Public TV Punks Out on Public Pensions

NJTV’s Capitol Report program did quickie interviews with three probable 2017 Democrat gubernatorial candidates on  issues facing the state.  In looking for the video online I found a 9/24/11 show they did with State Senate President Steve Sweeney taking credit for what he and Governor Christie accomplished with, first pensions, and then Atlantic City.

The interviews themselves are little more than a string of platitudinous sound bites unquestioned, unresearched and, for anyone aware of the real situation, unwatchable.  Excerpts from those shows are below but this next video tells us much more:


.
Would Gibbons or those unions really pay part of Steve Adubanto’s half-a-million-dollar salary if he were to put out anything more incisive (or threatening to them) than this:
.

.

.

63 responses to this post.

  1. Posted by Tough Love on March 27, 2016 at 1:18 am

    I wanted to puke after listening to Phil Murphy …. god-awful-to-listen-to Union butt-kissing. What a load of horse manure.

    Reply

  2. Posted by dentss dunnigan on March 27, 2016 at 10:35 am

    Without taking sides of the point Murphy makes the bottom line is the amendment must spell out where the money is coming from what tax needs to be raised,you want to raise the millionaires tax ,fine give those people a chance to plan accordingly ,just as Dave Tepper has done .you want to raise the sales tax ,let the taxpayer know ….but just let the taxpayers know how this will be paid for and not take away from other funding projects ,like education or town aid .

    Reply

    • Posted by Tough Love on March 27, 2016 at 12:49 pm

      Guaranteeing this ONE single item (where none of the OTHER, (MORE important items) are NOT so “guaranteed” is unjustified from the get-go, and even MORE-SO because it benefits only 10%-20% of NJ families (those of Public Sector workers) at the expense of everyone else.

      It will be the financial undoing of NJ.

      Reply

      • Posted by Tough Love on March 27, 2016 at 10:25 pm

        As Governor Christie ACCURATELY stated:

        ““Public (plan) pensioners would be a special class of citizens whose retirement is protected above all other public concerns,” the governor said in a speech before a joint session of the Legislature.

        No state spending is guaranteed by the state constitution, Mr. Christie said. “All of those issues — education, health care, crime, our environment, support for the poor, protection for our children — would be subject to elimination to pay for the pensions of 800,000 current and former public employees.””
        ————————————————————————————
        http://www.pionline.com/article/20160112/ONLINE/160119952/gov-christie-derides-plan-for-new-jersey-constitutional-amendment-on-pension-contributions

        Reply

        • Posted by Anonymous on March 28, 2016 at 1:13 am

          Yes. And I’m sure you would feel the same way you do now if you were a public sector worker, giving up your Bennies for the collective good. Right? You wouldn’t want to keep your pension and would not be one of those “insatiably greedy” people that you seem to abhor.
          TL, I’m sure with your last dying breath you will still be saying “equal pay….public safety pension 3 to 5x….freeze future accruals for current….blah blah”..the only thing I’m missing is the caps. Maybe we can put it on your tombstone. It can be your legacy. “Here lies the great fixer of nj pensions…she dedicated her life to this issue, and appeared to have no other interests” Her motto: got a problem with equal??
          (The motto thing had to make you smile, even just a little?)
          Lighten up, friend. Life is to short as it is. We both put our pants on one leg at a time.

          Reply

        • Posted by Now retired Pat on March 28, 2016 at 8:04 pm

          Contrary to your feelings, the majority of Americans (and NJ citizens) believe in keeping their word/promises and “doing what’s risht”. Yes, entitlement programs will have to be cut drastically (Got a problem with that?). And yes, taxes on the fortunate will be increased (Got a problem with EQUAL?). And yes, schools and hospitals will receive less (their performance sucks anyway and NJ spends WAY MORE per person will crappy results in BOTH sectors). And lastly, if I were a millionaire and making $10M a year in NJ, I would not elect to move away from my business/family/heritage if my EXCESSIVE NET INCOME dropped to a paltry $9M!! Get real…

          Reply

          • Posted by Tough Love on March 28, 2016 at 8:28 pm

            Quoting Now retired Pat …..

