NJ PRIVATE Sector worker retirements be if THEY had 23% more in wages to save and invest (tax deferred no less … as are NJ’s grossly excessive Public Sector pensions & benefits) in ever year of their career.

            How much “better” ….. $500K, $1 Million, maybe $2 Million ?

            * Yes, Public Sector workers ….. “taken together as one group”….. because from the FINANCIAL perspective, THAT is what matters (and what works it’s way into the POCKETS of Private Sector Taxpayers) …… that being the Public Sector workers’ OVERALL %-of-pay “Total Compensation” ADVANTAGE.
            ——————————

            And the rest ?

            More of your “gas”…… to distract the readers from the IMPORTANT issue at hand…. to FREEZE, or VERY materially reduced Public Sector pensions (and benefits) from the undeniably GROSSLY EXCESSIVE that they are RIGHT NOW …. and for all CURRENT, not just new workers.

          • Posted by S Moderation Douglas on December 24, 2015 at 4:56 pm

            Moderation is not blowing smoke up anyone’s skirt, Love. I hope I don’t have to repeat every time;

            “When benefits are added, total compensation for less-educated state government employees lies around 20 percent above private sector levels. Total compensation for bachelor’s degree holders is about even with private sector levels. Professional degree holders such as doctors or lawyers and individuals with doctoral degrees appear to receive total compensation roughly 18 percent below private-sector levels…”

            (Page 11 of your study. (National figures, varies by state.))

            Keep reminding me of the 23%. I am the one who told you about the study originally, even though I knew you would latch onto that one figure 6 like ugly on a ape.
            Whether you like it or not, there were at least four major studies at about the same period. The other three said state and local compensation was “roughly equal” or slightly lower than the private sector. And all the studies are from data three to seven years old. A lot has happened in that period in wages AND benefit changes.

            Moderation does not have enough experience to rely on anecdotal evidence. I have to rely on actual data, so these posts tend to run long. Our friend Juvenal451 was much more succinct:

            “Two: that you are just wrong about the comparison of public and private sector compensation (except at the level which requires no education-sorry for giving them benefits other than Medi-Cal.)

            And a Merry Christmas to all.

          • Posted by Tough Love on December 24, 2015 at 5:09 pm

            He’s (SMD) back ….. and with more nonsense no less !

            He’s trying to divvy up that (OVERALL, for all Public Sector workers taken as one group) 23% PUBLIC Sector Total Compensation” ADVANTAGE in several segment of Public Sector workers by education level.

            I’m not arguing that the 23% Public Sector Total Compensation” ADVANTAGE applied equally across-the-board, and I don’t disagree that within the total universe of all Public Sector workers, a small segment (likely some professionals and “PHDs”) made even make less than their Private Sector Counterparts.

            But it DOESN’T MATTER. the FINANCIAL IMPACT impact on Private Sector Taxpayers is accurately measured by the 23%average for the entire group. E.g., if some in that group make say only 10% more, than their must be others making say 35% more….. to get to that 23% average PUBLIC Sector advantage.
            ——————

            I’m sure he’ll be passing some more “gas” along shortly ………….

  9. Koch Brothers derangement syndrome time and time again. Nothing to say about SOROS do they? I have a feeling Koch Brother employees and retirees will do reasonably well, Why? First of all, the KB do not rely on socialist methods. Second, because profit equals profit, i.e,, workers work harder to gain more, unlike public employees. Because the Koch Brothers ( scary monsters) fund their retirement plans, using realistic projections, not relying on taxpayers, the Koch Brothers are a SHINING example of CAPITLISM, SOUND FINANCIAL PLANNING and SELF RELIANCE, which cannot be said of taxpayer fund government and all its Ponzi schemes.

    So FUCK ALL YOU ADVOCATES OF GOVERNMENT PENSIONS. WHAT YOU REALLY ADVOCATE IS GOVERNMENT WELFARE.

    Reply

    • Posted by Tough Love on December 23, 2015 at 12:58 am

      Welcome ………

      Reply

    • Posted by Anonymous on December 23, 2015 at 3:44 am

      The Koch Brothers realized some of their billion dollar profit through US, state and local government statements, subsidies and tax loopholes, they are the ultimate trough feeders. They also support research, legislation and elected officials that undermine public education and labor. Typical billionaire with delusions of domination. The probably support US and worldwide human trafficking for labor. More profits realized through slavery. The misuse of their fortunes will lead to the lost of said fortunes. There greater good for individuals and the commonwealth. TL’ s “equality” Isn’t justice it’s destructive and aligned with those who wish to destroy the Ameican free market and middle-class.

      Reply

    • Posted by Anonymous on December 23, 2015 at 3:58 am

      Pensions are negotiated items in a public sector employee individual and group contract. The government abatements and subsidies realized by Koch Industries is truly “corporate welfare”, why use your money when you can use the American taxpayers money via votes from paid elected official. This isn’t rocket science just garden variety opportunism and corporate greed, private sector.

      Reply

      • Posted by Tough Love on December 23, 2015 at 5:10 am

        Negotiated ?

        With which side participating in these “negotiations” rightfully looking out for the Taxpayers’ interests ?

        Reply

        • Posted by mrdenis on December 23, 2015 at 6:49 am

          Who negotiated for the taxpayer when unions were granted that 9% bump in benefits even to those already retired …..OH that’s right they wanted the unions “yes” vote to borrow from pensions funds ..

          Reply

          • Posted by The Resident Nutcase on December 23, 2015 at 8:54 am

            PRFS did not get that 9% raise. Only state employees.

          • Posted by Anonymous on December 23, 2015 at 10:04 am

            And teachers……..

          • Posted by Anonymous on December 23, 2015 at 10:45 am

            Take that 9% boost up with the Republican Acting Governor this signed it into law, the veto pen existed when the legislation came to his desk, right Donald D.

          • Posted by Tough Love on December 23, 2015 at 1:57 pm

            John,

            Above, The Resident Nutcase stated …

            “PRFS did not get that 9% raise. Only state employees.”

            Is that correct?

          • I wasn’t paying much attention back then but the bill I found from back then:
            http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/2000/Bills/S2500/2450_F1.PDF

            It was for only the TPAF and PERS which basically increased the annual accrual for regular retirement from 1.67% to 1.82% as they reduced the 1/60th to 1/55th in the benefit formula. The PFRS has 2% accruals now and probably had it back then too.

          • Posted by Anonymous on December 23, 2015 at 2:40 pm

            Not to mention P&FRS spousal and dependent children benefit w/o retiree’s base allowance reductuon.

          • Posted by Tough Love on December 23, 2015 at 2:55 pm

            John,

            I’m a bit confused, I recall that one of the changes around year 2000 was police going from 60% to 65% of final pay after 25 years, retroactively implemented…. and retiring @55 with an unreduced pension. I was stunned (even THEN) having worked with pensions for some time and knowing the true cost of such extraordinarily generous promises.

            60% after 25 years equates to 60%/25= 2.4% per year of service

            65% after 25 years equates to 65%/25 = 2.6% per year of service

            I thought that the 65% version was the CURRENT formula.

            From you above response it’s not clear which (if either) current applies to State & Local Police. Can you clarify
            ———————-

            I realize the formula will shift a bit if the service duration at retirement is less or more than exactly 25 years of service. I picked exactly 25 years to make the discussion simpler and being of the understanding that many Police officers retire at that service duration.

          • Posted by Tough Love on December 23, 2015 at 3:16 pm

            John,

            Follow-up. I found the following in the online PFRS handbook … on page 25 of THIS website:

            http://www.state.nj.us/treasury/pensions/pdf/handbook/pfrsbook.pdf:
            ———————————————————————–
            Special Retirement
            Available to members at any age, who have a mini-mum of 25 years of service credit in the PFRS.

            For a PFRS Tier 1 or Tier 2 member enrolled on or before June 28, 2011, the annual benefit for a Special Retirement is equal to 65% of your Final Compensation plus 1% for each year of creditable service over 25 years but not to exceed 30 years. The maximum allowance is therefore 70% of your Final Compensation.

        • Posted by Anonymous on December 23, 2015 at 10:41 am

          Everyone represented at the public sector negotiation table is a taxpayer, collectively they pay more taxes than Koch Industries and other corporate/ private sector trough feeders. There is a collective good present in the public workplace, justice represented by contracts and agreements legally represented and negotiated. Public employees provide service in exchange for wages and benefits.

          Reply

    • Posted by Anonymous on December 23, 2015 at 10:04 am

      Yes welcome to the 1% , guess John doesn’t sensor profanity just IP addresses!

      Reply

  10. Posted by S Moderation Douglas on December 22, 2015 at 11:24 pm

    Hmm?

    Hyperactive caps lock, inoperative spell check.

    Is that True Love, or do he have a evil doppelganger?

    Check that IP.

    Reply

  11. Posted by S Moderation Douglas on December 22, 2015 at 11:28 pm

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

%d bloggers like this: