Breaking News: Detroit Carpenters To Seek MPRA Cuts

Crain’s Detroit reported it last month but it finally made it onto the MPRA website this afternoon.

From their latest 5500:

Plan Name: Carpenters’ Pension Trust Fund – Detroit and Vicinity
EIN/PN: 38-6242188/001
Total participants @ 4/30/18: 20,126 including:
Retirees: 8,635
Separated but entitled to benefits: 6,592
Still working: 4,899

Asset Value (Market) @ 5/1/17: $734,239,796
Value of liabilities using RPA rate (3.05%) @ 5/1/17: $3,775,320,326 including:
Retirees: $2,204,910,506
Separated but entitled to benefits: $593,844,625
Still working: $976,565,195

Funded ratio: 19.45%
Unfunded Liabilities as of 5/1/17: $3,041,080,530

Asset Value (Market) as of 4/30/18: $761,729,009
Contributions: $123,147,221
Payouts: $148,373,816
Expenses: $6,882,158

60 responses to this post.

  1. Posted by Tough Love on October 23, 2019 at 10:55 pm

    Off Topic …………..

    https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2019/10/24/gop-protest-closed-door-hearing-cooper-kth-ac360-vpx.cnn/video/playlists/this-week-in-politics/

    lol ……….. Trump is building a Wall in COLORADO …….. yikes !

    Reply

  2. Posted by Rex the Wonder Dog! 🐶🐶🐶🦴🦴🦴 on October 24, 2019 at 1:14 am

    Funded ratio: 19.45%
    Biggest and Longest Bull Market in US history and less than 20% funded. Sad
    🐶🐶🐶🦴🦴🦴

    Reply

    • Posted by Rex the Wonder Dog! 🐶🐶🐶🦴🦴🦴 on October 24, 2019 at 1:35 pm

      NO BAILOUT coming. The Butch Lewis Act is going to be DOA in the Senate!

      Reply

      • Posted by Tough Love on October 25, 2019 at 12:31 am

        Right on the money !

        The only thing he omitted is that a MEP bailout might also set the stage for a multi TRILLION bailout of the ludicrously excessive and underfunded PUBLIC Sector DB Pension Plans. Those Plans deserve to be FROZEN, not bailed out ….as MOST WOULD BE under current IRS Regulations applicable to PRIVATE Sector Plans, given their poor funded status.

        Reply

      • Posted by geo8rge on October 25, 2019 at 5:09 am

        How dare private pensioners demand a taxpayer bailout, taxpayers are there to bail out government pensioners.

        The question is where should government workers stand on private-sector bailouts:

        1) Bail them out to create an expectation, constituency, and president for bailouts in anticipation of the inevitable government retiree bailout.
        2) Don’t bail them to conserve resources in anticipation of the inevitable government retiree bailout.

        Reply

        • Posted by Rex the Wonder Dog! 🐶🐶🐶🦴🦴🦴 on October 25, 2019 at 11:25 am

          The question is where should government workers stand on private-sector bailouts:
          Won’t matter where they stand, what their position is or how hard they whine, stomp their feet and hold their breath. There will be NO bailouts of private or public sector pensions by the Fed gov.

          Reply

      • Posted by Rex the Wonder Dog! 🐶🐶🐶🦴🦴🦴 on October 25, 2019 at 11:35 am


        #1- 1,247 Total USA Multi-Employer Pensions Funds
        #2- 1,235 of them UNDERFUNDED!!!!!!

        Only 12, out of the 1,247 plans total, are properly funded at or above 100%. For my math challenged GED colleagues here, that is less than 1%. That is INSANE. Krazee. Mind Boggling. I will say this, someone should be in prison over this. Including plan admins and regulators in the Fed Gov. ERISA was passed by Congress to STOP this BS. No excuse. None whatsoever.

        John Bury, help me out here, WHO in your opinion has the most liability, criminal and/or civil, for allowing these funds to get to this point of no return? You see these funding levels of 1%-20% after the longest bull market in US history, WHO is MOST responsible? Better yet, Give us the TOP three most responsible if you had to rank wrong doing, by ANY party, private or gov, criminal or civil.

        Reply

        • Good question and thanks for the bold. I get all the comments in emails and it is sometime difficult to recognize any possible questions after the emails start to pile up – like today with my all-day trip to my friend in Pa.

          I have put some thought into this in regard to these politicians who keep saying that hard-working people are losing their pensions “through no fault of their own.” My instinct is to put those hard-workers up there at number 1 since it is their pensions and when the funding level got below a certain amount they should have been screaming ‘thief’. Maybe they were too comfortable (mass pension defaults have never happened) or too gullible (believing their representatives had this covered) or completely in the dark about what motivates politicians and actuaries (money) but it comes down to personal responsibility and accepting the consequences when you fail at taking it as best summed by rush chairman Eric Stratton:

          Reply

          • Posted by bpaterson on October 27, 2019 at 8:50 pm

            items to consider to prioritize (in your own opinion) for responsibility—in no order and by observation all these years: gov florio and the early 1990’s legislature for creating the legislation setting the groundwork of new calcs for reassessing the pension liability funding ratio to look like pensions were in the black and overfunded (then he got tossed out of office suddenly in 1993)….gov whitman and the legislature around 1998 for taking advantage of that (possibly false) pension overfunding by borrowing the $3 billion by POBs having them due in 2009, then using the borrowed money to 1) invest in the booming stock market which would easily pay back the 2009 POBs wiht huge profits and 2) giving tax refunds to the NJ taxpayers……..gov difrancesco and legislature for “adjusting”the pension calculation in 2001 using denominator of 55 versus original 65 (possibly in the hopes of pandering to the public sector as a voting base for the first time) and “unwittingly” increasing the pension obligation……mcG and Corz with the consent of the legislature for underfunding the pensions by funneling the moneis into buying 2 voting bases-1) the abbot district school funding and 2) allowing large raises of 3, 4, 5% annual increases annually to the public sector–#2 was also to allay any concerns by the public sector of the growing pension underfunding since they were getting those annual undeserved lucrative raises immediately (the legisl, “unwittingly” not figuring that the raises also increase the pension obligation by the same amount)……….the public sector collective bargaining heads for ignoring the 20 years of underfunding concerns and the major issues being created especially the years 2000 to 2010 when they pensions were adjusted 9% by sonny D and the raises for the 9 years under McG and Corz……..gov CC, Murphy and their legislatures for partially funding the pension obligations (probably they wont admin it is beyond the point of no return)…..the public for the continuation of voting for the same people (unawares of the reality of the underfunding tsunami on the horizon–and could consider the majority of the public votes were basically from the public sector and abbot district voters)………the citizenry who could care less about voting or received the tax rebate from whitman so were complacent…………………BTW-if you notice the legislature is involved in many of these priority items……good luck at assigning blame in the order you wish………..

          • Posted by Tough Love on October 27, 2019 at 10:02 pm

            Yes bpaterson, which are all good reasons why the Taxpayers should RENEGE on the 50+% of these excessive Public Sector Pension (and BENEFIT) “promises” that assuredly would not have been granted in the absence of all that underhanded deal-making between the Public Sector Unions and our Elected Officials.

      • Posted by Anonymous on October 25, 2019 at 2:37 pm

        I would like to see John’s answer also, but…

        Prison seems more than a little extreme.

        “The math of percentages shows that as losses get larger, the return necessary to recover to break-even increases at a much faster rate. A loss of 10 percent necessitates an 11 percent gain to recover. Increase that loss to 25 percent and it takes a 33 percent gain to get back to break-even. A 50 percent loss requires a 100 percent gain to recover and an 80 percent loss necessitates 500 percent in gains to get back to where the investment value started.”

        If you lost 50 percent in one year, how many years would it take to recoup your loss?

        The rule of 72…

        “If you invest at a 7% return, you will double your money every 10.2 years.”

        And that’s just to get you back to square one… ten years ago. And if that 50 percent loss were accompanied by the greatest recession, record unemployment, and rock bottom interest rates, how can you get even 7 percent?

        For sure, there are some who should be in jail, but not most.

        Reply

        • Posted by Rex the Wonder Dog! 🐶🐶🐶🦴🦴🦴 on October 27, 2019 at 3:31 am

          Prison seems more than a little extreme.
          If these idiots engaged in willful and intentional criminal acts that caused the funding levels to be 20% or less, or anywhere under 80%, then they DO belong in prison. They have a duty, a fiduciary duty, to put the pension fund health above all else.

          Reply

  3. Posted by Brian on October 24, 2019 at 9:00 am

    Speculating here, but most likely because of a funding policy that put the vast majority of the burden of funding on the distant future. When you do that, you don’t get much benefit from a bull market.

    This one is a good example of how much funding ‘requirements’ can change based on methodology.

    You fund the plan by contributing the normal cost (estimated present value of benefits earned during the year) plus an amount to amortize any unfunded liability, plus (perhaps, depending on methodology/assumptions) an amount to cover expenses.

    You can do those estimates at an interest rate of your choosing. You can also choose the period over which to amortize the unfunded liability. 15 years would be lower risk, 30 years would be high risk.

    Assuming you amortize using level contributions (though using a level percent of payroll would allow for even more backloading of contributions), you get hugely different ‘required’ contributions for a plan like this.

    At the 3.05% discount rate, amortizing over 15 years, the amortization payment is about $252 million. Amortizing over 30 years, the payment is about $154 million.

    Using a rule of thumb, if they discounted at 7.5%, their liability would probably be around $2.2 B instead of $3.8, meaning the unfunded would be only about $1.5B. Amortizing that with level payments over 15 years would require a $160 million contribution; amortizing it over 30 years would require annual payments of about $120 million.

    With their expenses at roughly $7 million, they should be contributing
    $252M + $7M + NC = $259M + NC to fund over 15 years at a conservative rate, or
    $120M + $7M + NC = $127M + NC to fund over 30 years if they’re willing to take on a lot of risk.

    Given that they’re actually only contributing $123M, they’re probably being even more risk-seeking and using a discount rate higher than 7.5%, or an amortization period longer than 30 years, or using a level percent of payroll and assuming the payroll increases in the future.

    Anyway, even using crude estimates, it is clear that they’re relying on contributions 10 to 20 to 30 years in the future in order to close the gap between assets and liabilities. When you do that and you’re starting from a very low funded ratio, you don’t gain much from bull markets in the near term.

    Reply

    • Posted by Tough Love on October 24, 2019 at 11:55 am

      Brian,

      Thanks. Nice workup, with $ differences to show the impact of individually varying the assumptions or methodology.

      As a Taxpayer, until the more recent push for Federal bailout of MEPs I never gave these Plans much thought, considering them a deal solely between the Unions and the participating employers with a very modest PBGC maximum guarantee upon Plan failure.

      I HAVE paid attention to PUBLIC Sector Plans (especially in NJ where I live) because I believe Taxpayers have been treated as the “sucker” in the room who is forced to make up for shortfalls almost guaranteed to develop because of the aggressive valuation/funding assumptions & methodology. Sure is nice for Elected Officials (unlike Single Employer Corporate Pension Plan sponsors) to have to option to structure the assumptions & methodology to minimize annual pension contributions and ignore the cost of the “risk” associated with equity investing ……… all to free up money to spend it on “goodies” for your Town, City, or State’s employees and residents, enhancing your changes of being reelected, and of course generating Union campaign contributions.

      I look at PUBLIC Sector plans as a huge ripoff of the Taxpayers. Most often with little differences in “wages” to justify higher pensions or benefits, they are often multiples greater in value (via richer formula-factors, earlier retirement ages, heavily subsidized early retirement adjustment factors, COLA increases, etc.) and hence cost than what Private Sector employers contribute to their employee’s retirement security, and PRESENT that (lower than necessary) annual cost to the taxpayers virtually KNOWING that it will be woefully inadequate, and substantial additional contributions will be required in the future …. for PAST service, not just for new accruals.

      I don’t believe Taxpayers would have put up with the MUCH higher contributions level that would have resulted from the use of appropriate assumptions & methodology (aka, those commonly used in the valuation and funding of Private Sector Plans). Using such APPROPRIATE assumptions & methodology would have instead led to MUCH less-rich pensions, an “unacceptable” option for the Public Sector Unions, knowingly preferring a less-well-funded but richer Plan than a well-funded but less-rich Plan ….. concluding (apparent correctly, so far) that the Taxpayers can always be FORCE to make up for any asset shortfalls.

      This is why I say (usually off-putting the Public Sector workers/retirees commenting on this Blog) that the ROOT CAUSE of the PUBLIC Sector pension mess is grossly excessive pension generosity, and that the lack of full funding is not the CAUSE of the problem, but a CONSEQUENCE of that real root cause.

      Reply

      • And that is why I say “f**k you, pay me”

        Reply

        • Posted by Tough Love on October 24, 2019 at 11:33 pm

          El gaupo,

          Just to be sure, I re-read my above comment TWICE. There was NOTHING in there to AGAIN solicit this response from you.

          Perhaps you should speak to a mental health professional.

          Reply

        • Posted by Anonymous on October 24, 2019 at 11:52 pm

          Mr. Obvious. Try to follow….

          Mr. Love:
          “This is why I say (usually off-putting the Public Sector workers/retirees commenting on this Blog) that the ROOT CAUSE of the PUBLIC Sector pension mess is…”

          Response:
          “And that is why I say “f**k you, pay me”

          The response logically follows the (inane) statement. Is this your first day on the web? Read it again, Sam.

          Reply

          • Posted by Tough Love on October 25, 2019 at 12:34 am

            Stephen,

            You are becoming El gaupo’s “ass-wipe” ………. cleaning up after his messes.

          • Posted by Anonymous on October 25, 2019 at 12:55 am

            Why, bless your heart!

            And here I thought I was helping you out with your reading comprehension.

          • TL he simply agrees with me that you cross the line with your “epitome of greed” “smiling ear to ear” “monumental financial rape” et al. Along with your refusal to ever admit you are wrong and your elitist attitude simply because you don’t draw a paycheck from the government. He simply agrees we me that you don’t get to say what I make. And he respects the process of collective bargaining to ensure quality middle class lifestyles for jobs that are very important, but would be gutted by “Jane six pack” types like yourself “cut their salary in half and NO pensions”. 🙄
            He simply stand up for himself by correctly refuting many of your comments and for that you call him an asswipe. Again, Mr Love, classless comment.

          • Posted by Tough Love on October 25, 2019 at 8:17 am

            Quoting Stephen Douglas ………..

            “, but would be gutted by “Jane six pack” types like yourself “cut their salary in half and NO pensions”. ”

            There go more of your unending BS. SHOW ME where I stated that, and in quotes no less.
            ———————————–

            Pretty funny though …… the vastly overcompensated NJ (Supervisory) Police Officer seems to NEED a retired CA Light Bulb Changer to help him out.

          • Posted by Tough Love on October 25, 2019 at 8:20 am

            Ooophs …………. whoa, it was El gaupo himself (not Stephen Douglas) who said that above (quoted statement).

            You’ve done that before, saying I said things that I did not say ….. sounding more and more like Trump.

          • The great TL make a mistake? Wow. I thought you knew everything. 🙄
            We are all human. Lol. Join the club.
            And just because anonymous agrees with me, doesn’t mean that I have Solicited his help. He simply agrees with me and has no problems pointing out the holes in your argument.
            So Mr Love, I was paraphrasing. For while you did in fact say cut HALF of past pension service you didn’t say to cut it all. How silly of me!! You are soooooo generous. Sounds tempting but, nah, I will take the full amount that they agreeD to pay me. Yes YOU might not have agreed to it or agree with it, but as I said you truly hold no power in the discussion whatsoever. Run for office or just shut up and pay your taxes. You want some cheese with that whine? First it was a kiss fest with MJ. Now Anonymous is an ass wipe. And you wonder why no one really likes you in here? Oh, Except Rex. The weirdo with the dog memes, that evidently he is cool to use but I’m not in your opinion.

          • Posted by Anonymous on October 25, 2019 at 9:10 am

            Paraphrasing Adam Schiff:

            (It) was meant to be at least part in parody. The fact that’s not clear is a separate problem in and of itself.

          • Bingo. Well stated. You can read Mr Love like a book.

          • Posted by Rex the Wonder Dog! 🐶🐶🐶🦴🦴🦴 on October 27, 2019 at 3:34 am

            Stephen,

            You are becoming El gaupo’s “ass-wipe” ………. cleaning up after his messes.
            TL-Tell Stephen to wipe his mouth, there’s still a tiny bit of EG’s bullshit around Stephen’s lips.
            🐶🐶🐶🦴🦴🦴

          • Way to keep it classy. You really are one weird dude. Coming from a INCEL member who couldn’t get laid in a women’s prison with a fistful of pardons.
            I know you’ve never felt it, but it feels really good to feel a woman’s 👄 on your tool.
            As long as you 2 are talking about ass wipes and financial rape all the time. 🙄
            Maybe you would feel better about yourself and not feel the need to hate on society.

          • Posted by Tough Love on October 28, 2019 at 9:34 am

            Quoting El gaupo ………….

            “I know you’ve never felt it, but it feels really good to feel a woman’s 👄 on your tool.”

            lol ….. yeah, that too was quite “classy”

          • Cmon TL. We both know it is probably a true statement👍
            Does he strike you as a man who does well with the ladies?

          • Posted by Tough Love on October 28, 2019 at 6:02 pm

            E………

            So now you’re trying to “justify” saying it because it may be accurate?

            Really ?

    • Posted by Anonymous on October 24, 2019 at 12:53 pm

      Interesting precis. You should at least mention this…

      Reply

      • Posted by Tough Love on October 25, 2019 at 12:46 am

        ANOTHER (similarly structured) chart would be of great interest………… one that went back more years (to about 1975) and compared actual contributions to what the Statutory Annual Required Contribution would have been assuming Public Sector pensions were always EQUAL TO (but no greater) in value than the retirement security benefits typically provided PRIVATE Sector workers by their employers. If underfunded AT ALL, it likely wouldn’t be by much.

        PUBLIC Sector workers NEVER “deserved” the ludicrously excessive pensions that they have be “promised” ………. by Elected Officials whose favorable votes (on Public Sector pay, pensions, and benefits) were BOUGHT with threats and Public Sector Union BRIBES disguised as campaign contributions.

        Solution: Freeze PUBLIC Sectr pensions going forward, and renege on the 50+% of PAST service accruals that assuredly would NOT have been granted in the absence of the Union/Elected-Official COLLUSION.

        Reply

        • Lol. Last paragraph solicits the same response but deserves the R version.
          “Fuck you, pay me”

          Let’s renege on your job and send you out to pasture with no dough. lol. Fool.

          Reply

    • Posted by Rex the Wonder Dog! 🐶🐶🐶🦴🦴🦴 on October 25, 2019 at 11:41 am

      Speculating here, but most likely because of a funding policy that put the vast majority of the burden of funding on the distant future. When you do that, you don’t get much benefit from a bull market.
      ERISA was passed in 1974, 45 YEARS AGO, to STOP exactly what you have speculated on, as a direct response to private sector pension plan looters like Victor Posner.

      Reply

  4. Posted by Anonymous on October 24, 2019 at 1:14 pm

    Jane the Actuary has a series of articles on MEPs, and this is the explanation she recommends…

    https://mycentralstatespension.org/-/media/Pension/PDFs/Pension-Crisis/multiemployer_special_report_Boston-College.pdf?la=en&hash=778E9A76F63564833ED60EB27CDB80F296BCAEF6

    “Multiemployer plans are a significant component of the employer-sponsored retirement
    system, and they, like other employer plans, have been challenged by the twin financial crises
    since 2000. While the majority of multiemployer plans are returning to financial health, a
    substantial minority face serious funding problems that are exacerbated by unique structural
    challenges facing the multiemployer sector. These challenges include high ratios of inactive to
    total participants, high rates of negative cash flows, and withdrawal penalties for exiting
    companies that are insufficient to cover the costs they leave behind.”
    ————
    Questionable regulations and governance, two major recessions, and declining interest rates. It’s a wonder more plans have not gone under, private or public.

    Reply

  5. Posted by MJ on October 25, 2019 at 7:27 am

    So what does no bail out for these plans mean in terms of the retirement expectations of the pensioners? Pensions will just be cut? and if so how and for which retirees? for those already retired or those getting ready to retire?

    Perhaps this is setting the stage for pension reductions in the public pension debacle after all if private plans can be reduced then why couldn’t public

    From my previous post…under funded euphemism for no money

    It all reminds me of those obnoxious people that I know always bragging about how much money they have but in reality it’s nothing more than a big shitload of “debt”
    So high on themselves like the politicians who think the state is a piggy bank for all of their nonsense, no direction, no real plan to try and fix anything

    As my former neighbor used to say “one doesn’t spend twenty years getting into debt and then expect to be out of debt in two years” so there will be a lot of pain to go around

    Reply

    • Posted by Tough Love on October 25, 2019 at 8:32 am

      Quoting MJ ……………

      “Perhaps this is setting the stage for pension reductions in the public pension debacle after all if private plans can be reduced then why couldn’t public”

      With the help of their BOUGHT Elected Officials, Constitutional Provisions, Laws, Regulations, etc. ….. making reductions in past service accruals near impossible and from what we’ve seen, difficult even under bankruptcies.
      ———————————–

      PUBLIC Sector pensions also have similar strong protections from reductions in FUTURE service pension accruals, protections that DO NOT extend to PRIVATE Sector Plans. Why do they deserve a better deal ?

      Reply

      • Because it sends the wrong message when a government doesn’t honor its word.
        That’s an idealistic reason. But you KNOW the real reason already!!!!! It it has nothing to do with collusion at all.
        Ok. Fine. You’re might be to dumb to figure it out….the politicians themselves are in these pension systems!!!! See? It’s not the cops or teachers idiot.

        Reply

        • Posted by Pollyanna, Constable. on October 25, 2019 at 9:27 am

          The only reason Path to Progress is even on the table is because politicians haven’t been allowed to enter Pers since 2007. But as long as you have older ones in the system, you will never see a reduction of future service and especially not past service (which would require lots of court actions).
          Police are different. They are in their own system which is much better funded and not in need of ANY changes at all. Especially when we have shown that in TL case she pays only $40-60 a year into PFRS. About the same as she would for SS payments and a dC match.

          Reply

          • Posted by MJ on October 25, 2019 at 4:00 pm

            Pollyanna, I think Path to Progress is exactly what is says…merge all of these tiny school districts and get rid of all those dead weight positions, life time medical and pension obligations as many, many public school employees 9mainly the high priced ones) would lose their jobs and be at each others’ throats for the remaining positions.

          • Posted by Tough Love on October 25, 2019 at 5:10 pm

            Still not a huge amount, but at least let’s state accurate figures.

            The Taxpayer cost per household per year —— just for PFRS pensions —- is about $200/year.

          • Posted by Tough Love on October 25, 2019 at 5:20 pm

            MJ,

            Experience has shown us that UNLIKE in PRIVATE Sector mergers, in PUBLIC Sector mergers, RARELY does anyone get involuntarily terminated …… it’s almost always limited to attrition through retirements or voluntary terminations.

            Just ANOTHER way the Taxpayers get screwed. What makes PUBLIC Sector workers so “special” that they deserve a better deal ….. on the Taxpayers’ Dime ? If your position is (as the result of a merger) no longer needed, you should be thanked for your service, granted all that you are contractually entitled to, and no more …. as any “more” would be giving away Taxpayer money w/o their consent.

          • Posted by Polyanna on October 25, 2019 at 10:10 pm

            @TL. At some point, they were able to get “last in, first out” into their contracts. A protraction against folks like you from saying “let’s get rid of the old guy or gal, lay them off and then rehire a rookie a month or two later”.
            @MJ as much as that would help, most of the smaller districts are in rich or upper class neighborhoods. Merging and sending Johnny over to the next town would never fly in Towns like Mendham, Saddle River(they regionalize the high school there). Those folks don’t mind paying for the small school. Not weighing pros and cons. Just saying it would not be popular in those districts. And candidly, they are already picking up the tab for the city schools. They should get to do what they want in their own town.

          • And TL. Based on your figure of 25 police officers in a town with the cost of $200 a year for PFRS, the average cost of each cop is a whopping $8 a year or $.66 per guy per month. Wow! Budget buster.
            Not exactly the monumental financial rape that you state. More like a financial peck on the cheeck.

        • Posted by Anonymous on October 25, 2019 at 9:50 am

          ” Because it sends the wrong message when a government doesn’t honor its word.”

          Idealistic perhaps. It is also called government as a model employer.

          Government encourages equal pay for equal work. It could hardly do so unless it leads by example. Government encourages employer paid healthcare. It leads by example. Same with pensions. It leads by example (and tax incentives. )

          Reply

          • Posted by Tough Love on October 31, 2019 at 12:27 am

            Gov’t (meaning Elected Officials) leads in wasting money and trading their votes for campaign contributions …………. 2 very good examples of which are the ludicrously excessive Pensions & Benefits granted Public Sector workers and BOUGHT via Public Sector Union campaign contributions, with almost of the cost of which is borne by Private Sector Taxpayers who VERY VERY rarely get such DB pensions & benefits.

    • Posted by Anonymous on October 25, 2019 at 9:37 am

      MJ,
      Yes

      According to federal rules, retirees over eighty and disability retirees receive no cuts. Between 75 and 80, reduced cuts. All others will receive cuts according to a plan submitted by the union.

      https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.treasury.gov/services/KlineMillerApplications/IBEW_237_MPRA_Application_Part_1_of_2.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwihnNuk17DlAhUNWqwKHT0dA-UQFjABegQIBBAB&usg=AOvVaw1ut32fB1Ecpa8-n9jH04ye

      Sample of proposed reductions…

      63 yr. old retiree 44 yrs. service

      Current benefit… $3,780 mo.

      Proposed …. $2,515 mo.

      Reply

      • Posted by Anonymous on October 25, 2019 at 11:33 am

        Two things…

        That is the Electrician union, not Carpenters.

        These reductions are theoretically supposed to make the pensions sustainable going forward. To the retiree, those reductions probably look draconian, but instinctively, does that look like enough to correct a 16 percent funded plan? To me, it looks way too optimistic.

        Reply

      • Posted by MJ on October 25, 2019 at 4:02 pm

        Anonymous, not a complete disaster but a tough take away from a retiree assuming there is still SS and any other retirement savings to fall back on, there may still be a spouse receiving retirement benefits also???

        Reply

  6. Posted by aka chicken little on October 25, 2019 at 9:34 am

    Senator Enzi (Wy) on the MEP bailout bill: “This bill would put the vast majority of workers who don’t have their own pension plans on the hook for bailing out the small percentage who do participate in multi employer plans. That hardly seems fair.’”
    https://oilcity.news/general/2019/10/23/enzi-criticizes-pension-bailout-saying-it-would-cost-taxpayers/

    53% oppose the bailout of MEP pensions and another 21% are undecided. A scant 26% favor the bailout. I suspect that the 53% are almost as intense in their opposition as the 26% are in support.

    This country is littered with people who think managing their own finances responsibly is optional and the taxpayers must back them up. About like the flakes who think an individual’s health problems are the responsibility of others. Their own money is for beer, wine and tobacco products.

    Reply

    • Grienke!!

      Reply

      • Ohio st will win the national championship this year. You heard it here first. Thank me later.

        Reply

        • Posted by Rex the Wonder Dog! 🐶🐶🐶🦴🦴🦴 on October 26, 2019 at 6:27 pm

          LOL…Put your BONG down EG!

          Reply

          • Cmon Rex. You know I can’t smoke weed until I retire. lol.

          • Posted by Rex the Wonder Dog! 🐶🐶🐶🦴🦴🦴 on October 27, 2019 at 3:50 am

            Ohio State is not winning the National Championship! I mean they have a good offense UNTIL you look at WHO they have played/beaten, all NOBODY teams (except MSU). Very weak schedule this year. They have Michigan and Penn State at the end, lets see how they do in those two games. Michigan is not really that good this year, so Penn State is the only real solid team they will play this entire season. I am a bit biased b/c I am a Big Ten guy myself and don’t like OSU, but the fact is they have a super weak schedule. Personally I think Bama and LSU will KILL OSU. I think Clemson and Penn State would take some serious wood to them also….You heard it here first. Thank me later.
            🐶🐶🐶🦴🦴🦴

  7. Posted by geo8rge on October 25, 2019 at 5:37 pm

    Higher taxes don’t make residents more likely to leave Illinois, Nobel winner says

    https://wgntv.com/2019/10/22/higher-taxes-dont-make-residents-more-likely-to-leave-illinois-nobel-winner-says/

    Winner of the Bank of Sweden prize in memory of Alfred Nobel.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Myerson

    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 )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: