The law that will transfer the running of the Police and Firemen’s Retirement System in New Jersey to the participants/unions provides this enforcement mechanism for getting governments to pay:
If payment of the full required amount of the employer’s obligation is not made within 30 days of the due date dates established by this act, interest at the rate of 10% per annum shall commence to run against the unpaid balance thereof on the first day after such 30th day. Upon certification by the board of trustees to the Director of the Division of Local Government Services in the Department of Community Affairs of an employer contribution payment being 30 days past due, the director shall withhold any State aid payments that are disbursed by the Division of Local Government Services from the employer in an amount equal to the amount of the employer contribution due to the board. If the employer is eligible for transitional aid, the Division of Local Government Services shall consult with the board to develop a payment plan to ensure that the required payment and interest owed is paid in a timely manner. The director shall release the State aid payments held pursuant to this subsection to the employer upon certification by the board of trustees of its receipt of the delinquent employer contribution. Nothing in P.L. , c. (pending before the Legislature as this bill) shall relieve State or local government employers of any present or future obligations of their normal cost or unfunded liabilities required to be paid into the retirement system. (page 37)
The unions see this as necessary since many governments have a history of nonpayment.
West Virginia is planning to go a step further:
In addition, any public official who is responsible for ensuring that a public entity comply with the general laws and provisions of a public pension plan administered by the Consolidated Public Retirement Board who knowingly and willfully fails to make employee or employer contributions to the retirement plan shall be guilty of the larceny of the contributions owed, and, if the amount is $1,000 or more, such public official shall be guilty of a felony and, upon conviction thereof, shall be imprisoned in the penitentiary not less than one nor more than 10 years, or, in the discretion of the court, be confined in jail not more than one year and shall be fined not more than $2,500. If the amount is less than $1,000, such public official shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction thereof, shall be confined in jail for a term not to exceed one year or fined not to exceed $2,500, or both, in the discretion of the court.
If this provision were ever enacted retroactively in New Jersey this guy would be among those doing some hard time.
Burypensions Blog 
Posted by skip3house on March 1, 2018 at 1:02 pm
All the more reason for NJ to have a responsive I & R system to be sure unfunded promises for Pensions/Medical are within the understanding and wishes of the NJ voters.
Posted by Tough Love on March 1, 2018 at 1:19 pm
Clearly, the Police ……….. to ENSURE that their now (MULTIPLES more generous) LUDICROUSLY excessive pensions get paid in full and as promised, no matter the cost to Taxpayers or the reduction in services to the poor, the needy, the elderly, the sick, etc. …… are closing all escape mechanisms that assuredly a Gov’t SHOULD be reserved to them. nobody knowing our future financial circumstances or ability to pay.
Posted by Stanley on March 1, 2018 at 2:47 pm
It isn’t much of a stretch to say that the police and fire retirees have taken ownership of the cities and towns of NJ. Probably, they may have to fight the mortgage companies for ownership–there very likely isn’t much equity there. This is getting good. Better than football.
Posted by Anonymous on March 1, 2018 at 3:06 pm
You’ll never get your wish you greedy witch New Jersey is not an insurance company out to screw every single person
Posted by Tough Love on March 1, 2018 at 4:17 pm
I’m assuming your are a Participant in NJ’s PFRS.
On a GREED scale where would you position PFRS members ?
There is no question that PFRS pensions are as generous as I described. Yesterday, using ACTUAL Bergen County Police data, I showed that the 17 retirees of 2016 retired with final average wages over $150K and an annual pension of over $100K starting at the average of 51.47 …….. with not a penny of reduction for beginning to collect that pension at such a young age.
While Social Security wouldn’t allow such a young retirement, if they did (and using SS’s formula for early-age retirement adjustments), your formula-calculated pension would have been reduced by WELL OVER 50% just from the young retirement age. And that doesn’t address your Plan’s “formula-factors” that are almost TWICE as generous as those typically granted in Private Sector Plans.
What makes you so “special” that with “wages” that are no less than those of comparably experienced, educated, skilled, and knowledgeable Private Sector workers, that ………ON TOP OF ……… that, should be layered pensions ROUTINELY 3.5 TIMES greater in value upon retirement ?
Go right ahead …… the readers are waiting ……… justify that pension.
Posted by Stephen Douglas on March 1, 2018 at 5:30 pm
” final average wages over $150K and an annual pension of over $100K starting at the average of 51.47…”
In
Bergen
County
Try Camden, final average wage $105,494 average pension $70,388, average retirement age 52.
Bergen Co has some of the highest cost of living and highest average private sector income in the state.
“LUDICROUSLY excessive pensions”
is excessively LUDICROUS
Posted by Tough Love on March 1, 2018 at 6:05 pm
Stephen,
You can repeat your misleading claims, and I can repeat my honest fact-based response:
———————————————
FACT:
Using ACTUAL data (per my comment above), the 2016 year (non-disability) retirees of the Bergen County NJ Police dept had average final wages OVER $150K and an annual pension of OVER $100K starting at an average age of 51.47.
Camden has one of the highest crime rates not just in NJ, but in the entire NATION and is so poor that it has insufficient funds to appropriately pay it’s workers, hardly representative of the 95+% mostly bedroom communities in NJ with VERY low crime rates ……….. and not surprising at all to me that Mr. Douglas would pick suck an outlier.
The northern half of NJ (being essentially a suburb of NYC) has a higher cost of living (and pays more) than the southern half. Bergen county is reasonably representative of the northern half of NJ. Morris, Somerset, Essex, Middlesex, Hunterdon, etc. all in the northern half of NJ, are no less expensive.
As usual …. retired CA Public Sector light-bulb-changer Stephen Douglas is putting his “spin” on the facts.
Posted by Stanley on March 1, 2018 at 6:08 pm
““LUDICROUSLY excessive pensions” is excessively LUDICROUS”
You sound more like a union boy, am I right on that? Too bad that we can’t make a side bet on outcomes. There will be a lot of cops crying in their beer when their magnificent, earned every penny of it pensions fall through the cracks. New York City has had very hard times in the past and they will have very hard times again in the not so distant future.
But you’re pretty sure that you didn’t overcharge for pay and benefits they just failed to put away the necessary funds. LOL Unions have an excellent record of killing the goose that lays the golden eggs.
Posted by Tough Love on March 1, 2018 at 6:26 pm
Stephen Douglas and similar greedy/grey-matter-challenged Public Sector workers love the catchy statement …… “Don’t pay the bill, and the bill gets larger” …….. but they refuse to acknowledge the FACT that the annually calculated amount necessary to fully fund a given pension IS A FUNCTION OF and is DIRECTLY PROPORTIONAL TO the “generosity” of the pensions promised benefits.
And VERY generous pensions (as are ALL Public Sector pensions) are VERY costly, and hence VERY difficult to fully fund.
Posted by Stanley on March 1, 2018 at 7:35 pm
For most communities, they are impossible to fund. If this were to play out as scheduled, we would be talking about several generations of retirees. With spousal benefits we could easily be talking about 50 years of retiree payments for one policeman. Most communities can only afford a very modest retirement payment per employee, at best. The idea that a person can work for a community for 25 or 30 years and then receive a payment for life that will support him and his family is totally absurd. It is a damn good way to bring a silly plan to an end,
Posted by Tough Love on March 1, 2018 at 8:11 pm
Stanley,
“silly” is a VERY poor description of PFRS pensions in NJ
The words I have used…… unnecessary, unjust, unfair (to taxpayers), grossly excessive, ludicrous ……… are FAR more accurate and appropriate.
Posted by Patrick Whalin on March 1, 2018 at 8:27 pm
‘Try Camden, final average wage $105,494 average pension $70,388, average retirement age 52.’
That STILL SOUNDS like a damn generous pension! Retire (with full medical for life) at 75% of pay, and at the old age of 52? SWEEET! In fact, their take-home pay in retirement will be equal to or even GREATER than when they worked full time!
And I’m pretty sure to be a cop in Camden you don’t even need a college degree..
Posted by Stephen Douglas on March 2, 2018 at 2:44 pm
Yes, Camden is “less of an outlier” than New Hanover Township. And much less of an outlier than the Bergen County Police Department.
Mr. Love…
“I chose the Bergen County Police Dep’t as representative of the entire County’s Police Officers.”
But it is definitely not representative of the entire state. Nor is Camden.
You are deliberately exaggerating the pay and pensions of the “average” New Jersey cop to buttress your “opinion” of “LUDICROUSLY excessive pensions”.
So be it.
Then you imply that the average NJ cop “retires with about 90% of those figures…”
I doubt it. Quoting Mr. Love…
“Stephen Douglas ………… nice having ACTUAL numbers backing up what I say.”
You are truly laughable. “ACTUAL numbers” are worse than nothing if taken out of context. It’s almost like relying on compensation data from ten years ago.
Until you have the responsibility of maintaining qualified employees for city police and fire department, you know not whereof you speak. You can be in Bergen County, and you may not “like” the higher compensation, but you can afford it, or you may be in Camden or New Hanover Township, paying the bare minimum while enduring constant turnover (because you are the training ground for future Bergen County officers.)
Posted by Stephen Douglas on March 2, 2018 at 4:23 pm
Quoting Mr. Love…
“Stephen Douglas and similar greedy/grey-matter-challenged Public Sector workers love the catchy statement… ”
Moderation never challenged the “FACT” that funding “IS A FUNCTION OF and is DIRECTLY PROPORTIONAL TO the “generosity” of the pensions promised benefits.”
This is where we disagree…TL: “And VERY generous pensions (as are ALL Public Sector pensions)….”
One might call that “opinion” or “hyperbole” or “bulls hit”.
Moderation also never disagreed that most public sector pensions are in serious trouble. Some even in a death spiral. Quoting Stanley, Mar. 1, 2018: “For most communities, they are impossible to fund.”
Yes, now they are. As Leo Durocher said: “You’ve got third base so screwed up nobody can play it!”
I am just questioning your reasoning. If you think overly generous pensions are the reason, or the main reason for the crisis, your solution is not reform, it is reduction. If the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail.
grey-matter? Actual autopsy photo…
Posted by Tough Love on March 2, 2018 at 4:40 pm
Stephen,
Quoting ………
“I am just questioning your reasoning. If you think overly generous pensions are the reason, or the main reason for the crisis, your solution is not reform, it is reduction. ”
No wonder why you were a light-bulb-changer.
While “reform” can take many forms, when a pension is “overly generous”, ALL of those options need to include “reductions”.
Why is that not obvious to you ?
Posted by Stephen Douglas on March 2, 2018 at 6:51 pm
“…when a pension is “overly generous”, ALL of those options need to include “reductions”.
In your opinion.
Why is that not obvious to you ?
Granted, a lot of people agree with you, but pensions are serious business. If you had to go to court, and convince a panel of judges that ALL Public Sector pensions are “VERY generous “, could you do that beyond a reasonable doubt, or even by a preponderance of evidence?
“In short, for the nation as a whole the difference
between public and private sector compensation
appears modest. The relatively modest differential
should make policymakers cautious about massive
changes without carefully studying the specifics of
their particular situation.”
“COMPARING COMPENSATION: STATE-LOCAL
VERSUS PRIVATE SECTOR WORKERS”
Alicia Munnell, Nov. 2011
You might make a case that some cities in New Jersey have much more “generous” pensions (and pay) than others. You might make a case that some states have relatively higher compensation than others. You might make a case that public workers at different educational and professional levels have higher pensions than other levels. You will have strong opposition if you claim that ALL public pensions are LUDICROUSLY excessive, even if you do your entire testimony in CAPS LOCK mode.
And from there, it gets even more complicated.
Posted by Stephen Douglas on March 2, 2018 at 6:55 pm
Posted by Tough Love on March 1, 2018 at 6:05 pm
Stephen,
You can repeat your misleading claims, and I can repeat my honest fact-based response:
You still crack me up, child.
Posted by Tough Love on March 2, 2018 at 7:21 pm
You appear pissed at your chosen work …….. changing light bulbs. Is that why you’re making such a ruckus ?
Those with ANY level of common sense easily see how excessive Public sector compensation is ….. driven by the now LUDICROUSLY excessive Public Sector pensions & benefits.
Failure of many of these Plans (meaning running out of assets) is assured, and keep dreaming if you think your pensions & benefits will continue on a pay-as-you-go basis once that happens.
Posted by Tough Love on March 1, 2018 at 8:13 pm
And very amusing that one of these PFRS “moochers” called ME … “a greedy witch”.
Talk about the pot calling the kettle black !
Posted by Anonymous on March 2, 2018 at 4:09 am
Wrong again I am not a member
Posted by Anonymous on March 2, 2018 at 4:11 am
However I happen to know you work for the insurance industry need I say more
Posted by Tough Love on March 2, 2018 at 9:19 am
And why do you think so ….. because I’m smart and know a great deal about insurance? I also know a great deal about hedging, M&A (mergers and acquisitions), and options. Do I “work” in all those “industries” too?
That’s why I simply acknowledge that I work in the Financial Sector.
Posted by Stephen Douglas on March 2, 2018 at 4:46 pm
Posted by Tough Love on March 2, 2018 at 7:28 pm
You appear pissed at your chosen work …….. changing light bulbs. Is that why you’re making such a ruckus ?
Those with ANY level of common sense easily see how excessive Public sector compensation is ….. driven by the now LUDICROUSLY excessive Public Sector pensions & benefits.
Failure of many of these Plans (meaning running out of assets) is assured, and keep dreaming if you think your pensions & benefits will continue on a pay-as-you-go basis once that happens.
Posted by Stephen Douglas on March 2, 2018 at 9:44 pm
Mr. Love,
You can repeat your misleading claims, and I can repeat my honest fact-based response:
It’s a blessing.
And a curse.
Posted by Stephen Douglas on March 2, 2018 at 6:40 pm
“…when a pension is “overly generous”, ALL of those options need to include “reductions”.
In your opinion.
Why is that not obvious to you ?
Granted, a lot of people agree with you, but pensions are serious business. If you had to go to court, and convince a panel of judges that ALL Public Sector pensions are “VERY generous “, could you do that beyond a reasonable doubt, or even by a preponderance of evidence?
“In short, for the nation as a whole the difference
between public and private sector compensation
appears modest. The relatively modest differential
should make policymakers cautious about massive
changes without carefully studying the specifics of
their particular situation.”
“COMPARING COMPENSATION: STATE-LOCAL
VERSUS PRIVATE SECTOR WORKERS”
Alicia Munnell, Nov. 2011
You might make a case that some cities in New Jersey have much more “generous” pensions (and pay) than others. You might make a case that some states have relatively higher compensation than others. You might make a case that public workers at different educational and professional levels have higher pensions than other levels. You will have strong opposition if you claim that ALL public pensions are LUDICROUSLY excessive, even if you do your entire testimony in CAPS LOCK mode.
And from there, it gets even more complicated.
Posted by Retired police on March 2, 2018 at 1:27 am
You have more to say on this blog than anyone else, usually negative.
Your mantra is the victims are the taxpayers. Police officers are taxpayers as well,
One other fact you neglect to mention is that a police officer merely doing his job creates more revenue to the State and municipality approx.3/4 of his or her annual salary.
Moving violations, are the largest, than we have equipment violations and expired registrations and inspections etc.. The average cop writes at least 10 to 20 tickets
a week, some much more and other less For.example, say 20 tickets a week.
With a low average of all combined we’ll say approx.$80.00 each times 20
WOW $1600.00 a WEEK generated by a cop in fines and court costs.
You were saying???????????????
Posted by Tough Love on March 2, 2018 at 2:04 am
Quoting ………… “You have more to say on this blog than anyone else, usually negative.”
Negative from your standpoint (because I call for reductions in Police pensions), but positive from mine (because the pensions are now ludicrously excessive and the reductions long overdue).
Quoting ………. “Your mantra is the victims are the taxpayers. ”
They sure are. Are you suggesting someone else ? Who ?
Quoting ……….. ” Police officers are taxpayers as well”
I was waiting for that one to show up. Yes they are, but who (now the Police Officers) WOULDN’T want to pay perhaps $1 in extra taxes for each $10 in extra pensions/benefits ?
Quoting ……….. “a police officer merely doing his job creates more revenue to the State and municipality”
The proper function of a Police Officer is to maintain order, NOT to raise revenue, The revenue side is ONLY supposed to act as a deterrent to non-violent activities.
And then you go on and on and on (with the same thought). You need a re-education of the real purpose of policing.
And IMPORTANTLY, are you making the ridiculous assertion that revenue generated for ticket-writing JUSTIFIES your unequivocally ludicrously excessive pensions ? Would we have no better uses for the SAME revenue if Police pensions were NOT excessive ?
Posted by Retired police on March 2, 2018 at 11:31 pm
Tough love
“And IMPORTANTLY, are you making the ridiculous assertion that revenue generated for ticket-writing JUSTIFIES your unequivocally ludicrously excessive pensions ? Would we have no better uses for the SAME revenue if Police pensions were NOT excessive” ?
As usual you are side stepping the facts and failing to answer the question.
Police officers are the only public servants that generate revenue practically paying their salaries, and in some cases pay much more than their salary,
The tax payer is provided a vital service at a small cost.
Mathematically over 25 years with inclusive interest the taxpayers pay very
little, thus covering all the services,facilities, normally expected or required with few incidentals.
In essence we have a worker who pays his own salary for
the duration of his employ and upon retirement receives a pension which if calculated using the aforementioned, costs the taxpayers very little,
However, the fault lies with the State for not paying their share all these years.
In conclusion to properly complete; including all or nearly all elements or aspects
regarding the near 10% taken from the police officers salary as a pension contribution, added to the above over 25 years is quite significant in itself.
Do the math on all combined and we have a great deal of money, well over
his or her pension allowance in most cases.
It is not the police pension that people should be concerned about, as it pays for
itself. It’s the Teachers, and other public employees that should be a concern
to the taxpayer.
Posted by Tough Love on March 3, 2018 at 12:23 am
Quoting …………
“Police officers are the only public servants that generate revenue practically paying their salaries, and in some cases pay much more than their salary,
The tax payer is provided a vital service at a small cost.”
What a load of irrational thinking.
Under your logic, the MORE we hire the better we’ll do . Great, let’s hire 10,000 new Police …. problem solved.
No, let’s make it 25,000 !
Posted by Retired police on March 3, 2018 at 4:35 pm
Tough love needs to polish up on his comprehension.
Still side stepping the issue again? Nowhere in my post did I say hire more
police. I stated the police officers practically pay their own salaries.
Perhaps you should re-read and try to grasp it’s content with understanding.
.
Posted by Stanley on March 1, 2018 at 2:13 pm
They may have to reduce head count in the active duty police and fire to make sure the retirees get their full measure of pension payments. Sooner or later it could come to that. The WVA union boys know how to put some teeth in their collection program. A person would have to be a fool to serve in government there. Or remain in the state. IMO.
Surely there will be a reaction among the public to this total union nonsense.
Posted by Tough Love on March 1, 2018 at 2:35 pm
In NJ, where in 95+% of locations Policing is NOT a job with significant risk, and where their WAGES are certainly NOT lower than than the WAGES of comparably educated, experience, skilled, and knowledgeable Private Sector workers ……….. and with the very reasonable goal of near-EQUAL Public/Private Sector “Total Compensation” (wages + pensions + benefits) in such situations ……….. there is ZERO justification for granting NJ’s Police Officers pensions that (via rich “formulas” and very generous “provisions” such as VERY young ages at which actuarially-unreduced pensions can commence) are right now ROUTINELY 3.5 TIMES greater in value upon retirement than that typically granted Private Sector workers (who are among the few still accruing benefits under Final Average Salary DB Plans) who retire at the SAME age, with the SAME wages, and the SAME years of service.
It is patently outrageous !
It’s is so past time to get the message to our Elected Officials (who ONLY care about being re-elected) that this “in-the-Union’s-pocket” support of Public Sector workers, and astonishing betrayal of NJ’s Taxpayers will indeed backfire ………… hopefully very soon.
Posted by Anonymous on March 1, 2018 at 11:34 pm
You are patently outrageous. TL. You are one voice on this blog. One person. Again, if S5 was such a huge issue, the public would’ve voted for guadagno. And voted out those who voted for the bill last year. Damn near every one of them.
Btw, John, kudos to calling out her #1 hero Christie. You are a fair person. And I love that you think Christie sucks.
Posted by Tough Love on March 1, 2018 at 11:58 pm
Yup, same commentator as the genius that posted at 11:40 PM below.
S5 is indeed a HUGE issue. But I agree, the public seems either unaware or has simply given up, thinking that there is little they can (individually) do. I feel that way as well …… but at least I can/will continue to comment, shake some trees, and perhaps get something started to stop (or at lest lesson) this outright thievery.
Christie has some pretty rotten qualities, but pension-wise, NJ would have been $ Billions further in the hole with anyone else. Too bad his stupid choices will forever overshadow a few HUGE financial accomplishments.
Posted by NJ2AZ on March 1, 2018 at 2:52 pm
Can they replicate Illinois and offer bonds backed by those same cash flows from the state?
Posted by Tough Love on March 1, 2018 at 2:59 pm
That sure is a REALLY weird structure of overlapping collateral in Ill.
Promise the same collateral in a Privately-negotiated loan and you go to jail.
Posted by NJ2AZ on March 1, 2018 at 3:03 pm
my understanding is that its not yet a done deal in Ill. correct me if i’m wrong.
The bonds are done, but the mechanism to withhold sales tax if the munis don’t make their pension payments is only in the proposal stages.
Posted by Tough Love on March 1, 2018 at 4:56 pm
An interesting quote from an article on today’s Pensiontsunami “:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-state-of-americas-pension-funds/5630374
“We are told that we can fix the pension funds by saving more ………….. this is the equivalent of trying to fill a milk bucket by milking more cows when the problem is that there is a hole in the bucket. Why put more milk in the bucket until the hole is fixed or the farmer gets a new bucket?”
That is exactly how I feel about NJ’s Public Sector pensions. Taxpayers should fight ANY & ALL attempts at additional funding ……….. until the fundamental structural problem is fixed ………… that being grossly excessive pension promises.
Any THEN, we should only fund that (surely lees than 50%) share that likely WOULD HAVE been granted in the absence of the Union/Elected-Official collusion.
Posted by Anonymous on March 1, 2018 at 11:40 pm
Every day of your life is consumed by this issue. Does your life suck that much? I can only imagine how it would be being married to you. Endless drone over coffee in the morning about the cops and their pensions. Similiar education, overpaid, blah blah, 3.47 tines grester pension, blah blah. One side of a story is what you provide. One trick pony, goddamn that gets old. Reminds me of the scene in planes trains and automobiles when steve Martin dresses down Dell Griffin in the hotel room. Right before “you want to hurt me, go ahead and hurt me….etc”. I feel like steve Martin. Lol.
Posted by Tough Love on March 1, 2018 at 11:48 pm
What does what I do bother you so much ?
Let me guess, might you be one of these public Sector pensions “moochers” ?
————————————————
Quoting ………… ” One side of a story is what you provide. ”
Humor me. Tell me the ….”other side”.
Posted by Tough Love on March 2, 2018 at 12:23 am
Let me guess ………….. you’re a “hero”.
Posted by Anonymous on March 2, 2018 at 8:26 am
No. Just a serious case of eyestrain reading the same posts. You do insult personally, and that gets old. Geniuses, moocher etc. over and over and over for better part of a decade. Just saying I’d have windburn on my ears if I lived with you. Lol. Actually if I did, you’d prob sing a different tune cause you’d be having those benifits and pensions help pay your bills.
Posted by Tough Love on March 2, 2018 at 9:09 am
No, you have no “other side”. There is ZERO justification for your grossly excessive pensions …. and you know it.
As to the words I choose, given the responses we see here from PFRS members and other Public Sector workers, trying to justify the unjustifiable ………. “moochers” …………. is dead on the money.
Let’s be clear, I while I value the contribution of honest and hard-working Public Sector workers (regardless of what they do), there is zero justification for the grossly over-compensation.
And while I realize that Public Sector employees ….. individually ….. had nothing to do with the granting of these excessive pensions & benefit, the blame for THAT squarely falling on our elected officials for so willingly trading their favorable votes (on Public Sector pay, pensions, and benefits) for Union campaign contributions and election support (with a good dose of the “blame” also going to your insatiably greedy Unions), is it NOT the Plan PARTICIPANTS that are the financial “beneficiaries” of that Union/Elected-Official collusion? Of course they are, so THAT is where the Taxpayers must look to right this wrong …… by VERY VERY materially (at LEAST 50%) reducing the value of the future service accruals granted all CURRENT workers.
Posted by Tough Love on March 2, 2018 at 12:20 am
While this isn’t really good new for NJ’s Public Sector pension Plans’ … I LIKE IT.
Gov Murphy just reversed MOST of the last minute reduction in NJ’s Official investment return (and hence liability discount rate) …… RAISING the rate from 7% to 7.5%.
That certainly won’t help these Plans precarious financial position, but it will lessen the money the State has to put into the State-sponsored Plans in the next budget, and will lower the big increase that would otherwise have hit localities (and therefore Local property taxes) for the Locally-sponsored Plans. I like the latter ….. less property tax increase. Who gives a crap if these thieving Plans die sooner ……… it’s inevitable anyway.
Taxpayers in NJ have ALREADY contributed towards their Public Sector worker’s pensions FAR MORE than they get from their employers towards their own retirement security. This need to END, and for the future service of all CURRENT workers.