#1 Pension Priority for NJ PBA President

The latest issue of NJBLUENOW has a featured interview with New Jersey State Police Benevolent Association president Patrick Colligan where he answers (on page 28) the question:

Where do you see our pension in four years and do our retired members get to see the return of COLA?

Phony actuarial numbers provide an illusion that system survival is not the priority. Instead….

I’ve been very public about it and my number one priority is to get COLA back, because I know what it’s doing to guys and gals who retired 30 or 40 years ago. And I’ve said this to our retiree group, it’s not like I hide from the facts. Returning COLA back to the way it was will have a pretty profound and heavy hit on our pensions. I’ve said this in testimony and I’ve said this to our retirees, we need to figure out a responsible way to phase it back in. If we just turn it on, it drops the system significantly.

I never hide from my answers. I’m going to give you the answer, it may not be the answer that you like, and it’s very difficult for a retiree, whose COLA is greater than their pension, it is disheartening to me. It actually eats at me that we have retirees delivering Chinese food and driving Ubers. It is bullshit to me that we’ve disrespected our police officers and firefighters like that. So the first responsibility is to get COLA reinstated in some responsible fashion. You know, respectfully, a person that just retired a few years ago is not in the emergent situation that people who retired in the 70s and 80s are. We need to get it turned on fiscally, responsibly, and it is also bullshit to me that we have two police officers in the same car on two different tiers of employment. How you have a Tier 3 and Tier 1 officer in the same car, and a legislature can say that’s a good idea is a disgrace and I’ve been public about that.

So where do I see the pensions? I know we’ve developed a responsible plan to take it from the state and unfortunately, the governor didn’t sign it in the 11th hour because I think there was another chief that retired with a $500,000 check, which we don’t see. I find it amazing that with our PFRS plan to take from the state, it’s my pension too. I’ve said it, I’m not a trust fund baby, my wife is a school teacher, I’m a few months from poverty if I lose my job today, like many other cops and firemen, especially after seven years of decreases in our pay. So for those who seem to think that I’m going to make a crazy amount of money out of this, point out where it is. I just want a pension and I don’t want to be dragged down by the other systems that are there. We were always the responsible kid on the playground. When we had the opportunity to drop our side of the pension contributions, like the teachers did, we refused and it wasn’t an easy position from the State PBA President at the time to find out that, hey, we are over 100% funding, let’s reduce our pension contributions. The teachers did and then a short time after that the teachers also lowered their retirement age. So it was the death knell of their system. They were near a hundred percent funding, if they weren’t over a hundred percent funding then. So now you look, we were the responsible kids on the playground and now we know we had that close call of the blending of the systems just two years ago.

40 responses to this post.

  1. Posted by Tough Love on October 23, 2017 at 3:08 pm

    “Responsible” my ass………

    If the Local Police pensions were valued the SAME way Private Sector Pension Plans MUST be valued their supposedly ok “Official” funding ratio (now about 65%) would drop into the 40% to 50% range …….. so poor that if a Private Sector Plans, the US Gov’t would immediately disallow any future pension accruals.

    And oh the BS …………. “I’m a few months from poverty if I lose my job today”.

    In NJ’s bedroom communities (with VERY little crime) the lowest rank officer gets a BASE PAY of about $135K annually.

    ______________________________

    If NJ ever turns over “management” of of the Police Plans to their Unions, the Taxpayers are DEAD MEAT. With phony #s they’ll reinstate the COLAs in short order, and that’s not “accounting”, and not “timing” …. but REAL BIG money.

    Taxpayers………… raise holy hell if you have to, but don’t let our Legislature turn over “management” of the Police Pension Plan to their Unions.

    Reply

  2. Posted by bpaterson on October 23, 2017 at 3:29 pm

    just so sad his quote: “if I lose my job, i am just a few months away from poverty” which is laughable since he is months past the 25 years and out retirement date–and of at least $80k/yr PFRS pension–Why do these high powered public employees try to always feed us BS, why? Patrick colligan detective at franklin twshp: present salary. http://php.app.com/agent/publicemployees/details/66709

    Reply

  3. Posted by Anonymous on October 23, 2017 at 4:31 pm

    TL might as well be a politician she’s full of life she works for an insurance company and she wants to rip off the public as much as she can need I say more.

    Reply

    • Posted by Tough Love on October 23, 2017 at 4:50 pm

      Yes you need to say more ……………..

      Start with tell the readers exactly WHY NJ’s Public Sector workers are “entitled” (at Taxpayer expense) to pensions that right now are 2, 3, 4, even 5 times greater in value upon retirement than those typically granted COMPARABLE Private Sector workers who retire at the SAME age, with the SAME pay, and the SAME years of service? Do you think RICH formulas and retiring at 60, or 55 , or 50 (with NO REDUCTIONS) comes cheap ?

      Then tell us why, when employer-sponsored retiree healthcare benefits are all but gone in the Private Sector, that NJ’s Public Sector retirees should still get them, often costing Taxpayers $250K per-individual-retiree and even $500K for some Family- coverage-retirees ?
      __________________

      And no, I don’t work for an Ins.co., nor do I have any financial interests associated with my comments, other than a very-well-informed, educated, and fed-up Taxpayer.

      Reply

  4. Posted by MJ on October 23, 2017 at 7:43 pm

    COLAs greater than pensions? One step away from poverty (his wife is a teacher), are you f..cking kidding me?

    Reply

    • Posted by Tough Love on October 23, 2017 at 8:16 pm

      MJ, and did you miss THIS………

      “I’ve been very public about it and my number one priority is to get COLA back, because I know what it’s doing to guys and gals who retired 30 or 40 years ago. ”

      Sure, work 20 or 25 years and then suck at the Taxpayers teat for the next 30 or 40 …. 30 or 40 YEARS.

      F’n ridiculous !

      Reply

      • Posted by Anonymous on October 24, 2017 at 3:19 am

        It’s ironic how TL who has been ripping off the public her entire life makes believe she is on their side. How dishonest is a person who works for insurance company especially someone with a job like hers. Overcharges people to the hilt then when it comes time to pay does not want to pay. We know where she’s coming from that’s why she was probably in Jail recently notice you didn’t hear from her for almost a year or more

        Reply

        • Posted by Tough Love on October 24, 2017 at 8:15 am

          Wow, do you know me? How presumptuous and asinine.

          Anything to distract readers from the ROOT CAUSE of the Public Sector pension mess ….. ludicrously excessive pension/benefit “promises” ……….. and slander those (such as myself) who strongly advocate for MEANINGFUL pension reform.

          Sorry buster, but I’m NOT easily swayed.

          Reply

          • Posted by dentss dunnigan on October 24, 2017 at 10:28 am

            I see why they want that COLA reinstated …here’s someone who retired in 1945 (72 years ago ) his final yearly salary was 9K looks like he went out on disability he now receives 34,985 yearly with 2,915. pension and 30,485 in COLA ..Do the math I figure he’s already received over 2.5 million in his 72 year retirement ..http://php.app.com/agent/governmentretirees/details/228990

          • Posted by Tough Love on October 24, 2017 at 10:51 am

            dentss dunnigan,

            I opened your link. It’s showing a “survivor” benefit, which likely means a surviving spouse is collecting that pension.

            It’s also showing a Date of Birth of 1909. If that is the DOB of the person now collecting (noting that the spouse “could” be a lot younger than the retired/disabled worker), someone administering this pension should check to make sure that person is indeed alive, because they would now be 2017-1909 = 108 years old.

          • Posted by dentss dunnigan on October 24, 2017 at 11:11 am

            TL I missed that …wonder if it’s his son …if that’s possible ..

          • Posted by Anonymous on October 24, 2017 at 12:21 pm

            “Do the math I figure he’s already received over 2.5 million in his 72 year retirement… ”

            Does that mean he’s been drawing $35,000 a year for the whole 72 years?

          • For Dentss Dunnigan , public workers are allowed to name anyone as a survivor- even a newly born grandchild. The grandchild would receive the pension benefits for their entire life- even if they lived to 100 years old! Doesn’t have to be a spouse.

          • Posted by S Moderation Douglas on October 24, 2017 at 7:40 pm

            Maybe in New Jersey, but I doubt it. From the CalPERS retirement handbook…

            “You cannot choose your survivor. A survivor is defined by law as:
            • A spouse or registered domestic partner who was married or registered
            to you for at least one year before your service retirement date and
            continuously until your death. For disability or industrial disability
            retirement, you only need to be married as of your retirement date
            and remain married until your death.
            • If no eligible spouse or domestic partner, your natural or adopted
            unmarried children under age 18. The benefit would be paid until
            they marry or turn 18.”

            If a spouse is the survivor, and the employee wants to continue the “same” pension he/she receives, then the full, unmodified pension is actuarially reduced using the relative ages of the retirement and spouse. My wife is four years younger than I, so my pension was reduced by 8%. She will continue to draw the same pension if I pass first.

  5. Posted by Anonymous on October 24, 2017 at 2:03 pm

    TL rips people off in the insurance industry don’t let her fool you. Also ask her where she’s been for the past 2 years probably in prison

    Reply

  6. Posted by Anonymous on October 24, 2017 at 2:07 pm

    And now please eloquently state your various self interested exceptions for America’s finest, especially CofS Kelly!

    Reply

  7. Posted by Tough Love on October 24, 2017 at 2:43 pm

    LOL ………… the more you publish these false and personal attacks, the more confident I feel that my commentary is succeeding ……….

    You’re simply scared that the readers will see the truth (that the ROOT CAUSE of the Public Sector pension mess is ludicrously excessive pension & benefit “promises”), and demand an end to this THEFT from the Taxpayers..

    Reply

  8. Posted by Anonymous on October 24, 2017 at 5:16 pm

    So do you deny that you are in the insurance business? Do you also deny that you were in jail

    Reply

    • Posted by Tough Love on October 24, 2017 at 5:36 pm

      YES and yes, emphatically.

      Reply

      • Posted by Anonymous on October 25, 2017 at 8:41 am

        You proclaimed you were in the insurance industry yourself it is an old print I will look it up and show it to you then you can lie in the face of your own words. Maybe you were lying when you said you were in the insurance industry hahaha

        Reply

    • Posted by Anonymous on October 24, 2017 at 7:00 pm

      Yes and yes we still believe our lying sack of should*t Leader?

      Reply

  9. Posted by Tough Love on October 24, 2017 at 7:58 pm

    Great article……….

    Title: “How New Jersey’s public-sector unions created the pension crisis”

    https://whyy.org/articles/op-ed-new-jerseys-public-sector-unions-created-pension-crisis/

    Reply

    • Posted by Anonymous on October 25, 2017 at 9:32 am

      TL,
      My first foray back to this forum in 2 years or so. I see where u come from on most of your points. However, why do you look down your nose at a retired cop in his eighties that might be making a $40000 pension(because of past cola) a small cola being that he does not get SS? He is right in that respect, there are still plenty of old timers who missed the boat in terms of the salaries today. Why do u want them to live in poverty while you would want yourself to get SS cola?

      Reply

      • Posted by Tough Love on October 25, 2017 at 9:49 am

        With the SS MAXIMUM at retirement age 67 now about $30K and below $25K at age 62, and with most Police retiring at about 55, I would have no problem if they received COLAs only on the first $25K (or perhaps $30K) of their pensions..

        I am simply guided by the principle of EQUAL, but not better on the taxpayers’ dime.

        P.S. Of course that COLA increase should be AFTER their pension formulas are reduced by HALF, because the formulas alone, are right now RARELY less than twice as generous as the pensions granted comparably situated Private Sector workers in Corporate-sponsored DB pension Plans..

        Again, EQUAL, but not better……. on the Taxpayers’ dime.

        Reply

        • Posted by Anonymous on October 25, 2017 at 2:25 pm

          TL is totally ridiculous taxpayers are supposed to pay for services. Services don’t come free you idiot. She doesn’t want to pay for anything.

          Reply

          • Posted by PS Drone on October 25, 2017 at 9:33 pm

            You’re the idiot. Taxpayers should pay for value received. Not two or three times what any rational (non-politician or public sector union scumbag) person would determine was reasonable.

      • Posted by MJ on October 25, 2017 at 2:34 pm

        If any cops from the back in the day were not paying into SS then they should have counted themselves lucky and invested the money for their retirement years. Ii know what is taken from my check for SS and I know I can do a lot better with investing that money than relying on a corrupt, immoral, greedy government…………..COLAs?????? they should be grateful that most who are still living and have been in retirement for 25-30 years at 40,000 per year have already received over one million dollars not to mention premium health care.
        Except for inner city cops no body should be retiring in their 40s or 50s. I don’t begrudge the city cops anything but these bedroom communities and seashore communities…cut me a break

        Reply

        • Posted by Tough Love on October 25, 2017 at 2:47 pm

          Quoting …………..

          “If any cops from the back in the day were not paying into SS then they should have counted themselves lucky and invested the money for their retirement years.”

          Exactly, and I too have stated that. In any workup, it should be ASSUMED that the workers/retirees saved and invest the funds that would otherwise have been paid into SS. If they didn’t do so, that should be THERE problem, not the Taxpayers.

          Reply

  10. Posted by Tough Love on October 24, 2017 at 8:07 pm

    Mr. Bury,

    The following comment was posted above:
    _______________________________

    Posted by Barbie Jenkins on October 24, 2017 at 3:42 pm

    For Dentss Dunnigan , public workers are allowed to name anyone as a survivor- even a newly born grandchild. The grandchild would receive the pension benefits for their entire life- even if they lived to 100 years old! Doesn’t have to be a spouse.
    ______________________________________

    Is that true, and if a young child can be names as a survivor,
    (a) is there an actuarial reduction in based on the age of the child, and
    (b) if the answer to (a) above is yes, does the actuarial adjustment PROPERLY reflect the longer expected payout period, or is it subsidized (and if so, by how much?)

    Reply

    • Posted by Tough Love on October 24, 2017 at 8:29 pm

      I believe I found a link that address MOST of what I asked. However, the actual reduction percentages (based on the actual ages of the worker & survivor) are not shown, so it is not possible to ascertain whether they produce an actuarial-equivalence with the single life payout or are subsidized (and if so, by how much).

      http://www.nj.gov/treasury/pensions/pdf/factsheets/fact05.pdf

      Reply

      • Posted by Anonymous on October 24, 2017 at 8:40 pm

        Keep spelling the outright lies. Either that or you’re very stupid. It’s shocking how little you know about the pension system. Especially when you have such a big mouth.

        Reply

    • From the PERS handbook:

      For all options, you can name your spouse as your beneficiary regardless of your spouse’s
      age. For Options C, D, 1, or 3, you can name someone other than your spouse as
      beneficiary regardless of age.
      Note:
      Because the Internal Revenue Service is a federal agency, a civil union partner, or domestic
      partner as defined under New Jersey State law, does not qualify as a “spouse” under these
      circumstances and would be subject to the age limitations described.
      For Options 2, A, or B,
      if you are naming a beneficiary who is not
      your spouse, Internal
      Revenue Service regulations restrict the age of your beneficiary:
      For Options 2 and A
      (100% to beneficiary):

      If you are age 70 or older at retirement, your nonspouse beneficiary can be no more
      than 10 years younger than you.

      If you are under age 70 at retirement, determine:
      1.) the number of years difference between your age at retirement and age 70; and
      2.) the number of years difference between your age at retirement and the age of your
      nonspouse beneficiary.
      Subtract the age 70 difference from the difference in age between yourself and your
      beneficiary. The resulting age difference can be no more than 10 years younger than
      you.
      For Option B
      (75% to beneficiary):

      If you are age 70 or older at retirement, your nonspouse beneficiary can be no more
      than 19 years younger than you.

      If you are under age 70 at retirement, determine:
      1.) the number of years difference between your age at retirement and age 70; and
      2.) the number of years difference between your age at retirement and the age of your
      nonspouse beneficiary.
      Subtract the age 70 difference from the difference in age between yourself and your
      beneficiary. The resulting age difference can be no more than 19 years younger than
      you.
      If you name a nonspouse beneficiary under Option 4, and the dollar amount of your benefi-
      ciary’s pension is more than half of your allowance, restrictions on your beneficiary’s age
      apply.

      Reply

  11. Posted by S Moderation Honestly on October 25, 2017 at 2:53 am

    Interesting…
    I’ve lived in California so long, I assumed “community property” was the norm. Apparently it only applies to nine states (mostly in the West/Southwest)
    You can quit anytime you want, but if you’re married, you cannot receive one penny of retirement unless and until your wife agrees and signs off on it. Half your pension is legally hers. California has one option called 25% spousal continuance. I could draw my full unreduced pension, and when I die, she will get 25% for life. But I can’t draw it if she does not agree.
    To my knowledge, the most popular plan is the one we chose where the max (unreduced) pension is reduced according to the relative ages (in our case, reduced 7.7% because she is four years younger), then when either party dies, the survivor continues with the same amount.

    SMH

    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: