In FY2017, the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC) insured about 24,000 DB pension plans covering approximately 40 million people. PBGC became the trustee of 82 newly terminated single-employer pension plans and began providing financial assistance to an additional 7 multiemployer pension plans. PBGC paid benefits to nearly 840,000 participants in 4,845 single-employer pension plans and more than 63,000 participants in 72 multiemployer plans.
All this according to PBGC: A Primer. More excerpts:
PBGC runs two distinct insurance programs: one for single-employer pensions and a second for multiemployer plans. Single-employer pension plans are sponsored by one employer and cover eligible workers employed by the plan sponsor. Multiemployer plans are collectively bargained plans to which more than one company makes contributions. PBGC maintains separate reserve funds for each program.
A firm must be in financial distress to end an underfunded single-employer plan and for PBGC to become the trustee of the plan. Multiemployer plans do not terminate. When a multiemployer plan becomes insolvent and is not able to pay promised benefits, PBGC provides financial assistance to the plan in the form of loans, although PBGC does not expect the loans to be repaid.
At the end of FY2017, PBGC had a total deficit of $76 billion, of which $10.9 billion was from the single-employer program and $65.1 billion was from the multiemployer program. PBGC’s single-employer program has been on the Government Accountability Office’s (GAO’s) list of high-risk government programs since 2003. PBGC’s multiemployer program was added in 2009. PBGC’s projections expect the financial position of the single-employer program to improve slightly, but the financial position of the multiemployer program is expected to worsen considerably over the next 10 years.
PBGC is required by ERISA to be self-supporting and receives no appropriations from general revenue. ERISA states that the “United States is not liable for any obligation or liability incurred by the corporation,” and some Members of Congress have expressed a reluctance to consider providing financial assistance to PBGC. The most reliable source of PBGC revenue is the premiums set by Congress and paid by the private-sector employers that sponsor DB pension plans. Other sources of income are assets from terminated plans taken over by PBGC, investment income, and recoveries collected from companies when they end underfunded pension plans. The Multiemployer Pension Plan Amendments Act of 1980 requires that PBGC’s receipts and disbursements be included in federal budget totals.
An employer can voluntarily terminate a single-employer plan in either a standard or distress termination. The participants and PBGC must be notified of the termination. PBGC may involuntarily terminate an underfunded plan if the sponsor is unable to fund its pension obligations.
The most commonly used measure of PBGC’s financial status is its net financial position, which is the difference between PBGC’s assets and its liabilities. At the end of FY2017, PBGC’s assets were $108.5 billion, PBGC liabilities were $184.4 billion, and its net financial position was -$76 billion. PBGC’s main assets are the value of its trust fund and revolving funds. The trust fund contains the assets of the pension plans of which PBGC becomes trustee and the returns on the trust fund investments. The revolving funds contain the premiums that plan sponsors pay to PBGC, transfers from the trust fund that are used to pay for participants’ benefits, and returns on the revolving funds’ investments in U.S. Treasury securities. PBGC’s main liabilities are the estimated present values of (1) future benefits payments in the single-employer program and (2) future financial assistance to insolvent plans in the multiemployer program.
PBGC estimated that there is a 75% chance that the multiemployer program will be insolvent by 2025 and a 99% chance that the multiemployer program will be insolvent by 2035. This is a result of the likely insolvency of several large multiemployer pension plans.
Burypensions Blog 
Posted by skip3house on April 4, 2018 at 1:07 pm
Happens when just too many of us do not understand the complications added to simple savings plans in the name of spreading risk, unjustified, but hoped for, lower premiums, and ‘sounds good’ earnings/interest rates,….., and abused Defined Benefits (of course).
Posted by Anonymous on April 4, 2018 at 1:24 pm
“some Members of Congress have expressed a reluctance to consider providing financial assistance to PBGC” Who? Any names?
Posted by El gaupo on April 4, 2018 at 3:51 pm
Hey TL! Ya gonna ask Tim where his report is again?
Posted by Tough Love on April 4, 2018 at 4:52 pm
Nah, just did on the last blog-post.
Hey, perhaps Tm actually found a paying client and is busy.
Posted by Tough Love on April 4, 2018 at 5:03 pm
El gaupo,
But just in case you missed my comment to you (on yesterday’s Blog) about the HUGE WASTE of money by having to UNNECESSARILY pay for Police at Local Construction sites, here it it again:
————————————–
El Gaupo,
Lets get your take on something (the need for Police at the minor Utility Company street repairs) ………
From what I was told by a local town Councilman (a few years ago), off-duty Police are paid $125/hr with a minimum of 4 hours ($500). The town is reimbursed by the Utility so the cost winds up in ours Utility bills instead of our property taxes (but cost residents no less). There is a State law (or Reg.) that he couldn’t further identify that REQUIRES the hiring of Police for this purpose.
The above is the background. Please let me know if I’ve got any of this wrong so far.
Now on occasion, I see the COUNTY doing repairs (with COUNTY employees)
on local roads that are COUNTY OWNED. Invariably (even when the repairs are much MORE involved than the typical Utility company repair), there are NEVER Police directing traffic flow (at $125/hr) but instead County laborers acting as “flagmen” (likely at about $20-$25/hr).
Now call me a skeptic, but it’s very obvious what’s going on. It’s perfectly SAFE to have $20-$25/hr flagman direct traffic flow, and the REASON Police aren’t there when it’s the COUNTY doing the repair work is because there is no “sucker” (i.e., the Utility, who then passes the cost onto ratepayers) who can be FORCED to hire Police at $125/hr (with a 4 hour minimum). You see, the COUNTY knows that it’s perfectly “safe” to have the MUCH cheaper Flagman, and THEY can’t be forced to (and WON’T) pay for what’s unnecessary.
Posted by El gaupo on April 4, 2018 at 5:54 pm
Answered u on that blog.
Posted by Stanley on April 5, 2018 at 11:17 am
“some Members of Congress have expressed a reluctance to consider providing financial assistance to PBGC” Who? Any names?”
———————————-
All of them, hopefully. Who in his right mind would want to dance with a tar baby? If the truck drivers and miners get a bailout, how will anyone be able to tell the teachers and cops no? Did you hear about the port pilot’s $375,000 per year pension? Think he’ll have enough to pay the minimum payments on his cards? Heck! That’s probably more than Obummer gets.
Posted by PS Drone on April 5, 2018 at 1:32 pm
Not just that…who is going to bail out the federal government at the same time they are “bailing out” the Teamsters, IL, CA, NJ, on and on? I think federal bailouts of all types (particularly Wall St. and Banks) are permanently at an end. It is now every man for him(her)self.
Posted by SeeSaw Jr on April 6, 2018 at 12:52 am
“…who is going to bail out the federal government at the same time they are “bailing out” the Teamsters, IL, CA, NJ, on and on? I think federal bailouts of all types (particularly Wall St. and Banks) are permanently at an end. It is now every man for him(her)self”/b>
#1- The Feds are NOT going to bail out ANY state, especially CA or IL.
#2- The Feds are NOT going to bail out ANY private pension fund, especially any multi-employer fund
#3-The Feds are HOPEFULLY NOT going to EVER AGAIN bail out Wall Street or ANY financial services/insurance companies.TARP was a fraud, a “gift” to Wall Street billionaires and millionaires, and the sad art is those same billionaires and millionaires were the ones who CAUSED the meltdown, while the poor and middle class, who caused nothing, took it in the shorts.
Posted by dentss dunnigan on April 5, 2018 at 10:58 am
California Should Copy New Jersey’s Pension Fund Takeover by Public Unions, But With One Caveat (Steven Greenhut / California Policy Center)…They and their members deserve to reap the benefits, of course, but here’s the caveat: taxpayers no longer should have to foot the bill for their miscalculations. They simply need to remove the liability from taxpayers…..https://californiapolicycenter.org/california-copy-new-jerseys-union-fund-takeover-one-caveat/
Posted by geo8rge on April 5, 2018 at 11:13 am
PBGC deficit, is that the amount of the minimum PBGC benefit that it is projected they cannot pay, or is it some other larger benefit amount? If it is the min benefit they probably will end up paying it because of the impoverished state of many of the beneficiaries. I guess they could means test it, but the progressive income tax will take care of reducing benefits to wealthier people. These days $100B is not what it used to be, so I suspect it ends up being paid.
The current multi employer debate seems me to be about people with benefit amounts larger than the PBGC cutoff taking large cuts.
Posted by Tough Love on April 5, 2018 at 11:18 am
I agree with your last sentence. And, it seems that the Unions want future accruals to continue unabated for which the Taxpayers would ALSO be responsible.
Posted by Tough Love on April 5, 2018 at 11:15 am
Since Gov. Murphy hasn’t sign or vetoed the recently passed State Senate & Assembly Bills giving Police control of their pension Plans, what perfect timing for a WELL THOUGH OUT ARTICLE on the subject:
https://californiapolicycenter.org/california-copy-new-jerseys-union-fund-takeover-one-caveat/
Readers, how may times have I stated that the ROOT CAUSE of the pension mess is excessive pension “generosity” (not the lack of full funding, which I describe as not the CAUSE of the pension mess, but a CONSEQUENCE of that real root cause)?
Gotta love the following paragraph for the above linked article:
“Instead of dealing with the real source of the pension liabilities (excessive pay and benefit packages for public employees, unrealistically high assumed rates of return, decisions made by politicians rather than actuaries), lawmakers in Trenton chose to shift control of the Police and Firemen’s Retirement System (PFRS) from the state and its investment council to the police and firefighter unions whose members benefit from the fund.”
———————————————————–
And as for the article’s main point ………….. if the Unions want to “control their destiny” via being able to set employee contribution levels, increase benefits, reinstate COLAs, choose their Plan’s investments (including risk levels), and reap the BENEFITS that may arise from the upside of those decisions, then they should also suffer the CONSEQUENCES if they make bad decisions.
Posted by SeeSaw Jr on April 6, 2018 at 12:54 am
“…who is going to bail out the federal government at the same time they are “bailing out” the Teamsters, IL, CA, NJ, on and on? I think federal bailouts of all types (particularly Wall St. and Banks) are permanently at an end. It is now every man for him(her)self”
#1- The Feds are NOT going to bail out ANY state, especially CA or IL.
#2- The Feds are NOT going to bail out ANY private pension fund, especially any multi-employer fund
#3-The Feds are HOPEFULLY NOT going to EVER AGAIN bail out Wall Street or ANY financial services/insurance companies.TARP was a fraud, a “gift” to Wall Street billionaires and millionaires, and the sad art is those same billionaires and millionaires were the ones who CAUSED the meltdown, while the poor and middle class, who caused nothing, took it in the shorts.
Posted by Anonymous on April 6, 2018 at 7:52 am
……everything is a mess and getting worse by the year. I’m still wondering exactly what will happen when the next downturn hits and I am certain that the powers that be would love for that downturn to happen during Trump’s presidency so we can all blame him for this mess as if it magically appeared under his tenure
Posted by Tough Love on April 6, 2018 at 8:07 am
If the PFRS gets to choose their investments, the pension checks should reflect the change in assets. They’re going to keep the “upside” anyway. Time to OWN the “downside”.
Taxpayers should insist on it !
Posted by El gaupo on April 6, 2018 at 10:09 am
Meanwhile in OK, the teachers continue to force the legislature to raise wages and increase funding. They have the state By the shorthairs. And OK will be better for it. Better educators and a better education system.
Again, bottom line is the kids need to be educated and their is NO ONE that is qualified willing to take their place for the current package provided. A huge win for the teachers and for the state as a whole. OK would have just gotten worse every year. Some districts couldn’t even pay electric and water bills. While the rich got a tax break.
Posted by El gaupo on April 6, 2018 at 10:14 am
Old text books from the bush era. Some of them encouraged students to ask their librarians about this new thing called the internet. Haha. Really? And you expect these kids to be are best and brightest and compete globally? Using books made before Twitter and Facebook for gods sake. What a joke!!! Substitute MS, AR, AL, WV, LA, are any of those good ol red states. Say want you want but the east and west coasters, and TX, are where all the smart folks go to live. Taxes aside. Then they may retire to those red states and live kings.
Posted by Tough Love on April 6, 2018 at 10:31 am
You were replying to my comment about the PFRS Plan transfer to their Union…….
So what does any of what you have said have to do with the HIGH wages and LUDICROUSLY EXCESSIVE pensions and benefits now granted NJ Police ?
Posted by Stanley on April 6, 2018 at 11:15 am
Gaupo uno, Your posts are self refuting. Please take a look at what HS grads of the 30s were expected to know and compare that to where you are. I read letters to the editor from striking teachers and I have to ask how they made it through Comp 101. (Did you take Comp 101?) I took a Western Civ class in the 90s and I was astonished at the really junior high level of writing in the text book. I asked the instructor (a Phd in history) if she thought it was a good text book and she answered, “well you see the kids these days don’t read so well.”
You will see some better students in the Northeast and on the West Coast and I don’t think that it is largely because of better public schools. Predominantly, it will be due to family life, family values, education level and occupation of the parents the cultural values in the home and so on.
Now take a text book from the Bush period and compare to today. It’s all garbage–propaganda. And changing textbooks is mostly a con, a scheme to gun the income of the writer. Not always, but damn near always. But of course you like cons that gun the income of a privileged few.
Just one of your major errors is that businesses ARE fleeing democrat controlled states for the greener pastures of red states. Republicans don’t send people to reeducation camps, but if they did.
Posted by Anonymous on April 9, 2018 at 8:15 am
El gaupo…in reply to a few of your comments:
At least in NJ, for every full time teaching position that is available, at least 150-200 applicants apply, maybe more…..nothing scientific to base this on but I am good friends with two school representatives and this seems to be the pattern per our discussions—–most districts are hiring part-time bc they can’t afford new people as the existing ones are too expensive
In regard to updated textbooks…….who needs expensive textbooks when everything is updated and online?
The problem as I see it, is that school districts are so top heavy with expensive administrators that do next to nothing, generous pay and benefits including expensive health plans, little if any accountability, permanent employment no matter what the enrollment or needs of the community…..soooooo that leaves very little left over to actually educate the students
Not to mention that nobody wants to merge services bc of course that would mean union members would get the boot in the merger
…and the beat goes on
Posted by larrylittlefield on April 6, 2018 at 10:10 am
Social Security is all that most retired workers will have to live on, and with another round of tax cuts they are intent on destroying that.
Those who entered the labor force in 1983 and after have already been forced to pay higher taxes in exchange for diminished benefits. How could they justify giving priority to those who have both pensions, with earlier and retirement, and Social Security over Social Security alone?
If anyone deserves less out of the federal government, it is the Republican-voting tax cut generations.
Posted by El gaupo on April 6, 2018 at 10:18 am
Correct!!! Thing is these young kids will be voting. The NRA will be a shell of itself in 30 years as very few kids today will join their ranks. The new moderate voter will be slightly left if today’s. Some old bastard votes “no” to replace a 80 year heating system in the school, yet had his brood educated for free.
The key has always been finding the medium between “hooray for me, fuck the other guy” and “why should I work hard, they’ll give me free shit”.
Posted by Tough Love on April 6, 2018 at 10:40 am
El gaupo,
So if you’re against ……………. “hooray for me, fuck the other guy”………. why not agree to a very material reduction in your now LUDICROUSLY excessive Police pension ?
How about 50% of the average your last 5 year’s BASE wages (after 30 years of service), and if you begin collecting that pension before age 65, the payout is reduced by 5% for EACH year of age below 65…………. because THAT is much closer to what Private Sector Taxpayers (who you want to pay for YOUR pensions) might expect in retirement.
Posted by El gaupo on April 6, 2018 at 11:35 am
Quite candidly because your definition of ludicrous is different than mine. I never expect someone to not make as much money as they can. Myself included. However, I also feel in that many areas in the country there is a “you oughta be happy ya just have a job”. That is a loser mentality. I am in favor of paying my share of taxes. And I feel that if folks work hard and contribute to society there should be a minimum standard of living for them. And in reference to the other poster— there is no question the better the school system the better the overall caliber of employee you will have. Very few IT head honchos were educated in these backwards red states. The jobs you see going to red states will by default, if they are any good, encourage more spending in the public schools at those locations. When do most folks leave NJ? After they retire OR if they can’t quite cut it here financially. I have 2 kids in the public school system in a very good school. Even if I wasn’t in a job like mine w a pension I had to stay for, I would wait until they got out of school before I even thought of moving. Thankfully my kids are both honor students, however, I will concede it seems that many of the kids do get high marks. A larger percentage than went I was in high school 30 years ago in the late eighties. Competition is healthy for high schoolchildren. It reminds of the Bill Maher clip about everyone is a winner—- Little Johnny kicks three goals into his own teams goal and everyone cheers him “you’re a winner Johnny” when in reality he is a fucking loser. lol.
Posted by Tough Love on April 6, 2018 at 12:09 pm
Quoting El guapo……………
“Quite candidly because your definition of ludicrous is different than mine. ”
Really?
I’m sure you can easily find one of my detailed demonstrations that VERY clearly show that NJ Police pensions are 3.5 to 4 TIMES greater in value upon retirement than those typically granted Private Sector workers who retire at the SAME age, with the SAME wages, and with the SAME years of service. AND, almost nobody in the Private sector gets employer-provided retiree healthcare any longer ………… as do NJ Police.
That’s NOT “LUDICROUS” ?
Posted by Tough Love on April 6, 2018 at 12:16 pm
El gaupo,
We see your (Public Sector) mentality quite often. Essentially, that being ……… I have a job, I work hard, so I’m ENTITLED to a standard of living (while working and while retired) that I DEEM sufficient to meet my needs.
Sorry, but in the real (Private Sector) world, it doesn’t work that way. WE don’t to define what’s enough, what’s appropriate wages, and what (if any) contribution our employer will make towards our retirement. And we CERTAINLY don’t get to elect our boss who is then beholden to us ……… and do so via above-market wages, pensions, and benefits.
Posted by Stephen Douglas on April 6, 2018 at 12:37 pm
Stop me if you’ve heard this before…
“It is invalid to compare pensions outside the context of total compensation.”
Your “detailed demonstrations” are worse than meaningless.
Don’t be invalid.
Posted by Tough Love on April 6, 2018 at 12:51 pm
Stephen,
Stop me if YOU have heard this before……….
NJ Police “wages” alone are MORE (not less) than those of Private Sector workers in jobs with no less rick and who have comparable experience, education, skills, and knowledge. Therefore, your “point” that LOWER Public Sector wages (where they exist) justifies HIGHER pension and/or benefits DOES NOT APPLE to NJ Police.
And with NJ Police now receiving equal or HIGHER “wages”, there is ZERO justification for ANY greater pensions or benefits.
Posted by Stephen Douglas on April 6, 2018 at 1:14 pm
Show
me
the
data.
Apparently Mr. Love has found the elusive private sector job which is equivalent to a LEO job, at any level.
Strap on a gun. Kill or be killed. Hesitate one second and you’re dead. Respond to quickly and your career and your life is ruined due to “excessive force”. At night, chasing a suspect, full on adrenaline, can you tell the difference between a cell phone and a pistol?
There is “rick” even in routine traffic stops, or domestic disputes. And that does “APPLE” to NJ Police.
https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/22/us/sacramento-police-shooting/index.html
Posted by Tough Love on April 6, 2018 at 1:30 pm
Stephen,
From the US Gov’t BLS………. list of the 10 most dangerous occupations:
10. Construction Laborers
9. Electrical Power-Line Installers And Repairers
8. Farmers, Ranchers, And Other Agricultural Managers
7. Driver/Sales Workers and Truck Drivers
6. Mining Machine Operators
5. Refuse And Recyclable Material Collectors
4. Roofers
3. Aircraft Pilots And Flight Engineers
2. Fishers And Related Fishing Workers
1. Logging Workers
Do YOU see Police on that list ?
All BS, from years of casual observation, Re NJ’s bedroom-community Police, I have never seen SO MANY do SO LITTLE, for SO MUCH.
Posted by Stephen Douglas on April 6, 2018 at 2:54 pm
Ignoratio elenchi
When someone is breaking into your house, call a roofer.
risks and responsibilities
Posted by Tough Love on April 6, 2018 at 4:44 pm
There is ZERO justification for the LUDICROUSLY excessive compensation now paid to NJ’s bedroom-community Police Officers.
Posted by El gaupo on April 6, 2018 at 8:36 pm
Yea TL we’ve all seen the detailed data you provide. Unlike Tim’s report, Lol. Just kidding Tim. You’re a good man.
By the way Steven Douglas, I think Mr Love is actually a Ms. Love. I could be wrong.
Posted by Tough Love on April 6, 2018 at 10:24 pm
Bingo !
Posted by Stephen Douglas on April 7, 2018 at 1:21 am
“It’s always been like that and basically it’s based on a town’s ability to pay,” said Pat Colligan, the president of the New Jersey State Policemen’s Benevolent Association.
“When we’re applying for a job, you apply to multiple towns. It’s still not an easy job to get, but if you’re lucky enough to be picked up in a town like that, then that’s where you’re going to continue working.”
“I’m not going to make apologies for the money police officers make in New Jersey,” he said. “It’s a very expensive state to live in and the salaries are commensurate.”
Colligan says a town’s crime rate doesn’t tell the whole story, because whether it’s a high-crime or low-crime town, “you’re still dealing with infant deaths and doing CPR on a father on the kitchen floor with the family around, going to make death notifications.”
—————————
Cumberland had the lowest median salary, $81,852, followed by Camden with $87,732.
Are Cumberland and Camden LUDICROUSLY excessive also?
We all recognize your fervor, but fervor is not facts.
Posted by Stephen Douglas on April 7, 2018 at 1:25 am
“it’s based on a town’s ability to pay”
Truth, Justice, and the American Way
Posted by Stanley on April 7, 2018 at 11:47 am
Gaupo uno: “I feel that if folks work hard and contribute to society there should be a minimum standard of living for them.”
More than likely your feelings are geared more for those eating at the public trough rather than those keeping the trough full.
Posted by Anonymous on April 9, 2018 at 8:17 am
El gaupo…no one is getting a “free” education as we are all paying to educate everyone via our highest in the country real estate taxes
Only difference for the the 80 year old is that his children most likely received a much better education for a fraction of the cost we pay now
Posted by Tough Love on April 7, 2018 at 2:29 am
Excessive remains excessive whether is “affordable” or not. There are far better and more appropriate uses for available revenue than unnecessarily over-compensating Public Sector workers …………… one of which is lower (or more likely lowering the rate of increase in) taxes.
Posted by Stephen Douglas on April 7, 2018 at 3:13 am
” Are Cumberland and Camden LUDICROUSLY excessive also?”
And who gets to draw the line?
Posted by Tough Love on April 7, 2018 at 10:58 am
So, are you saying that because the Police in the LESS THAN 5% of NJ who have to deal with substantive crime, violence, and are periodically put in real danger, we should LUDICROUSLY overcompensate the OTHER 95%+ ?
Posted by Stephen Douglas on April 7, 2018 at 1:21 pm
No.
Posted by Stephen Douglas on April 7, 2018 at 1:22 pm
I only asked; who gets to draw the line? Overpaid or Underpaid?
“Do you realize that if we only paid HALF of your promised pension (and hopefully NJ’s Taxpayers will ultimately pay no more than HALF) it would STILL be excessive ?”
“It’s true for full career teachers in NJ.”
—————————————————————
I notice you didn’t exactly say that Camden police are not overcompensated, but did imply that the other 95+% are. (LUDICROUSLY) One would think there would be a sliding scale between $87,000 and $150,000, from underpaid to correctly paid to overpaid, to LUDICROUSLY overpaid.
I’m just curious where that LUDICROUSLY line is drawn, and by whom. Apparently it includes full career NJ teachers also. (Only full career?)
If we can believe Biggs and dozens of other researchers, we know there are thousands of public workers who, even with their higher pensions and benefits, earn less than private sector peers. And thousands more who are “roughly equivalent”.
Where is the “overpaid” line drawn? And the LUDICROUSLY overpaid? Who gets to draw that line?
There are more things in heaven and earth, Mr. Love,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
Posted by Tough Love on April 7, 2018 at 3:49 pm
No Stephen,
You VERY specifically stated :
” Are Cumberland and Camden LUDICROUSLY excessive also?”
Posted by Stephen Douglas on April 7, 2018 at 4:25 pm
That is not a statement. It is a question, which you didn’t actually answer.
Like El gaupo, I question your definition of “LUDICROUS”.
I question your definition of “excessive”.
Among other things.
Posted by Tough Love on April 7, 2018 at 5:15 pm
Yes, 2 Public Sector Plan participants are ……….. questioning my definition of “LUDICROUS”.
Now THAT’S a surprise !
NJ Police “wages” (alone) greater than their Private Sector counterparts, PLUS pensions 3.5 to 4 times greater in value upon retirement, PLUS heavily-taxpayer-subsidized Platinum+ Retiree healthcare is INDEED LUDICROUS.
If not, what is ?
Posted by Stephen Douglas on April 7, 2018 at 6:41 pm
We have the police data.
Where is the data on Private Sector counterparts ?
The plural of opinion is not data.
Posted by Tough Love on April 7, 2018 at 7:33 pm
Stephen Douglas,
The Private Sector worker (being compared to the Police Officer) is ANY Private Sector worker in a job with reasonably comparable “risks” and requiring reasonably equivalent education, experience, skills and knowledge (even if in a different field).
The “wages” will likely not be greatly different, but the NJ Police pension will ROUTINELY have a value upon retirement 3.5 to 4 times greater than that granted the Private Sector worker. AND while the Private Sector worker will likely get NOTHING in employer-subsidized retiree healthcare benefits, the NJ Police Officer will get heavily taxpayer-subsidized Platinum+ retiree healthcare benefits for him/her AND his/her family.
Yes LUDICROUS is an accurate discretion of the NJ Police Officer’s Total Compensation package.
And with even RICHER pensions in YOUR completely crazy home State of CA.
Posted by Stephen Douglas on April 7, 2018 at 11:10 pm
“The “wages” will likely not be greatly different…”
That is some squishy data.
Posted by Anonymous on April 9, 2018 at 8:18 am
Camden merged most of their police departments into a county system although I believe that towns were able to opt out and keep their own police if they wanted…not sure how that works
Posted by Stephen Douglas on April 7, 2018 at 4:04 am
And who, or what, is Bingo?
Posted by El gaupo on April 7, 2018 at 2:20 pm
I think she was referring to my comment that she in fact a Ms Love. Maybe throw a Ms in front of the tough love to eliminate the confusion as you are probably the only female blogger in here except for maybe that Mary pat one.
Posted by Tough Love on April 7, 2018 at 3:52 pm
I like the handle “Tough Love” ……… any substantive change in NJ’s Public Sector pensions will need to be FORCED upon the insatiably greedy Unions.
Posted by Stephen Douglas on April 7, 2018 at 5:11 pm
Tough Love is neither tough nor love.
https://www.courierpostonline.com/story/life/family/driving-lessons/2014/09/13/tough-love-an-oxymoron/15577087/
And, when changes are forced, it will be because…
“I’ll give it away at the beginning: they’re in trouble because they’re not making the “required” contributions to the pensions.
Yes, there are all sorts of other reasons as well, such as spiking, early retirements, sluggish payroll growth, optimistic valuation assumptions, etc.
But ultimately the reason the pensions are so little funded is because the state didn’t put in enough funds.
And they knew it.
They knew it for years.
It’s not because of investment fees, though those should be more transparent. It’s not because of part-time board directors who get a lifetime pension for very little work, though that doesn’t help. (I’ll address why these aren’t significant problems in a later post.)
DON’T PAY THE BILLS, THE DEBT GETS LARGER”
——————————————–
And it will not be only the unions who will suffer.
“… therefore never send to know for whom the bells tolls; it tolls for thee.”
Posted by Tough Love on April 7, 2018 at 5:43 pm
Quoting ………..
“I’ll give it away at the beginning: they’re in trouble because they’re not making the “required” contributions to the pensions.
Yes, there are all sorts of other reasons as well, such as spiking, early retirements, sluggish payroll growth, optimistic valuation assumptions, etc.”
——————————————-
But (as usual) you leave out the BIGGEST “other” reason ………… LUDICROUSLY excessive pension “generosity”, that being the ROOT CAUSE of the problem.
Posted by Stephen Douglas on April 8, 2018 at 12:28 am
Nonsense.
DON’T PAY THE BILLS, THE DEBT GETS LARGER
Is consice and catchy, but read the rest of the article…
COMPARE AND CONTRAST…
Two pension systems, both in Illinois, the municipal system is 88% funded (2013), because employers are required by the state legislature to make full payments.
The llinois Teachers Retirement System, however, has no such requirement, therefore is only 41% funded.
“They chose to underfund the state pensions and chose to force municipalities to fully fund their pensions. These choices have consequences.”
Posted by Tough Love on April 8, 2018 at 1:03 am
Ah yes, your old standby ………..
“DON’T PAY THE BILLS, THE DEBT GETS LARGER”
But you forget/ignore………….
DON’T OVER-PROMISE AND THE BILL ARE A LOT SMALLER
Posted by Stephen Douglas on April 8, 2018 at 1:22 am
“They chose to underfund the state pensions and chose to force municipalities to fully fund their pensions.” (Illinois)
Hmm… where have heard that before?
“These choices have consequences.”
Posted by Tough Love on April 8, 2018 at 2:09 am
And THEY (the Elected Officials ….. bribed with Union Campaign contributions) CHOSE to grant VERY generous, and hence VERY costly pensions.
Their choices HAVE consequences ……….. one of which being the inability to fully fund such COSTLY “promises”.
Posted by Stephen Douglas on April 7, 2018 at 2:51 pm
Gender is irrelevant.
Bingo !
Posted by El gaupo on April 7, 2018 at 6:44 pm
To tL I will say whether or not you’re a female you can sure take it like a “man”. Lots of other folks come in here and bitch and whine. Then when one of the pensioners give it back, they disappear. tL is a mainstay and regardless of her opinion I respect her for that and hope she respects me for the same.
Posted by Tough Love on April 7, 2018 at 8:54 pm
El gaupo,
FWIW, I respect honest hard-working Public Sector workers, and don’t misunderstand my strong advocacy for materially reductions in Public Sector pensions. That has nothing to do with YOU or other honest/hard-working Police Officers. It’s simply that in my educated/informed observation/opinion, you are over-compensated primarily via ludicrously excessive pensions, and benefits (e.g., heavily subsidized) retiree healthcare far in excess of what comparable Private Sector workers get.
That said, if I was in your shoes I would likely be doing what you (and your associates) are doing ….. trying to protect what I’ve been granted, while in my clear-head days, understanding that it is indeed excessive (and quite ridiculous ….. even “ludicrous” …… when compared to what reasonably comparable Private Sector Taxpayers typically get from their employers).
FWIW, I also believe that you FULLY realize just how off-the-wall generous your compensation is ….. but aren’t comfortable admitting it.
Enjoy your evening.
Posted by El gaupo on April 8, 2018 at 12:16 am
Thanks Tough Love.
Posted by PBGC Primer – 2018 Update | Burypensions Blog on March 25, 2019 at 10:08 am
[…] Last year’s primer had those numbers at: […]
Posted by Becky Girl on January 4, 2020 at 11:31 am
OK I admit it , sure is sweet whatta you wanna talk about now?