NJEA on NJ Budget

New Jersey Education Association (NJEA) president Ed Richardson discusses Governor Phil Murphy’s plans for funding public employee pensions with someone else who admittedly has no clue on the numbers:
.

.

For their information…..

  1. $140 billion underfunding is the number that New Jersey is telling bond investors.
  2. $15 billion is the real contribution amount to honestly fund benefits – $11 billion of which to come from the state assuming that the $2 billion each that localities and members put in remains steady.
  3. COLAs were also supposed to be protected. They weren’t.

23 responses to this post.

  1. Posted by Anonymous on March 20, 2018 at 11:09 am

    Looking at the numbers it is clear why Pfrs members want to split from the others. With a depletion date about 35 years away, I feel that by instituting minimum retirement ages for members (55) we could responsibly reinstate cola with virtually no movement to that date. Tier 2 and 3 employees have a pension cap equal to SS. As long as they don’t significantly raise that number and guys stay till 55, the fund should be ok and may only need some minor tweaking down road.

    Reply

    • Posted by Tough Love on March 20, 2018 at 12:18 pm

      Quoting ……………..

      “I feel that by instituting minimum retirement ages for members (55) we could responsibly reinstate cola with virtually no movement to that date.”

      You’ve stated that before. It was wrong then and is sill wrong.

      COLAs on PFRS pensions add about 30% to the cost of the pension. And with the incremental cost of advancing (of delaying) pension payments by 1 year being about 5%, the AVERAGE age at retirement would have to INCREASE by about 30%/5% = 6 years. Given that the AVERAGE retirement age of all Local NJ Police is on the underside of 55 right now, to offset the cost of reinstating COLAs, the MINIMUM retirement age would likely have to be in the 58 to 60 range.

      Reply

      • Posted by PS Drone on March 20, 2018 at 4:03 pm

        Try minimum (begin receiving benefits – forget when “retirement” occurs) age of 66. That makes actuarial sense; anything earlier is a gift from the private sector taxpayer to the drones.

        Reply

        • Posted by Tough Love on March 20, 2018 at 5:27 pm

          I agree, I was only correcting of his stated trade-off of COLA reinstatement for an increase in the minimum retirement age.

          Reply

  2. Posted by Tough Love on March 20, 2018 at 12:08 pm

    Quoting …………… “COLAs were also supposed to be protected. They weren’t.”

    Thank goodness they weren’t.

    With BASIC NJ Public Sector pensions MULTIPLES greater in value upon retirement than those granted similarly situated Private Sector workers, and with 80% to 90% of Total Plan costs the responsibility of the Taxpayers, what could possibly justify COLA-increases for PUBLIC Sector DB Plans when PRIVATE Sector DB Plans never include them ?

    Reply

    • Posted by Anonymous on March 20, 2018 at 1:11 pm

      Of course they were protected by law you idiot New Jersey Law

      Reply

      • Posted by Tough Love on March 20, 2018 at 6:42 pm

        the Court didn’t rule that way. So who’s the idiot ?

        Reply

        • Posted by Anonymous on March 20, 2018 at 9:02 pm

          I think he was being sarcastic. As in a banana republic.
          Btw, you gotta admit the 2055 drop dead number is quite a few more years out than you projected. I’ll be 84 then if god forbid I’m still around.

          Reply

    • Posted by Retired police on March 20, 2018 at 8:45 pm

      “Posted by Tough Love IN REPLY To ANONYMOUS:

      “the Court didn’t rule that way”. So who’s the idiot ?”

      Anonymous, is correct, you are by far an Idiot. A dangerous mouth piece that doesn’t have a clue of anything related to the courts ruling. If you did you would know that the ruling was left to interpretation by authoritative decree. Which means it is pro tem.
      Still waiting for YOU to reveal what you do for a LIVING????

      Reply

      • Posted by Tough Love on March 20, 2018 at 8:58 pm

        Left to interpretation?

        Have you been getting your COLAs ?

        Reply

        • Posted by Anonymous on March 20, 2018 at 9:10 pm

          No he hasn’t. And he reason is that Christie had the judges eating of his hand. Again, political hacks no different than Murphy and his group. Shame though. Judges should be completely and utterly impartial. They weren’t. There was no way on Gods green earth that they were going to interpret the cola decision any other way. Taken on its face to say that it was not part of the benifit package when it was in the employee handbook is a joke at best. Mr. Bury agrees with that assessment. If you want to argue whether a cola is warranted or not that’s fine, but to say that Christie didn’t have an jnfluence over that decision is just not true. The judges were appointed by him and were certainly not going to buck him. Just like the lackeys who would vote for something and then change their vote cause Christie vetoed something. To me, that is totally spineless to change your vote like that. Hence the need from the PBA point of view for S5. Thank God that fat piece of shit is out of office.

          Reply

  3. Posted by skip3house on March 20, 2018 at 12:38 pm

    NJ aid based on formula measuring overall wealth of each town is not fair to ‘poor’ living in wealthy towns, and a bonanza to wealthy living in otherwise poor towns. Both still require regressive school property taxes, not based on income but just property assessments.
    Simply need NJ School Income Tax to cover all ‘necessities’ in Constitution (amended wih majority votes) for all towns.
    Add non-Constitution ‘frills’ based on local votes.
    No need then for Abbotts,…….., hopefully? Forget that fancy NJ Supreme Court term for equalizing to wealthiest, just guarantee ‘necessities’ per NJ Constitution, amended perhaps, as done often for trivial matters compared with education.
    Those NJ citizens beyond certain ages shown as Pension funds expiring will now only guess the future, not see it. Still, we all want to leave system better than we ‘unfunded promises’ found this system.

    Reply

  4. Posted by geo8rge on March 20, 2018 at 12:41 pm

    I didn’t understand Adubato’s question. Did he want to know how much total or how much more than the previous year the state should put in?

    $3 Billion state + $1 billion county and local each would be $5 billion, which is what is currently paid in if I understand correctly. If the $5 billion is additional then the total would be $10 billion, which is close to the amount that will be paid out in benefits, if I understand things correctly.

    Reply

  5. Posted by Anonymous on March 20, 2018 at 5:23 pm

    Tell Ed Richardson to donate some of his million dollar salary to shore up the TeChers pension fund, tell this hypocrite to get a real clue.

    Reply

    • Posted by Retired police on March 20, 2018 at 9:34 pm

      Had the State kept up their responsibility to fund the pension fund beginning with Ms. Whitman, who blatantly ceased all contributions and stole money from the pension system to fund her pet projects. Before she came along the pension system was very healthy. Subsequent Governors followed suit.

      Reply

      • Posted by Stephen Douglas on March 20, 2018 at 11:54 pm

        Hear, hear!

        Reply

      • Posted by Stephen Douglas on March 21, 2018 at 12:07 am

        Apologies from California. She might have learned that from Pete Wilson. After he raided the fund, though, California passed a proposition giving CalPERS total authority in determining contributions.

        Reply

        • Posted by Tough Love on March 21, 2018 at 1:10 am

          And the latter (combined with the ludicrously excessive pension “generosity”) will be the reason for MANY CA City/Town Bankruptcies starting in just a few years.

          Just take a look at the projected CalPERS contributions demands from these Cities …….. completely unaffordable.

          Reply

        • Give at least some credit to the 08-09 crash and ensuing recession.

          It does seem like California may be the canary in the coal mine though. The poster child states for DON’T PAY THE BILLS may be able to able to stretch out payments for several years. But if any city in California this year can’t or won’t pay the required ARC, CalPERS could instantly cut pensions by 40-60 percent, like they did to Loyalton, only a hundred times bigger. That would rattle some cages.

          Reply

          • Posted by Tough Love on March 21, 2018 at 11:05 am

            The ROOT Cause of the pension crisis is not the 08-09 crash. It is the Ludicrously Excessive Pension generosity, a good portion of which was “retroactively increased”.

          • Posted by Stephen Douglas on March 21, 2018 at 12:07 pm

            And yet, the crisis hit pretty much equally in states (and private systems) who have much less generous systems. The two things they do have in common are; 2008-09 market losses and the ensuing Great Recession.

  6. We have people like Adubato in Connecticut too. Pleasant people wearing nice clothes who have many more friends in government and unions than they have in IT or Pharma or manufacturing or car dealers/repair. They are willfully uninformed as it serves their purpose. The reason we are only learning this pension mess over the past few year is due to websites like this. For many uninformed people, the moderator sitting legs crossed in a suit(male or female) talking to a government leader passes for news . Sad and sickening

    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 )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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 )

w

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: