Pension Question in NJ Gubernatorial Debates

About all we found out from tonight’s two debates was that none of these six people understands the scope of the problem.


.

14 responses to this post.

  1. Posted by Anonymous on May 9, 2017 at 11:26 pm

    The four Democrats are clearly going to support their voter-base ….. the Public Sector Unions and their families. Which of course means a ramped-up screwing of NJ’s Taxpayers to fully fund the LUDICROUSLY generous pension & benefits in place today.

    Kim Guadagno is “making believe” she will seek out substantive pension reform. THAT was clear from her REPEATED calls for “negotiating” with the Unions. Anyone who thinks the Unions will give-back more and 5% or 10% of the amount that they SHOULD give back is a fool.

    Jack Ciattarelli is the ONLY one who looks to be TRULY calling for the VERY material pension reforms needed to save NJ’s future.

    Reply

  2. Posted by Anonymous on May 9, 2017 at 11:30 pm

    Follow-up…………

    Phil Murphy should be ashamed.

    Being so rich, he doesn’t need the Union’s money (as do the other candidates) to run his campaign. As I stated in an earlier Bury post:

    Murphy has that burning desire to be Governor, but like John Corzine some years back, he DOESN’T need the Union’s money, only their votes and the troops-on-the-ground election support.

    THAT is what makes this so sad, especially for someone (with his financial background) that assuredly recognizes the ROOT CAUSE of NJ’s pension mess ….. the ludicrously generous level of it’s pension & benefit promises.

    You see, with his money he COULD HAVE attempted to make REAL change (for ALL of NJ’s Taxpayers) and fought-the-fight………. by calling out the Unions for their greed and arrogance, and seeking as his voter base the masses of NJ taxpayers who have been and will continue to be disenfranchised with ever growing taxes if these pensions & benefits are not reined-in.

    Reply

    • Posted by Anonymous on May 10, 2017 at 10:56 am

      Murphy is a pauper compared to Trump so what is your point. If your assumption is Murphy, a multi-millionaire, is in the unions pockets then who’s pockets is multi-millionaire Trump’s in?

      Reply

      • Posted by Anonymous on May 10, 2017 at 12:07 pm

        My “point” was that Murphy can’t be bought by the unions for money, but certainly can be for their block-voting.
        *******************

        Trump belongs on a Psychiatrist’s couch

        Reply

    • Posted by NY on May 10, 2017 at 11:10 am

      Absolutely correct, @Anonymous.

      Murphy’s contention in the Youtube clip is that Millennials are leaving b/c they don’t trust State Govt. What a bunch of hokum: they’re leaving b/c the cost-of-living is too darn high and set to rise higher, not because they don’t trust the State Govt to pay their elders the fat-cat pensions.

      Reply

  3. Posted by Mr B on May 10, 2017 at 4:48 am

    “It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary (job) depends upon his not understanding it.”…Upton Sinclair ….when the money runs out I can hear them now ..” who could have see this happening” !

    Reply

  4. Posted by MJ on May 10, 2017 at 6:59 am

    YAWN………

    Reply

  5. Posted by steve on May 10, 2017 at 7:06 am

    This has been a “hair trigger issue”—there is a phrase called “pass through ” when the gun goes off the only difference is who is standing in front of who-the tax payers or the retirees–both will be adversely affected——no winners- —-ps– ditto to mr b comment

    Reply

    • Posted by S Moderation Douglas on May 12, 2017 at 11:55 am

      Still not clear on the concept. Frayda Levin…

      “Most still talk of meeting the commitments to government workers as if taxpayers won’t mind working into their 70s while public employees retire decades earlier…”

      Yes, it is true, many safety workers can retire younger. Do any New Jersey cities/counties have “twenty and out” with half pay like New York state? (Or the military?)

      On average, “taxpayers”, whether public or private, do not work into their seventies, and “decades earlier” is histrionic propaganda.

      Frayda Levin…
      “And while other public employees must work until age 62, they still retire earlier and get more than do most New Jersey taxpayers.”

      On average, retirement age is about the same for public and private workers. Private workers could “get more” …if… they worked for lower average wages, and …if… they had up to 10% (mandatory) withheld from their current wages.
      If a worker deliberately chooses a private sector job because the wages are higher, and contributes …nothing… to an IRA or 401(k), even when it is available, his complaints about public pensions are pointless.

      And, for whatever reason, Andrew Biggs is still claiming that private sector workers ain’t doing that bad after all…

      https://www.forbes.com/sites/andrewbiggs/2016/09/20/how-many-americans-are-saving-for-retirement-how-many-should-be/#22baace67050

      Public sector pensions; as it was in the beginning, and now, and always, and to the ages of ages, shall be known as “deferred compensation”. And it is a good thing.

      Reply

  6. Posted by Garden State Woes on May 11, 2017 at 10:58 am

    I don’t think all of the candidates are equally bad on the pension crisis. Jack Ciattarelli’s plan isn’t perfect, but the combination of cutting public sector healthcare costs, some higher income taxes, and spending restraint is what New Jersey needs. If you look at Ciattarelli’s platform he calls for very little new spending. For instance, his plan on state aid is about redistribution and capping aid targets for Abbott districts.

    Ciattarelli does favor a 10 year phase-out of corporate taxes, but corporate taxes are declining anyway.

    KG has ruled out any tax increase, nor explained where she wants to make cuts. Even though a “millionaire’s tax” wouldn’t be nearly enough to eliminate our funding gap, politically it is necessary to get the healthcare cuts through.

    The Democratic candidates have all ruled out any pension reforms whatsoever and their spending dreams alone (free college, free PreK etc) exceed the amount of money NJ would plausibly get from income tax hikes, marijuana legalization, and Combined Reporting.

    And within the Democratic candidates, Wisniewski should get some credit for voting against the Police & Firemen’s Pension Control bill.

    Reply

    • Posted by Anonymous on May 11, 2017 at 4:40 pm

      We MUST stop digging the financial hole we are in DEEPER every day, which means that we must stop crediting ADDITIONAL pension credits far greater than necessary, just, fair to Taxpayers or affordable.

      The IMMEDIATE 1-st step should be to put ALL new State & Local Public Sector workers in 401K-style Plans or Cash Balance Plans with Taxpayer CONTRIBUTIONS no greater than what Private Sector workers typically get from their employers.

      Coincident with the above, we should do the same for the future service of ALL current workers where it is clearly legal to do so … e.g., those not yet vested.

      Then we should do WHATEVER is necessary .. changes in the Nj’s laws or Constitution to do the same for the future service of AL remaining workers.

      ********************************

      Readers …. please don’t fall for the “be we were promised” nonsense. In the Private Sector, there are ZERO legal protections for FUTURE service, and companies ROUTINELY reduce such accruals or freeze the Plans entirely.

      WE… the Taxpayers …. are now responsible for all but the 10% to 20% of to Total Public Sector DB Plan costs not directly paid for by the workers, and with US … the Taxpayers ….. being “responsible” for that 80% to 90% balance, neither the generosity of Public Sector pensions, nor the protections from change should be greater than OURS.

      Reply

  7. Posted by Now Retired Pat on May 11, 2017 at 8:14 pm

    Move the NJ lottery asset into the pension funds and the hell with the other social welfare programs that use those funds? Absolutely! I’m all for it!

    http://www.nj.com/politics/index.ssf/2017/05/christie_administration_details_plan_to_slash_publ.html#incart_river_home

    Reply

    • Posted by Anonymous on May 11, 2017 at 8:47 pm

      Pat,

      You’re all for it” because YOU are a retired NJ Public Sector worker riding this gravy train.

      And how nice and thoughtful of you to tell those on “social welfare programs” …. the sick, the poor, the elderly, etc. …… to hell with them.

      I would MUCH prefer cutting YOUR pension to somewhere between 1/4 and 1/2 of what it is now, because the value of YOUR pension upon your retirement is (as are all other non-Safety worker full career pensions) easily 2 to 4 times greater than that typically granted a comparable Private Sector worker retiring at the SAME age, with the SAME wages, and the SAME years of service.

      Yes, you were “granted” it because your Union effectively BOUGHT it from our Elected Officials with BRIBES disguised as campaign contributions and election support. It was never “earned”.

      Some advise ………. As someone ALREADY retired, you’re likely at or near the bottom of the list for pension cuts (although your retire healthcare will assuredly be reduced at some point), so it would be wise to keep such greedy and arrogance thoughts to yourself.

      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: