NJ Retiree Update – June, 2018

Based on state pension data updated through May, 2018 for new retirees and June, 2018 for all others (and after eliminating those listed with $0 benefits) I get 335,940 retirees getting annualized pensions of $10,928,305,817.

Feel free to look over the spreadsheet as sorted by annual pension but what strikes me:

4,846 new retirees in the first five months of 2018 with total annual pensions of $181,606,991 – spreadsheet

In addition to all the politicians/future retirees on the Murphy pension panel there were a few familiar names on the current retiree rolls:

61 responses to this post.

  1. Posted by Anonymous on August 17, 2018 at 3:08 pm

    Didn’t look over the spreadsheet yet but based on the numbers in your commentary that averages out to $37,475.65 – hardly ‘excessive’ but averages don’t always tell the whole story. Also the panel retirees you referenced, especially Keevey & O’Connor because they retired prior to the COLA suspension, wonder what their breakdown of base allowance and COLA is?

    Reply

  2. Posted by NJ2AZ on August 17, 2018 at 4:27 pm

    For all the people who say “Cap the pensions at $100k”…pointless.

    they’d need to cap at probably $40k to avoid insolvency.

    https://ibb.co/mxfSqz

    Reply

    • Posted by NJ2AZ on August 17, 2018 at 4:29 pm

      Then again that might not even do it. If you cap every annual pension at $40k, that says just over $2B a year in outlays. is that enough? :-\

      Reply

      • Posted by Anonymous on August 17, 2018 at 4:41 pm

        Like Sweeney says, I don’t know we need to get an actuary in here to figure it out. IF you take the numbers at face value $1.5B savings for healthcare, your $2B on a $40k yr cap, and another (I think Sweeney said in the video) ~$2B based on his panel’s pension benefit initiatives, then yes it will work IF the State/Local (TPAF & PERS) fund at the $1-1.5B level annually. Problem is none of this address P&FRS (big driver of local property taxes) not to mention SPRS & JRS.

        Reply

        • Posted by Tough Love on August 17, 2018 at 5:55 pm

          Yes to your last sentence …………. and given that PFRS have the largest and hence MOST EGREGIOUS pensions …… usually beginning at the ridiculously young age of 55 or below ……….. BIGTIME are reductions are easily justifiable.

          Reply

          • Posted by Anonymous on August 17, 2018 at 6:12 pm

            Like boscoe recently stated, ‘Sweeney’s no fool’. IF Mr. Sweeney is SO concerned about taxes in NJ, which includes property taxes, WHY did he and other plliticians on both sides of the asile vote yes for this legislation? Now any reforms can’t be implemented at the State level for P&FRS because they’re independent board has to bless them. Well Sweeney already gave us the answer in the video where he so politely blames unions for the mess we’re in. Guess he didn’t think this one through either. NJEA may have had their heart in the wrong place but their mind was on the right track when they tried to oust him.

          • Posted by NJ2AZ on August 17, 2018 at 6:17 pm

            Average annual pensions by fund for reference:

            JRS – Judicial Retirement System $93,892
            SPRS – State Police Retirement System $65,148
            PFRS – Police and Firemen’s Retirement System $55,841
            TPAF – Teachers’ Pension and Annuity Fund $40,957
            PERS – Public Employee Retirement System $21,015
            CPFPF – Consolidated Police and Firemen’s Pension Fund $19,240
            CPF – Central Pension Fund $15,000
            POPF – Prison Officers’ Pension Fund $13,243
            Grand Total $32,531

          • Posted by Anonymous on August 17, 2018 at 6:25 pm

            So SPRS & JRS both administered by the State are not included in the geniusus plan to save NJ. I understand their total dollars ate small compared to TPAF & PERS but with average pensions do high it’s hard to honestly justify exluding them. Wonder what the PERS State v Local average is?

  3. Posted by NJ2AZ on August 17, 2018 at 9:24 pm

    Because my wife’s ASRS mailer came today, figure’d i’d share:

    Out here employees and employers EACH contribute 11.64% of salary, and also pay into SS. Per their likely bogus metrics, the plan is 70.5% funded.

    Reply

    • Posted by NJ2AZ on August 17, 2018 at 9:33 pm

      also worth noting as part of its marketing materials ASRS repeatedly says that their pensions are supposed to be part of a three legged stool including SS and personal savings as opposed to one’s sole source of retirement income

      Reply

  4. Worth noting is I planned my future and my life on the guarantees I accepted and agreed to. How can you negate that? the legislature that approved all of this represented ALL OF THE PEOPLE in their districts. Ipso facto.. ALL are responsible. Blame the dumb ass voters for making bad choices. The US Government was built upon faith and fidelity by/of its members. Live with it. stuck with it. I get my pension. You pay more (delayed) taxes, or fewer people get medical. Deal with it.

    Reply

    • Posted by NJ2AZ on August 18, 2018 at 1:33 am

      Counter argument: Young people today played no part in this mess so why should should they have to pay for it, and one could further debate whether or not you have some culpability for allowing ‘soft’ promises to be made

      If i agree to accept a promise from someone to pay and they stiff me later on, i’m mad at myself as much as i am them.

      Reply

      • Posted by boscoe on August 18, 2018 at 1:16 pm

        Counter-counter argument: When you get hired into a public job (maybe any job, but let’s leave it public for now), you go to the personnel office, they tell you the salary or wage for your job and give you a handout on how the pension system and health insurance works and your deductions for each. The pension benefits are a LAW — so why do you call them a “soft promise?” Your salary is either dictated by Civil Service or established by the agency that hired you. Is it a “soft promise” that you’ll get paid every two weeks at the stipulated amount? if these are soft promises, then what’s a hard promise?

        Reply

        • Posted by NJ2AZ on August 18, 2018 at 1:25 pm

          Ultimately there are no hard promises.

          My work can say they’ll pay me $X every two weeks. The law can back that up, but that doesn’t change the fact that until the cash is actually in my hand there is some non-zero chance i may never see it. The minute one person enters into any arrangement with another about anything, counterparty risk becomes a thing.

          Forget whats right or just, thats reality.

          Reply

          • Posted by boscoe on August 18, 2018 at 2:27 pm

            Well, NJ2AZ, that’s a pretty zen attitude you have. Good for you. No hard promises? Just think of all the lawyers we could get rid of if there was nothing binding in any transaction. Enjoy your day but watch out for uninsured drivers.

          • Posted by NJ2AZ on August 18, 2018 at 3:23 pm

            nothing is “binding” with certainty.

            I have no axe to grind with the PWs. I bring her up not to deflect but only to contrast that this isn’t almost personal for me like it seems to be with TL. I poured through the data shared by Mr Bury and i see all my old teachers collecting a ‘whopping’ $40k/yr in their retirement and i don’t think they are undeserving at all.

            I’m just a realist. The unions should have taken steps to better ensure the state held up its end of the bargain…certainly more than just assuming “oh, they’re good for it”. the first year the state didn’t make its full required payment they should have brought all their weight to bear on the issue.

            when they didn’t, they assumed some risk they might get the shaft some day.

          • Posted by Stephen Douglas on August 18, 2018 at 6:10 pm

            You fucked up. You trusted us.

          • Posted by Tough Love on August 18, 2018 at 6:49 pm

            NJ2AZ,

            There is nothing “personal” in this for me. Yes, I’m a NJ taxpayer (that’s it), but by education, training and experience, I understand MUCH better than almost everyone else the HUGE magnitude of the financial ripoff ……….. and the consequences for BOTH taxpayers AND Public Sector workers/retirees if it is changed* quite soon.

            * And “changed” means VERY material pension & benefit reductions for the future service of all CURRENT workers. And as is now becoming more obvious, NJ likely ALSO needs to reduce the pension/benefits accrues for their PAST service.

          • Posted by Tough Love on August 20, 2018 at 7:52 pm

            Responding to Stephen Douglas ……………

            Yes, I’m a NJ taxpayer (that’s it), but by education, training and experience, I understand MUCH better than almost everyone else the HUGE magnitude of the financial ripoff ………..

            And YOU changed light bulbs.

          • Posted by Stephen Douglas on August 20, 2018 at 11:17 pm

            And you have regularly made rash claims that were easily and clearly shown to be incorrect.

            Not to mention the crappy attitude.

            Often in error. Never in doubt.

          • Posted by Tough Love on August 21, 2018 at 7:46 am

            Quoting Stephen Douglas/Earth …………….

            “And you have regularly made rash claims that were easily and clearly shown to be incorrect.”

            Not even close. In hundreds of demonstrations (among thousands of comments) I can recall a few errors (to which I have admitted to) with a count less than the fingers on one hand. And in most cases it’s because you keep pushing my comparisons (of Public Sector worker pensions & benefits to those typically granted of Private Sector workers), almost exclusively to Private Sector workers who belong to UNIONS while I don’t, and I DON’T because only 6% of all Private Sector workers belong to Unions. Almost everything you say comes with a bias to support the now ludicrously excessive Public Sector pensions & benefits.

            My mathematical demonstrations are particularly accurate ….. and give all the assumptions (which need to be made) for all to analyze.

            As Jack Nicholson said in the movie “A few good Men” ……….. “you can’t handle the truth”

          • Posted by Stephen Douglas on August 21, 2018 at 12:11 pm

            Y’all are a seething cauldron of hyperbole, animosity, and bias.

            Your mathematical demonstrations are a farce.

            “only 6% of all Private Sector workers belong to Unions.” ?

            …25 % of those covered by ERISA are in unions.
            And only 13 percent of non-union private-sector workers are covered by pensions. Most private sector workers have no retirement benefits at all, either DB or DC.

            So what the hell are you comparing to?

            In the middle group that Biggs classifies as “nearly equal”, public workers have obviously larger pensions, but equal total compensation. Just because a pension is “twice the value” at retirement does not mean it is excessive, if total compensation is equal. It is deferred compensation.

            If you have two similar private sector jobs, and one has lower wages, with a pension, and the other has no pension, but higher compensating wages, by your demonstrations, are those pensions excessive?

            Stop me if you’ve heard this before… It is invalid to compare pensions outside the context of total compensation.

            Don’t be invalid.

            And stop being a boor.

            As Jack Nicholson said

          • Posted by Tough Love on August 21, 2018 at 12:25 pm

            Quoting Stephen Douglas/Earth ……….

            ” Most private sector workers have no retirement benefits at all, either DB or DC.”

            YES ……….. yet YOU believe that the now Ludicrously excessive DB pensions now granted almost all of Americas PUBLIC Sector workers ….. with 80% to 90% of the total cost paid for NOT by those workers, but by Taxpayers (85% of whom work in the PRIVATE Sector) ……. is just fine and dandy.

            And you see not “problem” with that ???
            ——————————————————-

            No wonder why you duties included changing light bulbs.

          • Posted by Stephen Douglas on August 21, 2018 at 12:42 pm


            What part of “It is invalid to compare pensions outside the context of total compensation.”

            Do you not understand?

            If you have two similar private sector jobs, and one has lower wages, with a pension, and the other has no pension, but higher compensating wages, by your demonstrations, are those pensions excessive?

            By the same logic…

            In the middle group that Biggs classifies as “nearly equal”, public workers have obviously larger pensions, but equal total compensation. Just because a pension is “twice the value” at retirement does not mean it is excessive, if total compensation is equal. It is deferred compensation.

            No wonder why you duties included illogical comparisons.

            GIGO

          • Posted by Earth on August 21, 2018 at 12:51 pm

            Earth to Douglas:

            And you see not “problem” with that ???

          • Posted by Stephen Douglas on August 21, 2018 at 12:51 pm

            Not

          • Posted by Tough Love on August 21, 2018 at 7:59 pm

            Stephen Douglas/Earth,

            If I repeated it 100 times, it would make little difference because there appears to be little grey-matter between your ears to understand …….

            EVEN on a “Total Compensation” basis (wages + pensions + benefits) NJ’s (and almost all other States) show a VERY significant PUBLIC Sector ADVANTAGE for all workers taken together .

            And all-workers-taken-together as ONE group is what financially impacts the Taxpayers.

          • Posted by Stephen Douglas on August 21, 2018 at 10:13 pm

            “And all-workers-taken-together as ONE group is what financially impacts the Taxpayers.”

            You can repeat it a thousand times ( that’s not a request).
            It is a prime example of inane bullshit (see above). It was meaningless, at best, when you first said it, and hasn’t improved with repetition.
            —————-
            If you insist that Biggs 23% advantage is carved in granite, please do your homework.

            TL…
            “EVEN on a “Total Compensation” basis (wages + pensions + benefits) NJ’s (and almost all other States) show a VERY significant PUBLIC Sector ADVANTAGE for all workers taken together .”

            Biggs 2008-2012 study lists 19 states where total compensation is market level or lower, and another 12 which have only a modest premium.

            “a VERY significant PUBLIC Sector ADVANTAGE” ?
            For NJ (and almost all other States) ?

            Nein. (Although you almost had me convinced with the CAPS LOCK.)

            Stephen Douglas…

            “And you have regularly made rash claims that were easily and clearly shown to be incorrect.”

            “Y’all are a seething cauldron of hyperbole, animosity, and bias.”

            “Your mathematical demonstrations are a farce.”

            Not to mention the crappy attitude.

          • Posted by Tough Love on August 21, 2018 at 10:56 pm

            THIS Blog focuses on NJ’s pension mess, and per Biggs AEI Study, BOTH NJ and your home state of CA have a 23%-of-pay Total Compensation ADVANTAGE, rising to 33% if the value of the MUCH greater PUBLIC Sector job security is factored in. And ………. had Safety workers (with MUCH higher than average wages and MUCH richer than average pensions) not been excluded from that study, those percentages would be considerably greater.

            And what financially impacts the taxpayers is the net difference FROM ALL WORKERS TAKEN TOGETHER even though you refuse to accept that because it doesn’t support your biased agenda.
            ——————————

            Go ahead, tell me that NJ’s Public Sector workers wouldn’t be SCREAMING for compensation increases if THEY had a 23% (or 33% or MORE) DISADVANTAGE vs their Private Sector counterparts.

            ———————————-

            Taxpayers ……….. how much MORE would YOU have for YOUR retirement needs if YOU had an additional 23% (or 33% or MORE) in wages to save and invest in every year of YOUR career …………. an extra $500K, $1 Million, perhaps $2 Million for some ?

          • Posted by Stephen Douglas on August 21, 2018 at 11:09 pm

            Tough Love on August 18, 2018 at 6:49 pm…

            “…by education, training and experience, I understand MUCH better than almost everyone else the HUGE magnitude of the financial ripoff ……….. and the consequences for BOTH taxpayers AND Public Sector workers/retirees if it is changed* quite soon.”

            Hubris, thy name is Tough Love. There are dozens, or hundreds of experts with much more education, training, and experience. And guess what? They don’t all agree. You are just another small voice in the wind. Another cranky, misinformed, biased, voice.

            “I understand MUCH better than almost everyone else…”

            Seriously?

          • Posted by Tough Love on August 22, 2018 at 8:34 am

            Stephen Douglas/Earth,

            Yes ……… by education, training and experience……….

            And you (who work duties included changing light bulbs) can’t stand it, that someone can have a deep understanding of a subject and refuse to be bullshitted by someone like you, who as a retired CA Public Sector worker (and who knows what else ……. paid “mouthpiece”) with a vested interest in KEEPING the now LUDICROUSLY EXCESSIVE (and clearly unnecessary and unaffordable) Public Sector pensions & benefits in place (even for FUTURE service) which even when added to wages still yields Public Sector “Total compensation” far in excess of the comparable Private Sector group.

            Yes, “seriously”.

          • Posted by Stephen Douglas on August 22, 2018 at 4:12 pm

            You can pretend it’s not true, Mr. Educated expert, but the same source (one of the most conservative think tanks) whose 23 percent (average) advantage you swear by, also says that about 60 percent of state workers nationwide are either underpaid or roughly equal in total compensation. Or were, six to ten years ago.
            Not excessive. Certainly not ludicrously excessive.

            “THIS Blog focuses on NJ’s pension mess…”
            You are correct. New Jersey pensions are unaffordable.

            “DON’T PAY THE BILLS, THE DEBT GETS LARGER”

            And don’t shoot the messenger. They don’t pay me enough for that.

          • Posted by Tough Love on August 22, 2018 at 8:26 pm

            Stephen Douglas/Earth,

            STILL trying to hoodwink the readers…….

            Here is a ink to the study to which you referred:

            https://www.aei.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/-biggs-overpaid-or-underpaid-a-statebystate-ranking-of-public-employee-compensation_112536583046.pdf

            Looking at Figure 6 shows that only 8 of the 50 States show greater PRIVATE Sector Total Compensation, with the Private Sector advantage never exceeding 6% of wages and averaging about 3% greater. However, for the other 42 States the PUBLIC Sector has the Total Compensation advantage, reaching as high as 42% of wages, with an average advantage of about 15% of wages.

            Figure 13 shows a similar table but including the value of the much greater PUBLIC Sector job security. On that basis, only 6 of the 50 States show a PRIVATE Sector advantage (never exceeding 2% of wages), while the other 44 States show a PUBLIC Sector Total Compensation advantage as high as 56% of wages and with an average of about 20% of wages.

            AND ………… because this study excludes Safety workers (Police, Fire, etc.) with far higher than average wages, and the richest pensions, had they been included, the PUBLIC Sector Total Compensation advantage (in BOTH figures 6 and 13) would have been materially greater, perhaps to an extent that EVERY State would show a PUBLIC Sector advantage.

          • Posted by Stephen Douglas on August 22, 2018 at 11:33 pm

            Hoodwink my sweet patootie. I have highly recommended this study since 2014. Still do. You have constantly implied that all public pensions are LUDICROUSLY EXCESSIVE. It’s your simplistic mantra. This study, if you bother to read and understand it, gives a different story.

            The market value states I mentioned were classified by Biggs as +/- 5% advantage (table 2, p. 59)

            Table 4 p. 60 shows that, nationwide, approximately 60% of state workers are either undercompensated or nearly equally compensated. A far cry from LUDICROUSLY EXCESSIVE.

            Moderation, try it sometime. There are clearly hundreds of thousands of state and local workers who are clearly, even according to this very conservative think tank, not overcompensated. And thousands more who are undercompensated, even with what you call LUDICROUSLY EXCESSIVE pensions.

            But you just continue concentrating on the extremes, it fits you well.

          • Posted by Tough Love on August 23, 2018 at 8:06 am

            Stephen Douglas/Earth,

            I really had to laugh looking at the graph that you included …… as though that proves any point that you are trying to make. All it shows is that NJ has “contributed” a small % of the annually calculated ARC, BUT ……… the ARC is A FUNCTION OF (and directly reflects) the GEMNEROSITY of the underlying pensions.

            Of course a LUDICROUSLY excessive pension will have a VERY VERY VERY high ARC, and hence be VERY VERY VERY difficult to fully fund.

            As I have stated repeatedly, the ROOT CAUSE of NJ’s pension problem is the ludicrously excessive level of benefits promised.
            ————————————————

            And Figures 6 and 15 referenced in my above comment included ALL of each State’s Public non-safety Public Sector workers ……… which is what financially impacts Taxpayers ……… while you selectively pick (to generate biased conclusions) only the higher-income segments of the Public Sector.

            It DOESN’T MATTER if most of the MUCH GREATER Public Sector Total Compensation comes for those not being the highest earners. It’s the TOTAL by including ALL (yes (ALL) workers that matters.

          • “It’s the TOTAL by including ALL (yes (ALL) workers that matters.”

            You could repeat it 100 times, it still would make no sense.

            The average state pension in New Jersey is $31,600. That’s what matters to the taxpayer?

            Thousands of New Jersey state workers are undercompensated. Not greedy. Not moochers. Not excessively ludicrous.

            Not average.

            Thousands other are overcompensated, compared to similar private workers. That’s what financially impacts the Taxpayers. Not the average.

            Does your employer know your theory of employee costs?

            Mr. Educated experienced financial man? Is “buy high, sell low.” one of your maxims also?

            Face it. You are pissed about police wages and pensions. You project that onto all other public workers. You are blinded by your bias.

          • Posted by Tough Love on August 23, 2018 at 9:10 am

            Quoting Stephen Douglas/Earth……………

            “The average state pension in New Jersey is $31,600. That’s what matters to the taxpayer? ”

            Another dump/biased point. That average is meaningless because it includes:

            (a) those with short careers
            (b) part time workers
            (c) those who retied MANY years ago on lower wage scales and less-rich pension formulas
            (d) 50% survivorship beneficiaries

            What IS relevant is a comparison of current PUBLIC/PRIVATE Sector worker “Total Compensation” in NJ, and per the Andrew Biggs AEI study that you like to reference, the NJ PUBLIC Sector has a 23%-of-pay ADVANTAGE (33% if the value of the MUCH greater PUBLIC Sector job security is included) and assuredly even greater if NJ’s Safety workers (with far higher than average wages and the richest pensions) had not been excluded from that study.
            ——————–

            But keep trying ……… may some of your BS will slip through.

          • TL…

            That average ($31,600*) is meaningless because it includes:

            (a) those with short careers
            (b) part time workers
            (c) those who retied MANY years ago on lower wage scales and less-rich pension formulas
            (d) 50% survivorship beneficiaries

            Exactly my point…
            23 percent advantage is an average. It includes:

            (a) lower skilled, less educated workers who earn much more than equivalent private sector workers.

            (b) more highly educated professionals who earn much less than equivalent private sector workers.

            (c) thousands of public workers between those extremes , who earn incomes roughly equal to their private sector counterparts.

            Beware of the average.
            ————————————-

            *Ironically, that $31,600 average is also the pension for a New Jersey state truck driver with 35 years service. If you recall, compared to a private sector driver pension of $50,400 for 35 and out (at any age.)
            Courtesy of the Burypensions wayback machine from April 16, 2016.

          • Posted by Tough Love on August 24, 2018 at 7:51 am

            Stephen Douglas/Earth,

            Yes, the 23%-of-pay PUBLIC Sector Total Compensation advantage “is an average” from all* workers taken as one group.

            As it MUST be ….. what else could it be ? And THAT is the financial measure that impacts taxpayers. Of course the group will include some Public Sector workers who are compensated less than their Private Sector counterpart, but it’s the AVERAGE from all workers that is the relevant statistic.

            And CLEARLY, if the PRIVATE Sector had that advantage, Public Sector workers would be screaming loudly form compensation increases to eliminate that advantage.

            As I’ve stated before …………… Public Sector workers are NOT “special” and deserving of a better deal …… on the Taxpayers’ dime.
            —————————————

            * that 23%-of-pay PUBLIC Sector Total Compensation advantage is (per the same Study) 33% if the value of the MUCH greater PUBLIC Sector job security is included, and assuredly even greater if NJ’s Safety workers (with far higher than average wages and the richest pensions) had not been excluded from that study.

          • Posted by Tough Love on August 24, 2018 at 8:52 am

            Stephen Douglas/Earth,

            Followup to my above comment ……………..

            And you repeated (never-ending) attempts to redirect the focus from the financially relevant AVERAGE differential in Public/Private Sector “Total Compensation” to SEGMENTS of that average ……… specifically to TRY justify the unjustifiable …… just shows your bias and arrogance for Taxpayers who are now responsible for 80% to 90% of the total cost of the now ludicrously excessive Public Sector pensions & benefits.

    • Posted by Tough Love on August 18, 2018 at 7:03 am

      Quoting ………….

      “Worth noting is I planned my future and my life on the guarantees I accepted and agreed to. How can you negate that?”

      Then you planned your life around a THEFT. It certainly will NOT be honored in full .

      Deal with it.

      Reply

    • Posted by Stanley on August 20, 2018 at 1:15 pm

      Retired Pat: “ALL are responsible. Blame the dumb ass voters for making bad choices.”

      You could say the same about the “dumb ass” government employees for buying an absurd bill of goods. Oh! And deal with it, by the way! Some of us are already factoring pension bustos into our buying and living arrangements. These troubles have only been coming on for the last SIXTY or so years. Pensioners will probably have priority over bond owners in bankruptcy but pension plans have a lot of bonds in their asset mix. Good luck with your questionable expectations.

      Reply

      • Posted by Anonymous on August 20, 2018 at 7:30 pm

        Guess one has to remember what kind of race you’re running. It’s certainly not a rely, there are no team members! I’d say it looks more and more like a marathon, everyone trying to best the other. Hoping g you cross the finish line of life before things dry up. As for the politicians, it’s not a question of when, it’s a question of on who’s dime is the shit going to hit the fan. I wonder……save that for another post.

        Reply

  5. Posted by Anonymous on August 18, 2018 at 11:58 am

    Now Retire Pat & Tough Love, sounds like you both have a workable solution – F*** the other side!

    Reply

  6. Posted by Anonymous on August 18, 2018 at 4:50 pm

    Immediate reforms are required but…..

    We now know the funding aspect of the 2011 reforms are unenforceable (as per NJSC rulings). Therefor an enforecable legal commitment, with specific and limited exceptions, on future funding is necessary to ensure current and future legislators and governors do not repeat the same mistakes that got us into this mess.

    The main driver of local property taxes are education and public safety. The State pays (or fails to pay) the pension portion for teachers. That leaves public safety pension and benefit costs driving up local property taxes!

    The recent legislation that parties on both sides of the asile voted for was done to, among other things, exempt P&FRS from known forthcoming legislative reforms now being discussed. If politicians deny it then why didn’t the legislation specifically address this and mandate their automatic inclusion without their Boards’s approval? Furthermore, Mr. Sweeney mentioned we can’t grow ourselves out of this problem. Well than how did he think the State was going to meet its’ funding commitment under the 2011 reforms? In my opinion, he and then Governor Christie knew they couldn’t/wouldn’t. Why? Because that’s exactly what happened! If Sweeney is opposed to more taxes now what was his plan to meet the funding commitment had the NJSC ruling mandated it?

    One last point, what about SPRS and JRS both administered by the State? They are not mentioned in the recent proposed reforms. More exceptions to the rule? While their total dollars are small compared to PERS and TPAF, their benefits are much more generous and if the State is in such dire fiscal straights they shouldn’t be ignored.

    To recap; changes are required and need to include P&FRS, SPRS, and JRS with a legal commitment on funding. Anything short of this means that politicians are not really committed to solving this problem and will continue to repeat past mistakes.

    Reply

    • Posted by Tough Love on August 18, 2018 at 4:55 pm

      Well stated.

      Reply

      • Posted by Anonymous on August 18, 2018 at 5:35 pm

        I forgot to address the fly in the oitment….. IF the Unions want to be part of the solution then they should focus on what matters. A realistic workable plan for all concerned, instead of the status quo.

        Reply

    • Posted by Tough Love on August 18, 2018 at 6:54 pm

      Yes, Public Sector workers SHOULD have an …. “enforecable legal commitment”.

      But that “commitment” should be for 3%-4% into a DC Plan each year AND NO MORE ………. just like what 90+% in the Private Sector now get in retirement security from their employers.

      They’re NOT “special” and deserving of a better deal …. on the Taxpayers’ dime.

      Reply

  7. Posted by Tough Love on August 21, 2018 at 7:46 am

    ” I can recall a few errors (to which I have admitted to) with a count less than the fingers on one hand. And in most cases it’s because you keep pushing my comparisons (of Public Sector worker pensions & benefits to those typically granted of Private Sector workers), almost exclusively to Private Sector workers who belong to UNIONS while I don’t, and I DON’T because only 6% of all Private Sector workers belong to Unions.”
    ——————————
    Your cart is in front of your horse, Brother Love. I’m not pushing your comparisons to unions. I merely remind you and others that your usual M.O. is to shoot of your mouth first and backpedal later. The union pension was just one example of many over the years. Let’s go to the wayback machine…

    Posted by Tough Love on April 16, 2016 at 5:02 pm

    The groups impacted by MPRA are FAR FAR different than Public Sector workers, where pensions are so absurdly generous (and so fraudulently obtained from Union-BOUGHT Elected Officials) that they were NEVER justifiable ….and SHOULD BE materially reduced.

    These workers have run-of-the-mill pensions, clearly very modest (and MULTIPLES LESS) than those granted Public Sector workers.
    ——————–
    Posted by Smooth Moderation Truth on April 18, 2016 at 1:18 am

    Never give a inch.

    This “fodder” is all on you. You felt compelled to use this case to repeat your usual rant about “fraudulently obtained” and “absurdly generous pensions” and “Union-BOUGHT Elected Officials”

    All I did was what I usually do, check the facts. …
    ————————
    TL…
    ” I can recall a few errors (to which I have admitted to) with a count less than the fingers on one hand.”

    Reply

    • Posted by Tough Love on August 23, 2018 at 8:16 am

      Let’s look at my above comment that you pasted above:
      ————————————

      “The groups impacted by MPRA are FAR FAR different than Public Sector workers, where pensions are so absurdly generous (and so fraudulently obtained from Union-BOUGHT Elected Officials) that they were NEVER justifiable ….and SHOULD BE materially reduced.

      These workers have run-of-the-mill pensions, clearly very modest (and MULTIPLES LESS) than those granted Public Sector workers.”

      —————————————

      The first paragraph is accurate …………. NOTHING needs changing.

      The second paragraph could have been more accurate because I was not aware that many MPRA Plans include 30 & out provisions (with no age restrictions) making them more expensive than if they were not collectable (w/o actuarial reduction) until age 62 or 65 which is more common for Single-employer Corporate-sponsored Plans.

      Big Whoop !

      ————-

      What “fodder” ? You’re an idiot !

      Reply

      • The problem is not that you were “not aware”. The problem is that were, and still are, prone to rant on based on your prior assumptions instead of actually checking facts. Then and now. You are incorrigible, and you will probably never change.

        Reply

        • Posted by Tough Love on August 23, 2018 at 9:11 am

          Na, you just pissed that I won’t let you get away with your BS.

          Reply

        • Posted by Stephen Douglas on August 23, 2018 at 1:37 pm

          I not pissed. Thousands of state workers falsely accused of being greedy moochers with LUDICROUSLY EXCESSIVE pensions might be.

          I just the messenger.

          Moderation. It’s not just a name, it’s a way of life.

          Reply

          • Posted by Tough Love on August 23, 2018 at 6:10 pm

            Well, then those thousands (of higher-income workers) who you CLAIM* to be compensated less than their Private Sector counterparts can be made whole by taking AWAY the EXCESSIVE compensation (primarily via their pensions & benefits) now paid to everyone but that higher-income group ………. but NOT from taxpayers.

            * “CLAIM to be compensated less than their Private Sector counterparts”. I don’t buy it, not for a moment. I know hundreds of higher-income professionals & executives, and with VERY few exceptions ALL routinely work 50 to 60 hour weeks (some even 70+ hours). It would be a rare PUBLIC Sector worker (including those in your higher income group) that works equal hours w/o demanding ADDITIONAL pay. If you work LESS hours, you DESERVE less pay, and are NOT “under-compensated”.

            And I would love it if there was a way to compare the measurable work-product- output (i.e., “productivity”) of higher-income PUBLIC Sector workers vs their PRIVATE Sector counterparts. I’m sure it would be eye-opening.

            ————————-

            P.S. You’re not a “moderate”. You’re as biased as they come.

          • Posted by Stephen Douglas on August 23, 2018 at 8:54 pm

            I claim nothing. That was your friend Andrew Biggs. Is 23% the only thing you choose to believe from that 80 page study?

            He isn’t the only researcher who documented that compensation compression phenomenon, by the way. Just the only one I’ve found who has quantified it. The floor on compensation for public workers seems to be a feature of every state, and of most OECD countries. Same with the ceiling on public compensation. Sorry if that messes up your simplistic “average” public sector advantage mantra. If it’s any consolation, you aren’t the only one who fell for that. Not by a long shot.

            Here’s another very interesting observation, the lower paid group Biggs identifies as “HS Diploma” has a 19% average (there’s that pesky average again) compensation differential. The higher group designated “Professional” has a 17% negative differential.

            19% for the HS level translates to a dollar amount of $10,000. $10,000 overpaid.
            17% for the professional translates to over $35,000 underpaid.

            Taxpayers, what would you do with $35,000 a year more than an equivalent public worker?

          • Posted by Tough Love on August 23, 2018 at 9:07 pm

            I’m not challenging your “compensation compression phenomenon” point.

            I’m saying IT DOESN’T MATTER. When you compare the Total Compensation of the Public Sector to the Private Sector you need to include EVERYONE ……. because it’s the differential resulting from including EVERYONE that financially impacts the Taxpayers.

            You continually want to selectively pick SEGMENTS of the total population because that’s the ONLY way support your biased view of reality ……….. that somehow/someway Public Sector workers are “special” and deserving of a better deal ….. on the Taxpayers’ dime.

            No, they’re NOT.
            —————————————————–
            I don’t like BS, and YOU have a PHD in BShitting.

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 )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: