Fixing the NJ Pension System for Dummies

We have made great progress, especially in the past year, to put our pension system on the road to full funding.
Steve Sweeney (D-Gloucester) president of the New Jersey Senate

Steve Sweeney is also running against a Republican (and a teachers’ union) next week so we get this distortion of reality piece targeting the innumerate. Among the inanities:

Requiring the state to make pension payments every three months — rather than at the end of the year — will eventually generate hundreds of millions of dollars in additional investment income each year, making the pension systems for teachers and public employees more secure and savings billions of dollars for taxpayers.

Quarterly Quackery – 11/21/16

Like quarterly payments, the Lottery revenues also provide guaranteed funding to shore up the pension system and increase investment earnings that will save billions of dollars for taxpayers.

Why Lottery Charade – 5/14/17

Because of compounding, quarterly pension payments alone are projected to save taxpayers $8 billion and add $4 billion to the pension portfolio over the next 30 years.

Read that line a few times. It comes off as magically making $12 billion appear. Why ever pay taxes or fund pensions again when you have compounding?

There are some misunderstandings about the state’s pension obligations that are important to clear up. First, the pensions earned by teachers and public employees are deferred compensation that will have to be paid. The pension law passed in 1997 made pensions a contractual obligation, the 2011 law underscored that legislative intent, and court decisions have made that obligation clear. Public pensions are secure and have to be paid. No ifs, ands, or buts.

Except when those ‘contractual obligations’ are COLAs.

48 responses to this post.

  1. Posted by dentss dunnigan on November 2, 2017 at 1:08 pm

    “First, the pensions earned by teachers and public employees are deferred compensation” …Then they must be subjected to payroll taxes irregardless of where you live ….I worked in NYC for years and had to pay NY state and city taxes even though I never lived in the state …

    Reply

    • Posted by boscoe on November 2, 2017 at 1:45 pm

      Your comment makes no sense in any sense. First of all, you pay income taxes to the state where you work if you live in NJ and work in NY or vice versa. Then you settle up with your home state by receiving a tax credit for the amount paid against what’s owed to your home state. But if you live in NJ and work in PA or vice versa, you pay taxes to your home state, not your place of employment.

      Second, how can you be subject to income tax on deferred compensation when the basis for your annual pension (i.e., some percentage of your final average salary) is unknown at the present time? Should someone who works for three years and then leaves, pay three years worth of taxes on a hypothetical pension allowance that they never end up receiving? Are they supposed to apply for a retroactive refund from the state?

      Reply

      • Posted by dentss dunnigan on November 2, 2017 at 4:24 pm

        for point of clarification ..https://ttlc.intuit.com/questions/2560038-i-live-in-nj-but-work-in-ny-should-i-be-paying-taxes-from-my-pay-to-both-states-on-every-paycheck-i-do-not-want-to-be-double-tax …now if you receive a pension check from NJ but have since moved out of state you should owe taxes to the state that is paying you compensation deferred or not ..

        Reply

        • Posted by S Moderation Honestly on November 3, 2017 at 12:51 pm

          You have a point. If the money was earned in California, the state contributed to your pension in California (tax deferred), you contributed in California (tax deferred), and all the interest was tax deferred, you would think CA would then be able to essentially recoup all those deferred state taxes, no matter which state you live in when receiving the pension.

          But…

          Source Tax Law

          “On Jan. 10, 1996, Congress enacted the Pension Source Tax Act of 1996 (P.L. 104-94). This law specifically stipulates that, “No State may impose an income tax on any retirement income of an individual who is not a resident or domiciliary of such State.” While the Source Tax law still allows individual states to define residency on their own terms, it prohibits any state from taxing non-residents for pensions earned within the state. If you earn a pension in Vermont, for instance, then retire to New York, Vermont may not tax your pension income.”

          “In 2010, legislators in California reviewed a bill known as the “McCauley Pension Recovery Act.” This bill proposed an excise tax on California pensions for retirees who moved out of state. This tax would apply only to employer contributions, not employee contributions to the pension. The McCauley Act did not make it out of the proposal stage and was never signed into law.”
          ……………………………

          (These laws apply to all pensions, by the way; not just teachers and public employees, but private sector pensions as well.!

          But, if that is the case, and you work in California and max out a 401(k) or IRA, then retire to Nevada, should you not pay state taxes to California for the proceeds from your IRA?

          Reply

  2. Posted by Tough Love on November 2, 2017 at 3:53 pm

    I’ve Often wondered if Sweeney REALLY doesn’t understand that the $ pension contribution is adjusted for the timing of the payment(s), or if he’s just paying dumb, guessing that most will buy the BS that there is a gain to be had via quarterly payments.

    It’s hard to believe that at SOME point one of the actuaries valuing these Plans (or one of the Plans’ administrators who should know better) wouldn’t have explained it to him.

    Reply

  3. Posted by MJ on November 2, 2017 at 5:16 pm

    TL we all know that you can’t fix stupid! Thats why they have to hire all of the “experts” at great taxpayer expense to tell them what they want to hear to get re-elected……I always thought it was our representatives job to understand the situation and do what is best for the financial stability of NJ and the communities there in….ha ha haha ha

    Reply

    • Posted by Tough Love on November 2, 2017 at 5:48 pm

      The most telling thing about the American Legislative process, is that those voting on new Legislation RARELY get the bills with sufficient time to fully read and understand exactly what they are voting on.

      Reply

      • Posted by Anonymous on November 3, 2017 at 6:08 am

        Bwahaha, they write the bills!

        Reply

        • Posted by tough love on November 3, 2017 at 11:06 am

          No, the “they” who write the bills is the legislative staff of the most powerful and politically, and Union connected legislative leaders, often intentionally keeping others out-of-the-loop until it’s time to vote……….. while very selectively summarizing it’s contents in ways that often omit elements of the bill that importantly, might impact a legislators vote.

          Reply

  4. Posted by Tough Love on November 2, 2017 at 8:02 pm

    New article from the AEI on the NJ Teacher Union’s roil in NJ’s pension crisis:

    https://www.aei.org/publication/job-number-one-the-new-jersey-education-associations-role-in-new-jerseys-disastrous-pension-and-benefits-crisis/

    Gee, they just wrote that, but it seems to include everything I’ve been saying for years.

    ******************************************************
    OK …………. time for SMH = SMD = SMA = Anonymous = Earth =Stephen Douglas to jump in and insist he’s right and everyone else is just plain nuts.

    Reply

    • Posted by PS Drone on November 2, 2017 at 8:52 pm

      I can answer for them/him: Anything written under the auspices of the American Enterprise Institute is right wing, anti-union claptrap. Who would believe such nonsense about how the NJEA conducts itself in such a pristine state as New Jersey?

      Reply

      • Posted by Tough Love on November 2, 2017 at 9:08 pm

        LOL…..P-E-R-F-E-C-T ………….

        What a great impersonation of SMH = SMD = SMA = Anonymous = Earth =Stephen Douglas !

        Reply

      • Posted by S Moderation Honestly on November 3, 2017 at 1:41 pm

        Drama Queens…

        “Anything written under the auspices of the American Enterprise Institute is right wing, anti-union claptrap.”?

        “LOL…..P-E-R-F-E-C-T …………. What a great impersonation of SMH…”?

        Ironic that the one study I have always, and still, recommend above all others is from AEI.

        Reading comprehension is (or should be) our friend. “Our favorite” study has a very good description of methodology of wage comparisons. In that respect, it is in agreement with other major studies. It has, hands down, the best explanation of wage (and compensation) dispersion in the private vs public sectors, and the only one I have seen yet that is (somewhat) quantified.

        There are parts of the study with which I disagree, and I am not alone in that. There are parts of the study that Tough disagrees with.

        Of course AEI is biased. So is the Economic Policy Institute. If you don’t understand that, you’re lost before you started. And who doesn’t have a preference for one over the other? Don’t believe it?

        Posted by Tough Love on November 2, 2017 at 10:51 am

        I’m guessing that you DO realize that the New Jersey Policy Perspective referred to in your link is an ultra-liberal “think tank” ………. and the biggest beneficiaries of such are Public Sector workers.
        ……………………..

        Reply

        • Posted by Tough Love on November 3, 2017 at 2:08 pm

          Quoting SMH = SMD = SMA = Anonymous = Earth =Stephen Douglas …..

          No, there is nothing I am aware of in that AEI study that I disagree with, including the fact that Private Sector “CASH wages” are often marginally higher for Private Sector workers. You’re the one who disagrees with the parts that don’t fit with your agenda to “protect” the current grossly excessive Public Sector pensions & benefits at all costs, and with a to-hell-with-the-Taxpayers mentality.