            “the majority of Americans (and NJ citizens) believe in keeping their word/promises and “doing what’s right”

            Indeed they do … when the OVERWHELMING evidence does NOT show that they were cheated, and that THEIR best interests were ignored so that BOTH the Public Sector UNIONS/workers and our Elected Officials would benefit by betraying the Taxpayers ….. with the former BUYING the favorable votes (on Public Sector pay,pensions, and benefits) of the latter with campaign contributions and promises of election/re-election support.

            Such Grossly Excessive pension/benefit promises ….. a BETRAYAL of the Taxpayers …..should NOT be honored.

          • Posted by dentss dunnigan on March 28, 2016 at 9:03 pm

            Fact is people do move just ask Dave Tepper a new citizen of Fla that has walked away from this state with his billions strictly for his tax saving of 45 million a year, unfortunately those not in the position of being able to afford to do so must pick up his share .And that was just 1 of many but being NJ richest ex resident hurts that much more .And it will continue and the politicians know it or why else are they the one’s looking to cut the estate tax ….I’ve never know this state to cut any tax but out of fear of losing taxpayers .

          • Posted by MJ on March 29, 2016 at 6:43 am

            @Pat, although the “fortunate” may not physically be leaving the state, although some are, they are taking their resources, businesses and finances to more tax friendly states such as DE, the Carolinas etc. which provides jobs and taxes to other states leaving NJ the loser once again.

  3. Posted by S Moderation Douglas on March 28, 2016 at 6:07 pm

    And who gets to decide what “equal” is?

    Matthew 7:1–2 Μὴ κρίνετε, ἵνα μὴ κριθῆτε· ἐν ᾧ γὰρ κρίματι κρίνετε κριθήσεσθε, καὶ ἐν ᾧ μέτρῳ μετρεῖτε μετρηθήσεται ὑμῖν.

    Reply

    • Posted by Tough Love on March 28, 2016 at 8:34 pm

      SMD,

      Certainly NOT (yes NOT) those with the greatest benefit tied to a particular outcome ….. Public Sector workers/retirees.

      History shows that they will distort, mislead, mischaracterize, omit facts, and lie with abandon.

      Reply

      • Posted by PS Drone on March 29, 2016 at 6:37 pm

        You forgot “steal”. These obscene pension plans constitute grand larceny perpetrated on the (not so) blissfully ignorant and stupid private sector taxpayers by willful and greedy public sector unions and their co-conspirator corrupt, lying and total scum politicians.

        Reply

        • Posted by Tough Love on March 29, 2016 at 6:46 pm

          It’s a shame that campaign contributions from Public Sector Unions are NOT considered to be EXACTLY what they are ….BRIBERY …. and criminally prosecuted as such, by BOTH the giver and the receiver.

          Reply

  4. Posted by Smooth Moderation Difficult on March 29, 2016 at 12:59 am

  5. Posted by FAP on March 29, 2016 at 12:10 pm

    John a question for you. Other than as entertainment does what any of these jokers say on the pensions matter anymore?

    Is there any other likely alternative for the NJ public pension funds than one by one exhausting their funds and each becoming pay-go, the first becoming pay-go around 2020.

    After that it’s more up in the air but is it likely that the State quasi defaults and refactors existing pensions and moves every employees below a certain again, say 45, to 401Ks with a healthy match?

    Other than Supreme Court intervention is there anything else likely to happen?

    Reply

    • Posted by Tough Love on March 29, 2016 at 2:15 pm

      FWIW, Mary Pat Campbell (an actuary who Blogs on the subject of Public Sector pensions) agrees with you,

      A few days ago on her Blog commentating on NJ’s precarious position she stated:

      ————————————————————————————

      “WHEN THE MONEY RUNS OUT, THE LAW IS IRRELEVANT

      Those benefits will be getting cut. They don’t have enough money. I like the “it’s theoretically paid for” line from Bury — the NJ pension was (and is) grossly underfunded. When the money runs out, will they cut the COLAs for the years where payments weren’t being paid? Or underpaid?

      Ultimately, the NJ and Chicago pensions will get cut, either directly or indirectly. Oh, and I’m sure the taxpayers and bondholders will also get screwed. If all parties to this think they’re going to get some sort of federal bailout… nope, the feds don’t have enough money for you, either.

      And yes, it will look arbitrary to those on the receiving end of the cuts.

      It won’t stop the cuts from coming.”
      ———————————————————–
      http://stump.marypat.org/article/428/public-pensions-watch-on-colas-and-chicago

      Reply

    • Posted by Anonymous on March 30, 2016 at 8:19 am

      We can repudiate the debt as it was never approved by the taxpayers.

      Reply

  6. Posted by Smooth Moderation Difficult on March 29, 2016 at 6:11 pm

    FWIW, Mary Pat Campbell:

    “And yes, it will look arbitrary to those on the receiving end of the cuts.

    It won’t stop the cuts from coming.”

    As Paul Harvey says; “The REST of the story……”

    “Those who did fully fund their promises, as they should… guess what? They should probably be okay.

    And they won’t be interested in bailing out the grasshoppers who didn’t lay by enough for the days of necessity:”

    Are we talking about New Jersey local plans here? Unfunded liabilities, for sure, but unlike the state, local plans have more nearly met their ARC. Will they, too, be arbitrarily cut?

    Reply

    • Posted by Tough Love on March 29, 2016 at 6:42 pm

      NJ’s LOCAL Public Sector pension Plans …notwithstanding their claims of being “well-funded” ….. have funding ratios that are in the 60s, and THAT (using the new GASB Accounting Standards) is with near all of their Plan liabilities being discounted at 7.9% …. far lower than what economists or Moody’s deems to be reasonable (Moody’s assuming a rate of 5.5%).

      If their Plan were re-valued using Moody’s 5.5%, the LOCAL Plan funding ratios would likely come in BELOW 50%, and that 5.5% is STILL higher than the rate that the US Gov’t requires in the valuation of Private Sector Plans……… closer to 4%.

      To put that in perspective, when Private Sector Plans have a funding ratio below 60% (calculated using their much STRICTER Standards) they are barred from granting any further pension accruals.

      So PLEASE….enough of your “smoothing”.
      ———————————-

      ALL of NJ’s Plans should be FROZEN ….BOTH State and LOCAL.

      Reply

    • Posted by Smooth Moderation Difficult on March 29, 2016 at 10:07 pm

      Prognostication: by 2020,

      Retiree healthcare; 100% paid by retiree.*

      All new employees on DC plan (10% employer match)**

      *Except …..safety employees.

      **Except ……safety employees.

      Reply

      • Posted by Tough Love on March 30, 2016 at 12:30 am

        10% is MORE than an appropriate Taxpayer contribution for Safety workers considering that in NJ they ALSO participate in SS, and that Private Sector workers rarely get more than a 3-4% employer contribution into a 401K Plan.

        The “hero” BS that they deserve so much more is just that …….. BS.

        And for Safety, there needs to be a MASSIVE clamp-down on the phony “disabilities”. Job-related ONLY, with annual proof (by a panel of outside doctors) of continued disability, and with a $ for $ offset for employment income in ANY other job. The suckering of the Taxpayers must END.

        Reply

        • Posted by Anonymous on March 30, 2016 at 11:31 am

          You are wrong about SS. The vast majority of public workers do not get it. I don’t.
          I agree with you on disabilities. The truly disabled deserve every penny, the frauds deserve a jail cell. However, I disagree with you on the $ offset for employment.
          Take the situation of a 10 yr vetearn who gets permanently(not able to form the functions of police officer) disabled. Perhaps he is now handicapped, wheelchair, whatever. He is 35, with a couple kids and a disability pension of about $50000 a year. Still young so couldn’t really invest tons of money in a 457 plan yet, and no social security or cola increase on his pension. How will he survive and raise his kids on that? What if he lives to be 80 yrs old? That is not fair. Are you saying he should take a pay cut if he gets a job as a receptionist or somethjng making $30000 a year?
          A guy working construction? Yes, he is a fraud on should lose his pension, pay back what he stole and be criminally charged. BUT please be careful, when you provide benifits that by any metric , would be unfit to live on, discouraging folks to work. Send the doctors you spoke about to the place of employment unannounced. Hell, you can extend that argument to retirees then could you not? I don’t want to sit and do nothing when I retire from the force.
          You talk about fair, but all that does is encourage active cops to not put themselves in a spot where they will get hurt. “Oh, sorry that guy stabbed you went you went to arrest him, you wouldve been better off letting him run away and standing there doing nothing, no go away and struggle for the rest of your life”
          What say you TL?
          Still a hard line on that one?

          Reply

  7. Posted by Anonymous on March 29, 2016 at 10:06 pm

    Curious, what are the Printing Press (Washington) Federal pensions funding levels – yes, dare I say, including the Armed Forces? Might they need to cut the presses and their pensions/benefits to? Taxpayers and Federal employees/retirees beware, precedents has its privelges!

    Reply

    • Posted by Tough Love on March 30, 2016 at 12:33 am

      They are zero …. BECAUSE they have a printing press (and because … for now…. other countries are still stupid enough to buy America’s Bonds).

      Reply

      • Posted by Anonymous on March 30, 2016 at 4:49 pm

        In reference the above quote about ss, TL, again, you are wrong!!!! What cops pay into since 1990 is the part b medicare portion. We do not pay into nor do we receive any ss Benifits and neither does our employet pay in. I have collected paychecks since 1995 and not one has social security taken out. Medicare yes. Prior to 1990, cops had to get their 40 quarters in the private sector to get both ss and Medicare. Now we pay into and re ceive medicare. That is what you are referring to. Not social security. And if by chance we do get enough quarters in from the private sector(40,quarters), your hero Reagen hits us with the Windfall Elimination Provisions cutting our benifits (even though we pay full freight into it) because we get a public pension. This happens to all other public workers including SOME cops who do pay in (large minority) Private pensioners get no such reduction. Ha, talk about EQUAL.
        You seem to be very educated on pensions, however, from time to time, you are incorrect with cerain things, this being one of them. Do a little research first perhaps, or take my word for it, either way you are mistaken about police paying into and receiving ss. Ask around.
        That being said, can you answer the question I posed please? Is it fair to penalize a disabled pensioner (legitimite) from trying to find work again, when he gets no ss, cola, and may be young and not have a significant amount of money saved on his own? How does someone in that situation with a mortgage and a couple kids survive for decades like that? Or years even? And please answer the question. Not like ted cruz answer if he will back the GOP nominee.

        Reply

        • Posted by Tough Love on March 30, 2016 at 7:35 pm

          I Googled whether NJ police get SS and what came up was the following …..

          “State of NJ Police & Fireman did not contribute to the social security system until the early 1990. In the early 1990 a law was passed declaring that Social Security would be deducted from all State Police & Fireman. After that all State Police & Fireman that were hired started to pay into the system and are now entitled to the full benefit of Social Security.”

          from this source……….. http://www.answers.com/Q/Do_NJ_police_officers_pay_in_to_social_security

          If the answer was wrong, so much for trusting the internet.
          ___________________________________________

          As for Public Sector workers getting reduced SS via the SS “Windfall Elimination Provision” (WEP), you’ve got it ALL WRONG by assuming that you are being unjustly penalized. That name is the OFFICIAL name from SS BECAUSE it is very specifically designed to prevent an UNJUST “windfall”……. and anyone reading the specific SS WEP provision (with an open mind and with reasonable intelligence) would understand why the WEP provision reduction was both necessary and appropriate.

          ——————————————————————-
          And to address your question ……. ” Is it fair to penalize a disabled pensioner (legitimize) from trying to find work again, when he gets no ss, cola, and may be young and not have a significant amount of money saved on his own? ”

          No, it would not be for the VERY VERY SMALL percentage of NJ Police disability approvals that are (a) accidental job-related, and (b) total and permanent in nature. The problem is that a VERY high percentage of NJ Police disability retirement approvals do not meet (a) and (b), but are in the very wide “grey area” which would NEVER be approved for disability under a Privately purchased Disability income policy.

          And I’m not talking about just the obvious BIG abusers …. e.g., the officer on Disability for stapling her trigger finger, the disabled Police officer turned reality TV fighter, etc. I talking about the 40-50 year old officer with the aches and pains common to almost EVERYONE as they age …. but become a basis for a disability retirement, or the random sickness that equally effects those in the Private Sector but falls on the ever-growing list of illnesses PRESUMED to be job-related. Sure “some” of it is legit …. but how do we weed out the 90% that is total BS ?

          Reply

          • Posted by Anonymous on March 30, 2016 at 7:49 pm

            Cmon. 90% ? I agree there is a lot of fraud but not that high.
            Let’s take a poll here. How many active Leo’s pay into ss. This one doesn’t. I would put that figure at 30% at most. Maybe njsp does if that was what u referenced. I don’t know.
            There should be a high bar for permanently aND totally disabled. No disability for aches and pains or phony crap. But again, I don’t want to be in a situation where there I need to take action and think, uh oh, Mr so and so is getting away but if I get hurt my kids won’t go to college. That’s all I’m saying.

          • Posted by Tough Love on March 30, 2016 at 8:11 pm

            The situation you describe …. getting hurt ON THE JOB is NOT what I’m challenging. I’m challenging the vague, “unproveable” aches & pains as a basis for disability and the LONG list of sicknesses (e,g, many cancers) PRESUMED to be job-related.

            That a load of BS. Sure, if you’ve worked cleaning up the WTC and get one of the unusual cancers commons to the WTC workers THAT’s sufficient, but NOT if you simply come down with something on “the”list” and there is nothing in your job-history that substantiates exposure to the triggers for THAT disease. THAT’s bogus …. and a ripoff of the taxpayers if a job-related disability retirement is granted.

    • Posted by Smooth Moderation Difficult on March 30, 2016 at 12:59 am

      That’s different. We are now paying pensions for Viet Nam era vets who served in the 60s. In the 60s, they were paying pensions for WWII and Korea. Pay it forward, serially. And my grandkids will pay for Iraq and Afghanistan. Deferred compensation. I don’t have a problem with that.

      “……. the government is still paying out pensions to 58 children of Spanish-American War veterans, 2,192 children of World War I veterans and 10,733 children of World War II veterans.”

      And one Civil War

      http://www.usnews.com/news/newsgram/articles/2013/07/03/one-civil-war-veterans-pension-remains-on-governments-payroll

      Reply

  8. Posted by Now retired Pat on March 29, 2016 at 11:39 pm

    i call for an “American Patriot Tax” of 10% per gross to take care of both the US Patriots who died for our country as well as the state employees who sacrificed their futures and lifelong prosperity based upon US government promises. It’s only fair, reasonable and, I think, very palatable to the citizens of both America and New Jersey. That is “Equal and Fair”..

    Reply

    • Posted by Tough Love on March 30, 2016 at 12:34 am

      Quoting …..

      “to take care of …… state employees who sacrificed their futures and lifelong prosperity based upon US government promises.”

      LOL ….LOL …LOL…..LOL ….LOL …LOL…..vLOL ….LOL …LOL…..

      Reply

      • Posted by Smooth Moderation Difficult on March 30, 2016 at 12:46 am

      • Posted by Anonymous on March 30, 2016 at 8:22 am

        @Pat that is pretty funny:) sacrificed your futures, get a grip on yourself.

        Reply

        • Posted by Tough Love on March 30, 2016 at 3:48 pm

          Well said ….. I almost fell off my chair laughing when I read his ridiculous comment !

          Reply

          • Posted by MJ on March 30, 2016 at 5:12 pm

            I sort of thought that Retired Pat was a woman……..I have nothing against an honest days work for an honest days pay but I have to laugh when these publics think that they are so superior to others and so more deserving that the private sector would be banging down doors to offer them jobs. This is just one more erroneous belief that further supports the notion that they live in a bubble…a bubble that is about to burst but a bubble none the less. Is this the same Pat who stated a while back that she turned down a lucrative position on Wall Street to work in the state accounting department? I have friends who work there, most of them sit around not doing much but texting, sitting on their iPads and talking on the phone. All admit how bored they are but know that they can’t go anywhere else where they would actually be expected to do something…….I couldn’t give a sh*t about their pensions but it is fun to read about.

          • Posted by Now retired Pat on March 30, 2016 at 7:22 pm

            quote: “I couldn’t give a sh*t about their pensions…” EXACTLY! You have no honor! Considering that the pensions were agreed to by willing, capable and able parties, the law is quite clear. YOU just say “I couldn’t give a sh*t”? Nice. That’s very informative of your character. Thank God the justices are a little more cerebral than you. Maybe I should say if your employer violated you sexually and religiously I could give a sh*t about your grievance? WANKER!!

          • Posted by Tough Love on March 30, 2016 at 7:46 pm

            Quoting Now Retired Pat’s response to MJ …….. ….

            ” You have no honor! Considering that the pensions were agreed to by willing, capable and able parties, the law is quite clear.”

            It would be FAR more accurate if your above quote stated:

            ” You’re likely correct ! Considering that the grossly excessive Public Sector pensions (AND benefits) were agreed to by Elected Officials BOUGHT with Public Sector Union campaign contributions and promises of election support, and who knowingly betray and ignore the best interests of the Taxpayers, ALL OF WHOM (NOT just Public Sector workers) they are supposed to fairly represent.”

  9. Posted by Tough Love on March 30, 2016 at 1:16 am

    Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia is rolling over in his grave ………..

    http://www.aol.com/article/2016/03/29/in-scalias-absence-unions-get-a-big-supreme-court-win/21335200/

    Reply

  10. Posted by Anonymous on March 30, 2016 at 9:22 pm

    When is enough, enough – apparently not yet for these individuals! No one else can do their jobs? Like maybe someone who really needs a job!!

    http://www.nj.com/politics/index.ssf/2016/03/temporary_workers_collecting_millions_on_top_of_th.html#incart_river_mobile_index

    Reply

    • Posted by Tough Love on March 30, 2016 at 9:27 pm

      The situation with RETIRED Police Chiefs becoming employees of the County Sherrfi’s Dep’ts is an even WORSE ripoff of the Taxpayers.

      Reply

      • Posted by Anonymous on March 30, 2016 at 10:32 pm

        Probably so but according to Trump (and others, I’m sure) you can’t put a price on our safety?

        Reply

      • Posted by Anonymous on March 31, 2016 at 12:31 am

        I agree. You want to run for elected office as a retired public employee? Your pension gets frozen during your term. Actually, reverse that. A retired public employee or active for that matter, has just as much right to run for office as the next guy, and their should not be a penalty associated with that. If they are voted in by their peers, fine. What grinds my gears is the political hacks who retire and then get “appointed” to an interim job or some other high priced “part time consulting” work. As bad as the political hack getting a big pension after years of part time work. Thank god that law changed. Should have been retroactive.
        All of these guys on this list are hacks who shouldn’t even be in the business anymore. The argument that, we would have to pay another set of benefits and pension contributions for another employee makes it no less insulting to taxpayers and pw’s who only dream of this nonsense.

        Reply

        • Posted by Tough Love on March 31, 2016 at 1:09 am

          Quoting …

          “As bad as the political hack getting a big pension after years of part time work. Thank god that law changed. ”

          How has that changed …. please describe the change fully.

          ——————————————————–

          Quoting …

          ” The argument that, we would have to pay another set of benefits and pension contributions for another employee makes it no less insulting to taxpayers and pw’s who only dream of this nonsense.”

          What is the REAL problem is that Safety workers pensions are SOOOOO generous at such a young age (WITHOUT any reduction for being able to COLLECT at such a young age) that they are still young enough to seek other meaningful employment.

          That structure is a MAJOR ripoff of the taxpayers. If you want 65% of pay (which Safety can now get after only 25 years at ANY age) it should be after 35 years (not 25) and there should be an actuarial reduction of 5% PER YEAR OF AGE that you begin collecting before 65……. noting that Social Security reduces your otherwise calculated SS benefit by 6% for EACH YEAR that you retire before your Normal Retirement Age (with is now typically 66).

          Public Safety worker pensions are an ENORMOUS taxpayer-ripoff EVERYWHERE…. ROUTINELY 4 to 6 times greater in “value at retirement” than those of comparable Private Sector workers who retire with the SAME pay, at the SAME age, and with the SAME years of service.

          Reply

  11. Posted by Anonymous on March 31, 2016 at 9:04 am

    @Now retired Pat…I have more honor than most that’s why I have planned for my own retirement instead of stealing from others. I don’t give a sh*t about your pension or anyone else’s pension bc I was smart enough to get out when the time was right. I’m not beholden to outrageous property taxes to fund those doing way too little for way too much. I’m not dependent on unethical, lying, corrupt politicians to determine the outcome of my retirement. Sexually and religioiusly violated by my employer???? You are really reaching a new desperation. Funny. Yes I know, you were promised and now daddy get come up with the cash bc the promise was unrealistic to begin with.
    Wanker??? That tells me all I need to know about you. As I’ve said before, the comments on this blog are quite amusing please keep them coming

    Reply

    • Posted by PS Drone on March 31, 2016 at 10:20 pm

      Pat thinks retiring at age 53 and collecting benefits immediately is rational, logical and perpetually affordable. Even SS does not allow payouts before age 62 and that is too young. Vested? OK. Collect? Wait until age 66 and then plan your working/age of retirement life appropriately.

      Reply

      • Posted by Tough Love on March 31, 2016 at 11:49 pm

        If a private Sector worker in a DB Pension Plan with the typical NRA (Normal retirement age) of 65 …. meaning the age at which he can begin collecting his/her pension WITHOUT an early retirement reduction ….. were to elect to retire at age 53, each $5000 of calculated monthly pension payout would be reduced to no more than $2500, while the Public Sector worker with the SAME $5000 calculated monthly pension would get the FULL $5000. That difference ALONE makes the “value” of the Public Sector worker’s pension DOUBLE that of the similarly situated Private Sector worker.

        Then add to that (for the few lucky Private Sector workers that Still get DB Pensions) the fact that PUBLIC Sector DB pension formulas ALWAYS have greater (per-year-of-service) formula factors than their Private Sector counterparts, and the Non-Safety pensions rise to 3 times greater (and Safety worker pensions to 4 times greater because of even richer formula factors).

        And while COLAs are now suspended, should they be reinstated (as most now believe they will be) because Private Sector pensions almost never include COLA increases, the Non-Safety worker’s pension “advantage” often rises to 4 times greater (and the Safety workers pension to 5-6 times greater) in value at retirement than those Private Sector counterparts.

        Now Retired Pat was “promised” it (by union/politician crooks in collusion with one another for mutual self-interest), but he never “earned” it, nor deserves it. And Taxpayers have more than sufficient justification to do everything within their power to ONLY pay him that share (without doubt considerably LESS than half of what he were promised) that likely WOULD HAVE been granted in the absence of the Union/politician collusion.

        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

%d bloggers like this: