.
Along the same vein, if you obtain an asset that pays you $1 billion* annually but you have to pay out $1 billion annually to ‘own’ that asset then what is the value of that asset to you?
If you answered $13.535 billion you are as smart as a New Jersey legislator, governor, or media member who do not appear to have caught on to this scam.
Per the Statement to S3312:
The bill stipulates the initial value of the asset contribution at $13.535 billion. According to the State Treasurer, as stated in testimony to the Senate Budget and Appropriations Committee on June 15, 2017 this asset contribution will increase the funded ratios of the three retirement systems as follows: TPAF, from 47 percent to 63.9 percent; PERS (State) from 37.8 percent to 49.6 percent; and PFRS (State) from 41.2 percent to 44.5 percent.
The question then is are the people at GASB and the rating agencies going to be as willfully stupid.
.
.
.
* Per meep’s research that $1 billion revenue item could also be optimistic:
while the payout amount is defined:
For FY 2018 through FY 2022, the adjustment percentage is set at 100 percent for all three systems, and special asset adjustment is a fixed dollar amount, as follows:
- FY 2018: about $1.001 billion
- FY 2019: about $1.037 billion
- FY 2020: about $1.070 billion
- FY 2021: about $1.084 billion
- FY 2022: about $1.096 billion
Burypensions Blog 
Posted by Anonymous on June 28, 2017 at 7:40 pm
And nothing for jrs or sprs? Guess the State will finagle the non Lottery appropriations amongst the pension funds. Then again what’s the difference when pension funds start to cash flow out the State will treat it as one big pot of money.
Posted by Anonymous on June 28, 2017 at 10:29 pm
It WILL be interesting when the Judges Plan runs out of money to see what they come up with to justify continued monthly payment, where they will come from, and how they present it.
Posted by George on June 29, 2017 at 11:54 am
Sort of interesting possibilities here. It seems most of the lottery funny money will end up with the TPAF teachers pension scheme if I get it right which improves from 47 percent to 63.9 percent. The least with the Police Fire, 41.2 percent to 44.5 percent. So I might predict that to make things fair a future governor will be under pressure to improve the funding ratio of the Police Fire PFRS and PERS most likely by channeling real money there. Is this a scam on the various government retirees or the taxpayers, I can’t tell. But I am going to guess the unions will demand funding of 64% too: Sixty Four or Fight.
Posted by Anonymous on June 29, 2017 at 12:07 pm
In the Private Sector, when you “demands” things from management, you often wind up without a job.
President Reagan didn’t like “demands”, and it cost the air traffic controllers dearly.
We need to resurrect his approach when Public Sector workers start “demanding”.
Posted by Anonymous on June 29, 2017 at 12:11 pm
What’s really interesting, phony or not, is that TPAF goes to 64% – even after all the Gov’s and NJEA’s rhetoric??
Posted by Anonymous on June 29, 2017 at 12:36 pm
Because the plan calls for LOWERING the otherwise-payable annual State contribution by roughly $1 Million (using that $1 Million to continue funding what the lottery proceeds previously paid for), the funding ratio will slowly drop right back down to where it started …………… which if valued under the SAME procedures required for Private Sector Plans, would (RIGHT NOW) be in the mid-30% range..
Posted by Anonymous on June 29, 2017 at 3:57 pm
I got all that but it wasn’t my point…..why not beef up jrs & sprs and let the others languish??
Posted by Anonymous on June 29, 2017 at 5:25 pm
Why “beef up” ANY of them ?
It’s hard to argue that NJ’s Public Sector DB pensions aren’t grossly excessive (i.e., FAR in excess of those granted comparable Private Sector workers).
Taxpayer should resist ANY additional pension funding until ALL of these Plans are frozen (with ZERO future growth) for the future service of all CURRENT workers).
Only thereafter should taxpayers even CONSIDER arguments that they should contribute more towards paying down PAST service accruals ….. and then only AFTER retroactively granted pension increases (being nothing but a THEFT of Taxpayer wealth) are rolled-back.
Greed HAS consequences ….. especially when we’re just about out of money to pay for it.
Posted by Anonymous on June 29, 2017 at 6:22 pm
This Lottery thing is Christie’s retribution against his base that turned on him via dismal approval ratings!
Posted by Seesaw Junior on June 29, 2017 at 2:51 pm
I have SAID IT BEFORE, and I will say IT AGAIN, JOHN BURY needs to be put in 100% control the New Jersey pension system, it is the system’s only hope.
Posted by Anonymous on June 29, 2017 at 4:44 pm
Like the PBC two to three reports with specific suggestions and still nothing?
Posted by Anonymous on June 30, 2017 at 6:41 am
http://www.thestate.com/news/politics-government/article158900174.html
Posted by Anonymous on June 30, 2017 at 8:30 am
Undisclosed sources suggest Gov to stop pension checks in wake of shutdown…..
Posted by Anonymous on June 30, 2017 at 5:06 pm
See Trumps latest tweetstorm ?
Here is Twitter co-founder’s response:
“Twitter co-founder Evan Williams even apologized if his creation played a role in sending Trump to the White House. “It’s a very bad thing, Twitter’s role in that,” Williams said. “If it’s true that he wouldn’t be president if it weren’t for Twitter, then yeah, I’m sorry.””
Posted by Anonymous on June 30, 2017 at 6:19 pm
We’d all be a a lot more sorry if Hillary was in the WH …..
Posted by Anonymous on June 30, 2017 at 6:30 pm
She did a lot of bad things, but at least she is sane.
Trump is mentally unfit to be President.
Posted by Anonymous on June 30, 2017 at 6:35 pm
And what politician in recent memory doesn’t have excess baggage charges with the airlines?
Posted by Anonymous on June 30, 2017 at 7:14 pm
They all come with baggage, but Trump has set a new low bar.
The sooner he’s impeached the better.
Posted by Anonymous on June 30, 2017 at 10:10 pm
When there is only so much money to go around, those with money-owed start fighting for their share of the dwindling pie ……….
Coming to a State/City near you ……. thank your Public Sector workers !
https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/illinois/articles/2017-06-30/judge-orders-illinois-to-pay-more-toward-medicaid-bills?int=news-rec
Posted by Anonymous on July 1, 2017 at 7:56 am
Now public workers are responsible for Medicaid?
Guess that includes the pay as you go Fed pensions including military – exceptions please…..
Fed govt under Trump proposing cuts to Medicaid and shifting the burden to States!
Private sector takes no responsibility for any of its negative actions/consequences only toots its free market horn.
Posted by Anonymous on July 1, 2017 at 11:27 am
Medicaid (to a large extent) is a part of overall State funds. If Public Sector Pensions eat up an inordinate portion of those funds ……….. and they do BECAUSE the pension “promises” are WAY too generous ……….. there is less money available for everything else. Did you think Illinois wanted to accumulate $15 Billion of unpaid bills?
Posted by Anonymous on July 1, 2017 at 11:33 am
Forgot to link this article………..
https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2017-state-pension-funding-ratios/
Posted by Anonymous on July 1, 2017 at 11:55 am
Outdated, Jersey is #1 in % unfunded due to employer underfunding…..benefits haven’t changed!
Posted by Anonymous on July 1, 2017 at 12:15 pm
We’ve discussed this before………….
An intelligent discussion of pension “full funding” (or the lack thereof) cannot be had without inclusion of the Plan’s “generosity” ………. which for Public Sector Plans, is always the ROOT CAUSE of the pension mess in which most States & Cities find themselves today.
Posted by Anonymous on July 1, 2017 at 12:26 pm
I know your simple narrow minded opinion is the only one that counts, to you and yours – intelligence not relevant!
Posted by Anonymous on July 1, 2017 at 2:10 pm
Everyone opinion is welcome……
But you cannot get around the FACT that pension “funding requirements” are A FUNCTION OF the Plan’s “generosity”.
Posted by Anonymous on July 1, 2017 at 11:52 am
Ok then the Fed but “to a large extent” shouldn’t impact State’s Medicaid budget?
Posted by Anonymous on July 1, 2017 at 11:54 am
correction but s/b budget
Posted by Anonymous on July 1, 2017 at 1:38 pm
Did you think Illinois wanted to accumulate $15 Billion of unpaid bills? And what about their unpaid unfunded pension liability – don’t pay your bills on time….
Posted by Anonymous on July 1, 2017 at 2:08 pm
Illinois unfunded Pension liability est at $250 Billion. Do you think they won’t get big reductions?
Greed HAS consequences.
Posted by Anonymous on July 1, 2017 at 6:57 pm
Oh you mean they have $265B of unpaid bills?
Posted by Anonymous on July 1, 2017 at 11:58 am
And this link and that link;
https://www.forbes.com/sites/patrickgleason/2017/06/30/illinois-california-ignore-massively-unfunded-pensions-but-pennsylvania-michigan-take-action/amp/
Posted by Anonymous on July 1, 2017 at 2:33 pm
From a financial impact standpoint, mostly “feel good” changes.
If you want reforms with MATERIAL impact in the near term, the reductions MUST apply to the FUTURE Service of all CURRENT workers …… as such changes almost always do in Private Sector Plan reductions.
And what’s with the DELAYING of even the new-employee reductions to 2019? Elected Officials and other “connected” types need time to get their friends, relatives and cronies into positions before the reduction? Why not 1/01/2018?
Posted by Anonymous on July 1, 2017 at 3:04 pm
Hopefully, reality is as reality does?
Posted by Anonymous on July 1, 2017 at 7:49 pm
Sounds like buyers remorse and sour grapes;
http://amp.usatoday.com/story/409429001/
Posted by Anonymous on July 2, 2017 at 8:35 am
What’s the bottom line on the State shutdown, net savings or cost? Sales and income tax still due, casinos open, lottery closed (sorry pension funds, recalculate again), salary savings, pension accrual savings, for PERS-State, if shutdown last an entire pay period?
Posted by Anonymous on July 2, 2017 at 12:50 pm
It’ will likely be a PAID VACATION for the workers …… just as it was in 2006.
The Taxpayers are always the suckers holding the bag.
Posted by Anonymous on July 2, 2017 at 1:04 pm
Great read (especially the comments) ………
http://www.marinij.com/general-news/20170701/pension-watchdog-sues-san-rafael
Posted by Anonymous on July 2, 2017 at 1:44 pm
Sounds like NJ’s lucky!
Posted by Anonymous on July 2, 2017 at 3:07 pm
The RETROACTIVELY-applied 9% across-the-Board pension increase in 2001 was nothing but a THEFT of Private Sector wealth.
With NJ’s total Plan liabilities in the $300 Million range (when properly valued). roughly 9%x$300B=$27 BILLION in unjustly-increased pension “promises” have been granted NJ’s Public Sector workers.
Even for the portion credited for service AFTER 2001, were they necessary just, fair to taxpayers or affordable?
No. Even BEFORE thiis increase, Public Sector pensions were multiples greater in value upon retirement than those granted their Private Sector counterparts.
Posted by Anonymous on July 2, 2017 at 3:09 pm
The “$300 Million range” s/b “$300 Billion range”.