          Specifically, you refuse to accept study’s finding of the HUGE (yes VERY HUGE) 23%-of-pay Public Sector “Total Compensation” (wages + pensions + benefits) ADVANTAGE, and 10% points HIGHER if job security is properly factored in (PER THE STUDY AUTHORS), and assuredly even higher if Public Safety workers (the highest paid and pensioned group of workers) had not been excluded from that study.

          It would be difficult to find almost any Private Sector worker who had such extra funds to save and invest in every year of their career that wouldn’t have an ADDITIONAL $500,000 upon retirement, and MOST would likely have an additional $1 to $2 Million.

          Those amounts are a good measure of the amount STOLEN from Private Sector Taxpayers for EACH full career Public Sector worker in CA and NJ.

          Reply

          • Posted by S Moderation Honestly on November 3, 2017 at 5:15 pm

            Seriously, wages for professionals 59% higher in the private sector is not “marginal”.

            30% higher wages for private sector MA level employees is not marginal.

            22% higher salaries for BA level private sector workers is not marginal.

            Taxpayers, if your wages were $11,000 to $58,000 higher, every year, than an equivalent public sector worker, do you think you might invest some of that money and arrive at a comfortable retirement?

            In national average wages, that includes 60% of public employees who earn 22 to 60% less than the private sector.

          • Posted by Tough Love on November 3, 2017 at 7:04 pm

            SMH = SMD = SMA = Anonymous = Earth =Stephen Douglas,

            Many times you have resorted to partitioning workers into education-level splits, harping on the greater wages of Private Sector workers in the “professional” and “PHD” categories, but (to my recollection) NEVER mentioned that only 3% of Private Sector workers fall into those categories.

            So besides being immaterial ………….

            We have had this discussion before, and as I stated then, what FINANCIALLY IMPACTS TAXPAYERS, is the net Total Compensation Public/Private Sector DIFFERENCE from ALL workers TAKEN TOGETHER…………… which results in the 23%-of-pay net overall Public Sector Total Compensation Advantage discussed in my above comment.

            But knowing that, why do keep repeating the SAME financially irrelevant garbage over and over again?

          • Posted by S Moderation Honestly on November 3, 2017 at 9:44 pm

            Because you are wrong, and will never understand or admit it. The important factor is how many PUBLIC workers are underpaid, or roughly equal. Nationwide that is about 60% of workers. That is according to the MOST extreme study. (Unless you’ve changed your mind about… “there is nothing I am aware of in that AEI study that I disagree with,…)

            The second factor is WHICH public workers are underpaid. Your suggestion to reduce accruals going forward by 50 percent (or more) will still leave the lower workers earning more, relatively, and the higher echelons even worse off than they were before. That ain’t smart.

            It’s ironic, I’ve read so many ardent pension reformers say something to the effect that the “rank and file” should be supporting pension reform because all those fat cats in management with the huge pensions are bankrupting the pension system. If you still don’t disagree with the AEI study, those rank and file are earning much more than they would in the private sector and all those CPAs, MDs, PhDs, etcetera, are actually UNDERpaid.

            Stop me if you’ve heard this before.

          • Posted by Tough Love on November 3, 2017 at 10:09 pm

            SMH = SMD = SMA = Anonymous = Earth =Stephen Douglas,

            Tell the readers …”how I’m wrong” …. and why the financial impact on Taxpayers is not the Net impact from all workers taken TOGETHER (splits of any type, educational level or such, not material one bit). Specifically that 23%-of -pay Public Sector Total Compensation advantage in both CA and NJ.

            To repeat, it does not matter one iota (from the standpoint of the overall financial impact on taxpayers) …..”WHICH public workers are underpaid.”

          • Posted by S Moderation Honestly on November 4, 2017 at 12:02 am

            As many times as you’ve repeated that, I’m still Honestly stunned that you don’t see the difference.

            SMH

          • Posted by Tough Love on November 4, 2017 at 12:55 am

            SMH = SMD = SMA = Anonymous = Earth =Stephen Douglas,

            Wow …………You’re a s thick as rock.

          • Posted by S Moderation Honestly on November 4, 2017 at 8:37 am

            TL:
            ” Tell the readers …”how I’m wrong” …. and why the financial impact on Taxpayers is not the Net impact from all workers taken TOGETHER (splits of any type, educational level or such, not material one bit). ”

            I know you “get it” Mr. Love,

            ” If a Private Sector janitor makes $30K annually plus 3%=$900 annually into a 401K Plan, and the PUBLIC Sector janitor makes $35K plus a pension (likely with a level annual current taxpayer contribution requirement of $8K-$9K) then YES …. then janitor “deserves” no pension contribution.
            P.S. ……. no matter how many time you bring this (“Janitor thing”) up, you will get the SAME answer … there is no reason for Taxpayers to pay Public Sector workers more in total compensation than their Private Sector counterparts. Justifiable needs (food, healthcare, etc.) not met via income should be provided EQUALLY to both Public and Private Sector workers via Social Services ………… NOT by artificially inflating Public Sector compensation.”

            (Burypensions, Tough Love on December 18, 2015)

            ” there is no reason for Taxpayers to pay Public Sector workers more in total compensation than their Private Sector counterparts.”

          • Posted by Tough Love on November 4, 2017 at 10:54 am

            SMH = SMD = SMA = Anonymous = Earth =Stephen Douglas,,

            I stand by that comment. Specifically, there is zero justification to force Taxpayers to provide the lowest level Public Sector Sector workers (i.e., the janitor) more in Total Compensation (wages + benefits + the annual value of pension and healthcare accruals) than what the comparable job would typically pay (in Total Compensation) in the Private Sector, and if the income so paid is insufficient to meet basic needs, that should be addressed via Social Services ….. just as would a Private Sector worker in that situation. You don’t get it, Private Sector taxpayers are not here to be the suckers in the equation.

            And per the AEI Study, if (in CA or NJ) you summed up the Total Compensation from all non-Safety Public Sector workers, and then summed up the Total Compensation from a COMPARABLE group of Private Sector workers of the same size, the Public Sector group’s Total Compensation would be 23% greater ………….. and assuredly higher had Safety workers been included.

            The fact that many in the Public Sector group make less in “wages” alone than their Private Sector counterpart, is ALREADY factored into the resulting 23%.

            It is that 23% Public Sector Total Compensation ADVANTAGE that financially impacts Taxpayers, and If you (aren’t BSing and) REALLY don’t understand that, I feel sorry for you.

          • Posted by S Moderation Honestly on November 4, 2017 at 12:20 pm

            “23%” was in 2008-2012

            Unemployment rate was over 12%

            Mortgage rates were over 5%

            Gas was $4 gallon

            “Best Picture” was Slum Dog Millionaire

            DJIA was 8-10 thousand

            SMH

          • Posted by Tough Love on November 4, 2017 at 12:45 pm

            SMH = SMD = SMA = Anonymous = Earth =Stephen Douglas

            Statistics such as Total Compensation change VERY VERY slowly over time, and I’m confident that an updated study would yield similar results (the 23% Public Sector Total Compensation advantage in CA and NJ).

            And if if did, you would STILL be denying, distracting, misstating, omitting material facts, and lying ………….. because that’s WHAT you (and people like you with a similar agenda) do.

          • Posted by Tough Love on November 4, 2017 at 12:52 pm

            SMH = SMD = SMA = Anonymous = Earth =Stephen Douglas,

            And it’s no different than your endless harping on the “lack of full funding” as the CAUSE of the pension mess.

            Would you (and your ilk) NOT be saying the exact same thing even if Public Sector pension promises were 5 or 10 times greater than the already ludicrously excessive level they are today (and clearly understood to be too generous and unaffordable even by the dumbest rock we could ask)?

            Of course you would …………… because that’s WHAT you (and people like you with a similar agenda) do.

          • Posted by S Moderation Honestly on November 4, 2017 at 1:15 pm

            And now you know why…

            “Many times you have resorted to partitioning workers into education-level splits,”

            Because, as you have said…

            “Specifically, there is zero justification to force Taxpayers to provide the lowest level Public Sector Sector workers (i.e., the janitor) more in Total Compensation (wages + benefits + the annual value of pension and healthcare accruals) than what the comparable job would typically pay (in Total Compensation) in the Private Sector…”

            Ergo, reduce the compensation of those lower level public employees to private sector levels.* The average compensation of the entire group will decrease. It’s a tautology (basic math). You might even have enough left over to increase those at the top of public sector, to bring them up to private sector levels.

            *”reduce the compensation” is not my idea, by the by. That is your idea, and I doubt you will find much popular or political support for it. Even amongst the most ardent “reformers”…

            Ed Ring…

            “Impose a ceiling on pension benefits to retirees, based on the principle that pensions are supposed to ensure retirement security, not lavish affluence. Similarly, establish a floor for pension benefits to retirees, based on the principle that employees at the low end of the pay scale are nonetheless entitled to retire with an income sufficient to live with dignity.”

            SMH

          • Posted by Tough Love on November 4, 2017 at 1:28 pm

            SMH = SMD = SMA = Anonymous = Earth =Stephen Douglas,

            I have no desire (nor see any justification) to ….”ensure retirement security”……. at taxpayer expense ONLY to a group of Public Sector workers when the COMPARABLE group of Private sector workers gets no such “ensured retirement security” because market rate compensation does not call for such.

            Discussing this and your attempt to erase/ignore the 23% Public Sector Total Compensation ADVANTAGE in CA and NJ with you is indeed like talking to a rock.

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

            Now I understand better why your employment in CA’s Public Sector included changing light bulbs.

          • Posted by Earth on November 4, 2017 at 2:05 pm

            Earth to SMH…

            SMH! I think this row has already been hoed, mi amigo. Your wife wants you to clean the pool ¿recuerda?

            Mr. Love will still be here when you get back.

          • Posted by Tough Love on November 4, 2017 at 3:13 pm

            SMH = SMD = SMA = Anonymous = Earth =Stephen Douglas,

            Lol …………….

            Insulted, so you responded under one of your many other handles ?

          • Posted by Internet Moderator (adjunct) on November 4, 2017 at 4:18 pm

            What we have here is a failure to communicate.

            “insult” vs “ad hominem”

            Argumentum ad hominem is the logical fallacy of attempting to undermine a speaker’s argument by attacking the speaker instead of addressing the argument.

            E.g., “Now I understand better why your employment in CA’s Public Sector included changing light bulbs.”

            “Insult” is a disrespectful or scornfully abusive remark or action.

            “… your employment in CA’s Public Sector included changing light bulbs.”
            is not even an insult, even though it may have been intended as one.
            ……………………………………..

            The first correction, as always, is gratis.

            You’re welcome. It has been our pleasure to assist you.

            SMA

          • Posted by Pat W on November 4, 2017 at 9:13 pm

            Your response is uninformed and ridiculous. I served 32 years with the state and retired with an annual salary of $87K. My pension is $52,500 per year and I am suppose to make a living on that? that is a $35K reduction from salary! I would like to see you live on $52K a year. I have a 2nd job just to make up the difference. And guess what? My “free health care” is not free! I pay copays just like everyone else! You are an idiot if you believe PW pensions are excessive. Just my Honest Opinion!

          • Posted by Tough Love on November 5, 2017 at 12:53 am

            SMH = SMD = SMA = Anonymous = Earth =Stephen Douglas,

            If you are going to comment under a NEW handle (Internet Moderator), you shouldn’t sign off with “SMA”.
            ******************************

            And if the shoe fits ……………

          • Posted by Tough Love on November 5, 2017 at 1:06 am

            Quoting Pat W……..

            “Your response is uninformed and ridiculous. I served 32 years with the state and retired with an annual salary of $87K. My pension is $52,500 per year and I am suppose to make a living on that? that is a $35K reduction from salary!”

            Backing into your per-year-of-service pension formula-factor it looks like you were a non-safety worker who retired under the 1/55 formula.

            If such, you are also entitled to Social Security (as early as age 62) and should have saved additional funds from your net pay over your career. If you failed to do so that’s your problem, not the taxpayers, and if you are not yet eligible for SS, perhaps your should not have retired so young or should be working in a 2-nd job….. also NOT the Taxpayer’s problem.

            The proper question is NOT what you asked, but how does your taxpayer-provided pension and benefits compare to that typically granted a Private Sector worker in a reasonably comparable job requiring reasonably comparable education, experience, skills, and knowledge.

            You DO “deserve” to be paid in Total Compensation” no less, but also no more. Whether you can live on your pension and other retirement income has nothing to do with it and is NOT an obligation of the Taxpayers if it is insufficient to provide the lifestyle that you would like to have in retirement.

  5. Posted by Anonymous on November 2, 2017 at 9:43 pm

    One fairly sizeable savings is right in front of our noses yet no one has touched on it. And that is……no so fast I’ll let you all think a while!
    BTW bigger savings and less challengeable then the taxing of pensions for non residents.

    Reply

  6. Posted by George on November 3, 2017 at 10:09 am

    Hear ye, Hear ye people of the helpless state of NJ, the Oregon PERS UAL unfunded actuarial liability TASK FORCE has issued it’s learned findings. Behold!

    http://www.oregon.gov/gov/policy/Pages/PERS-UAL-TASK-FORCE.aspx

    I didn’t read it yet, but the Unclaimed Property chapter sounds like ya ought to not use a safety deposit box in Oregon for anything but photo copies of papers. For originals use an attorney or a fire proof strong box with the cover unlocked so criminals can see there is nothing good inside. I think they watched too many episodes of storage wars, not much in the storage lockers, I doubt it will work.

    Increased lottery revenue seems to mean preying on compulsive gamblers. “Developing a demand-driven pricing strategy” for alcohol sales sounds ominous to me. Natural resources means f the spotted owl, sell the trees.

    State Funding Options Excess Risk Capital across State-Controlled Entities Create a New PERS Investment Fund for Non-State Employers
    SAIF Corporation
    Harvest One-Time “Windfall” Income
    Unclaimed Property
    Reduce Agency Reserve Funds
    Increase State Alcohol Revenues
    Privatize Public Universities
    Maximize Financial Value of Real Property Assets
    Natural Resources
    Increased Lottery Revenue
    Rainy Day Fund

    http://www.oregon.gov/gov/policy/Documents/6096_FINAL_Pers%20Task%20Force%20Report_2017-WEB.pdf

    Reply

    • Posted by George on November 3, 2017 at 10:16 am

      First entry should read: Reduce Excess Risk Capital across State-Controlled Entities. Any idea what that is? I appreciate the jargon though.

      Reply

    • Posted by tough love on November 3, 2017 at 11:23 am

      Sound like that Report should have been prefaced by a paragraph that read………………..

      “We totally ignored the fact that the pensions promised Oregon’s Public Sector workers were grossly excessive from the get-go and enhanced many times over the years, often retroactively, were unnecessary to attract and retain a qualified workforce, were unfair to Oregon’s Taxpayers called upon to pay for 80% to 90% of the Plans’ total costs, and were clearly unaffodable …………….. and because we are Union-owned/gutless-politicians, we will only propose “solutions” that steal MORE from Oregon’s betrayed and beleaguered Taxpayers”

      Reply

  7. Posted by T B on November 3, 2017 at 3:43 pm

    Move everyone to Social Security

    Here’s my solution:

    https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B90sU3A85q46OE9BZHJFSWEzbGM/view?usp=drivesdk

    Thoughts?

    Reply

    • Posted by Tough Love on November 3, 2017 at 4:20 pm

      The exclusion of Public Sector workers from SS (especially Safety workers with their FAR higher than average wages) is just one more of the MANY MANY ways that Public Sector workers get a better deal than the Private Sector workers who are called upon to pay for the oversized pensions & benefits granted Public Sector workers.

      That is BECAUSE SS provides a very lousy “return-on-invest” for all but the lowest paid workers…………..which certainly exclude most PUBLIC Sector workers.

      Reply

  8. Posted by George on November 3, 2017 at 4:12 pm

    Is there a way to find the age differences and perhaps family relationship for beneficial pensions? And maybe even nationality.

    Argentinian man’s love for great-aunt, 91, led to marriage – but no pension

    Mauricio Ossola was 23 when he wed Yolanda Torres in 2015 but since her death the social security system says he is not entitled to a widower’s pension

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/nov/03/argentina-man-married-great-aunt-91-widower-pension

    Reply

    • Posted by skip3house on November 3, 2017 at 7:07 pm

      Identity politics reduces us. No longer having individual hopes/dreams. We are commodities/labeled/no shared values/we are interest groups!

      Reply

  9. Posted by S Moderation Honestly on November 4, 2017 at 1:47 pm

    Tough Love on November 4, 2017 at 12:52 pm

    “And it’s no different than your endless harping on the “lack of full funding” as the CAUSE of the pension mess.”

    I hain’t checked with my “ilk” lately, but I refer you to David Crane’s latest article, ‘A Tale Of Two Public Pension Plans’

    Under comments… ‘A Tale of Three Public Pension Plans’…

    Same recession, same stock market, different outcomes.

    “New York state pension systems are better funded than California state pension systems, currently take a smaller bite out of state and local government budgets, and still provide pension benefits well above the national average.”

    “…pension benefits well above the national average.” as in higher than either CA or NJ, yet still fully funded.

    SMH

    Reply

  10. Posted by Tough Love on November 4, 2017 at 3:14 pm

    SMH = SMD = SMA = Anonymous = Earth =Stephen Douglas,

    You “ilk” are similar-minded Public Sector …………. “moochers”.

    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: