Post a New Topic
Sharing the costs of a beleaguered pension system
Original post made
on Sep 23, 2011
Members of the Pleasanton City Council spent a few more hours Tuesday night in closed session discussing a new contract with the local firefighters union that expires shortly. It was another step the council is taking to sit together to review wages and benefits for municipal employees at a time when pension sustainability is becoming a major financial concern for cities throughout California.
Read the full story here Web Link
posted Friday, September 23, 2011, 12:00 AM
Like this comment
Posted by Arnold
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Sep 26, 2011 at 4:06 pm
"As a Law Enforcement Officer, I would like to see an honest, "Pension" discussion.
The truth about what we pay into our pensions and what we make is far different from the picture painted by the media. I currently contribute $17,498.00 per year out of my paycheck towards my own pension and more than $500,000.00 since starting 27 years ago."
David, maybe you can prove me wrong, but I don't believe a word of that statement. If you're contributing 9% of pensionable salary, and your contribution is $17,498, then your persable compensation is $194,422 per year (that I believe but it is a separate issue - and it is an issue regarding fair compensation). So even if you worked 27 years at 194K and contributed 9% that only equates to 472k in contributions. I'm pretty sure you didn't start at 194K, 27 years ago (probably 25-30K with a 7% contribution), so your entire premise, "an honest, "Pension" discussion", is suspect at best.
"My employer gets to forgo their contribution any time the pension system exceeds it's earnings requirement. So during the 1990's, into the early 2000's anytime PERS exceeded 8% (13 out 20 years) the various cities and counties got a,"Payment Holiday"."
Under the CalPERS plan, member agencies do NOT have the option to take a pension holiday. Providing pension holidays is solely at the discretion of CalPERS, and the CalPERS BOD's. If an agency (TAXPAYERS) decided to forgo pension contributions they would be in default and have to pay the missed contribution payments, plus the 7.75% interest, plus administrative fees, and probably suffer a decline in their credit rating.
If the conversation is about the adverse effect of pension holidays then the finger needs to point at CaLPERS. And the finger should be pointed at CalPERS because they are the agency that promoted this nonsense (SB400), on the union's behalf, in an effort to get member agencies to distribute the extra funds (the money that represented the 32% of the 132% super funded status of the pension plan) to the public employee union members. The taxpayers were Madoff'd and are now left holding a bag filled with 200 million in IOU's, past off from city councils and city management teams, that must be paid to Pleasanton employee union members, for service that has already been consumed.
What is sad about this entire mess is the super funded status of CaLPERS would have automatically lowered the contribution rate of member agencies (taxpayers) for years. That is a CalPERS policy. Instead our elected officials at every level, many who benefit from the increased payouts either directly or in the form of campaign contributions for their support, the unions, city management employees that also benefited, and CalPERS have stuck it to the taxpayers in a big way.
"PERS currently has 1.1 million retirees, with an average pension check of $38,000 per year. Only 18,000 are collecting over $100,000.00 per year (all uppper managers), yet 100% of the conversation surrounds them?"
Upper management certainly gets their share, but it is Police & Fire employees that are burning down the fiscal house & robbing the bank!
David, maybe you work for a department under one of the Act 37 pension plans. Some of the worst abuses come from these out-of -control pension plans (see: every major city in CA, Contra Costa Conty, Santa Rosa, etc… CalPERS, which has limited the obvious abuses commonly attributed to ACT 37 plans, has found more subtle ways to abuse taxpayers with probably more devastating long-term consequences.
Like this comment
Posted by David
a resident of Pleasanton Meadows
on Sep 27, 2011 at 9:32 am
Thanks for all the comments. I would like to address a s many as possible, but may miss a few. This is a far better discussion in person, since so many directions can be taken at once, and I have no way to answer all the what ifs.
As to my income and what I pay into my retirement. I Work for a 37 act county. Yes, many of the abuses that have led to the pension problem have come from those counties. My pay is $121,ooo per year and I pay $17,498.00 a year towards my pension. I do not make $194,000 like the previous writer thought.
PERS employee contribution is 9%, and the next year or so of negotiations will see every Agency move towards employees covering those costs. I do not have a problem with that. We pay about 15% towards ours.
I previously worked in Oakland, but after losing 13 friends from being murdered in the line of Duty, I left. I really don't think that I have robbed the tax payers as a previous writer has said.
I have not paid $17,498 a year for 27 years either, but as my income grew, so has my contribution. I have averaged $11,637.00 over those years, and if you do the math, I have contributed $314,199 of my income. add in compund interest at 7.75% and my personal contribution is worth $1,191,417.58.
I believe that a defined benefit is unsustainable because most of us are living longer and as it has been pointed out, many of us have far larger incomes than before. I would like to see a move to a defined contribution instead.
Right now if I die 3 years after I retire, my wife gets two options. Option 1: 50% of my pension if I pay $600 per month to an annuity. or option 2: $0 if I don't. Lets just do the math again.
If I contribute $300k and so does the County, then they save money, because their current contribution exceeds mine by nearly double. Using the same numbers I would have $2,394,000.00 in my own retirement account now. I could draw $185,000 a year if the interest return stayed the same, and when I died, leave wealth to my children.
The real problem is selling this concept to union and elected leaders. They like Defined benefits, because they are ignorant of the possibilities. Now there is always the possibility that returns are bad, and I lose some wealth, but I am willing to take that chance. I was also happy with 2%@50.
I am an anomoly mind you, but that is because I am pragmatic. My whole point is that there are solutions, and while all of them may be a little painful, they need to happen.
I do not like the written forum because so many contributers talk pretty big while typing, and say things they would never have the nerve to say in person.
There are a lot of Police Officers willing to make concessions and share the pain, but so few news papers share the fact that nearly every officer in California has begun paying their own contribution. The truth is; If we paid every ddime out of our own salary, it would not fix the budget. California mandates that $43 out of every $100 goes to K-12, then $11 out of every $100 goes to JC's -University. When you hear that we spend more on prisons and CHP than education, they are only talking about Universities. This is what I mean about truth. Law Enforcement expenses are not mandatory budget items, but education is. I am not saying that we should not pay for our benefits; Im saying we are only 9% of the states budget issue.