[certifiedfunds]

Originally Posted by CAcop

If you do that to public employees (already found illegal in the 1940s in CA) then anyone is next.

Too expensive to maintain sewer? **** you, you're cut off. Go septic.

Too expensive to maintain water service? **** you, you're cut off. Drill a well. No water under your property? Better hope your neighbor does or you are **** out of luck.

There is a long list of **** yous the governement can do to you. You just don't have the integrity to admit you suck off the teat too.

So you believe that one congress or legislature should be able to bind another?

[norton]

Defined benefits plans went out the door in the private sector years ago. Not many offer them any longer.
The reason is those funds were handled by business people, who understood they were not sustainable. Except those who gave in to union demands, that now have to be bailed out by Uncle Sam-see the Auto Industry.
The govt however, State, Local and Federal is run by politicians. They wouldn't recognize fiscal responsibility if it came up and bit them on the butt.
However, they have the power to steal- - er- tax-$ from the public.
But sooner or later the public runs out of money.
Then Anarchy.

[certifiedfunds]

BTW, I see you're saying you do suck the teet. However, how do I?

Instead of lashing out again perhaps you could just tell me how.

[certifiedfunds]

Originally Posted by norton

Defined benefits plans went out the door in the private sector years ago. Not many offer them any longer.
The reason is those funds were handled by business people, who understood they were not sustainable. Except those who gave in to union demands, that now have to be bailed out by Uncle Sam-see the Auto Industry.
The govt however, State, Local and Federal is run by politicians. They wouldn't recognize fiscal responsibility if it came up and bit them on the butt.
However, they have the power to steal- - er- tax-$ from the public.
But sooner or later the public runs out of money.
Then Anarchy.

Businesses can't send men with guns to seize your assets. That's why defined benefit plans went away

[elsolo]

CACop:

What do you think will happen to all the current retirees from Stockton, OC, San Jose, and all the other mismanaged cities and counties; when the money just isn't there to pay them?

[certifiedfunds]

Originally Posted by elsolo

CACop:

What do you think will happen to all the current retirees from Stockton, OC, San Jose, and all the other mismanaged cities and counties; when the money just isn't there to pay them?

Excellent question.

[CAcop]

Originally Posted by certifiedfunds

Calpers contributes 40%?

Reread my first post.

CalPERS pays 70-90% of pensions from the intrest on their porfolio.

Employers and employees pay the difference. They pay the difference based on what current employees make.

For example. The going rate for a police officer in the greater Bay Area is around $100K for a top step officer w/o OT. Employers and employees right now are paying for police around 40%. I say around because it changes a lot and it depends on how many disability retirements PERS has to pay for vs. the employer. Now the employees and employers can split up that 40% ny way they want. Right now we pay about 20% of our pay towards our retirement. The city pays the remainder. Ther are some cities, like Atherton, where their employees pay 0%

For us we have traditionally paid 9% of base pay while the city paid 0-5% for much of the 90s and 2000s. If our city was like Morgan Hill where they paid into a slush fund for economies like now they would be sitting pretty and nothing would have changed.

If you have problems with my explination go to CalPERS' website. They are an open book. Unlike some pension plans.

[CAcop]

Originally Posted by certifiedfunds

Stockton is not a business

It's still there running. Personally I think any city that goes bankrupt should be forced to unincorporate.

[CAcop]

Originally Posted by certifiedfunds

So you believe that one congress or legislature should be able to bind another?

Then chnge the laws in such a way they will survive the courts. No one has been willing to do that because they know in the future they will be **** out of luck if they do. See Stockton. They are bleeding officers.

[CAcop]

Originally Posted by certifiedfunds

BTW, I see you're saying you do suck the teet. However, how do I?

Instead of lashing out again perhaps you could just tell me how.

Drive on roads, fly in planes, call 911 for whatever reason, go to a sporting arena, etc.

[elsolo]

Originally Posted by CAcop

Reread my first post.

Nothing in your first post addresses my question.
So please humor me and restate it in simple terms.

[CAcop]

Originally Posted by elsolo

CACop:

What do you think will happen to all the current retirees from Stockton, OC, San Jose, and all the other mismanaged cities and counties; when the money just isn't there to pay them?

Current retirees will get paid unless the city leaves PERS and even then the divorce will kill them. Stockton needs to unincorporate. San Jose is effectively killing itself. At least there the voters approved it. East SJ is coming to their side soon.

[CAcop]

Originally Posted by elsolo

Nothing in your first post addresses my question.
So please humor me and restate it in simple terms.

I did it again for CF.

If you can't get it go to CalPERS. They are an open book. They have a website and all.

[Dennis in MA]

Originally Posted by dherloc

1% Incredible...imagine how much the fund managers are making on that money to make that 1%. Good thing they beat the market.

Lol

1%? I'll manage it for .25% and would have done 10x better last year. Lol

[elsolo]

Originally Posted by CAcop

Current retirees will get paid unless the city leaves PERS and even then the divorce will kill them. Stockton needs to unincorporate. San Jose is effectively killing itself. At least there the voters approved it. East SJ is coming to their side soon.

So Stockton runs out of money and quits paying into Calpers.

Do the currently retired Stockon officers still get paid by Calpers, or are they cut off?

[certifiedfunds]

Originally Posted by CAcop

Reread my first post.

CalPERS pays 70-90% of pensions from the intrest on their porfolio.

Employers and employees pay the difference. They pay the difference based on what current employees make.

For example. The going rate for a police officer in the greater Bay Area is around $100K for a top step officer w/o OT. Employers and employees right now are paying for police around 40%. I say around because it changes a lot and it depends on how many disability retirements PERS has to pay for vs. the employer. Now the employees and employers can split up that 40% ny way they want. Right now we pay about 20% of our pay towards our retirement. The city pays the remainder. Ther are some cities, like Atherton, where their employees pay 0%

For us we have traditionally paid 9% of base pay while the city paid 0-5% for much of the 90s and 2000s. If our city was like Morgan Hill where they paid into a slush fund for economies like now they would be sitting pretty and nothing would have changed.

If you have problems with my explination go to CalPERS' website. They are an open book. Unlike some pension plans.

No I trust that your info on your pension system is probably very good.

So the article says CALPERS has a serious shortfall. What happens then?

What happens if the government decides to stop paying as much?

What happens if investments don't earn sufficient returns?

[certifiedfunds]

Originally Posted by CAcop

Drive on roads, fly in planes, call 911 for whatever reason, go to a sporting arena, etc.

Don't I pay for those?

Where do you think the government gets the money to pay for those things?

[certifiedfunds]

Originally Posted by CAcop

It's still there running. Personally I think any city that goes bankrupt should be forced to unincorporate.

Obviously. But it's not a business. It produces nothing.

[2bgop]

Originally Posted by CAcop

Then chnge the laws in such a way they will survive the courts. No one has been willing to do that because they know in the future they will be **** out of luck if they do. See Stockton. They are bleeding officers.

Is that a yes or a no? Should one general assembly be able to bind a future one to appropriate funds?

I understand it is an entirely theoretical question because it is impossible to do, I was just interested to see how you feel about it.

[elsolo]

Originally Posted by CAcop

If you have problems with my explination go to CalPERS' website. They are an open book. Unlike some pension plans.

I couldn't find the section about what happens if your former employer quits paying into the system after you retire.

Seems like a simple enough question, not sure why you wouldn't want to give a quick answer if you know it.

My wife is a LA county employee working in a county hospital. I am not counting on her pension paying out 30 yrs from now when they run out of money. If you have insight into what happens if her employer goes the way of Stockton city employees, it would be appreciated.

[certifiedfunds]

Originally Posted by elsolo

I couldn't find the section about what happens if your former employer quits paying into the system after you retire.

Seems like a simple enough question, not sure why you wouldn't want to give a quick answer if you know it.

My wife is a LA county employee working in a county hospital. I am not counting on her pension paying out 30 yrs from now when they run out of money. If you have insight into what happens if her employer goes the way of Stockton city employees, it would be appreciated.

That's wise.

Taxes are certain to rise to meet debt obligations, they are certain to rise more to meet social security promises, they are certain to rise to meet Medicare promises, they are certain to rise to meet public pension promises.

I'm already having north of 50% of my income consumed by taxes. At some point I won't be able to pay any more. I wonder what happens then?

Will government be forced to cut employees? When they do, that will reduce the people paying into pensions like calpers. Less money coming in.

What happens then?

[fastbolt]

Originally Posted by certifiedfunds

Will government be forced to cut employees? When they do, that will reduce the people paying into pensions like calpers. Less money coming in.

What happens then?

Reasonable questions. The answer doesn't involve throwing the baby out with the bathwater, though.

In these economic times, it certainly seems prudent for all levels of government pension programs to be doing some careful self-examination. They certainly aren't created equal, though, are they?

Looks at CA's county programs. There are only 3 ways for counties to set up retirement programs. As I recall, it's along the lines of setting up an independent program, going with CalPERS or the 1937 Act. Last time I looked, the numbers fell along the lines of maybe 37 counties going with CalPERS and 20 going with their own under the 1937 Act.

We have 58 counties in CA, and I think the numbers were running close to 405 cities, townships, villages, etc. (Not all that many for a state our size, with the largest state population in the country, though, is it?) Not all of those local municipalities probably run their own services. A lot of the smallest ones have either contracted for their services, or have decided to change over to contracting/merging in these hard economic times.

A well managed retirement fund program, set up with foresight and planning, which isn't subject to being used as a slush fund by other government programs or entities, ought not to be a problem.

There's the rub, though, isn't it?

[certifiedfunds]

So long as tax money is flowing into it, it the politicians are able to reallocate that money or stop putting money in. And it should be so.

Tax money only. Not employee contributions.

Honestly the rub is a defined benefit plan. That is the fundamental problem.

[jpa]

Originally Posted by devildog2067

Lots of people started at Enron 40 years ago, and did 30 years of faithful work and retired with a full pension. Defined-benefit pensions were common in private industry at the time; in fact that's why government had to start offering them--to be competitive. (Your idea that the pension is something that the government had to start offering pensions to increase the "overall" compensation package is false.)

Then Enron went under. Those people lost their pensions. They don't get them any longer, except for a token amount from the PBGC. Through no fault of their own, they got screwed.

Why is it that those people lost their pensions, but you think that government employees should get to keep theirs?

How is that possible when Enron was founded in 1985?

I worked for Arthur Andersen when the Enron scandal went down. We had 401k's and so did most other big corporations.

I think you have it backwards. CalPERS was founded in 1932. Nevada PERS was created in 1947. Illinois State Retirement System was created in 1944. Government pensions were not created in response to Enron and other corporations' offering pensions. Government pensions were first. IBM just stopped contributing to employees' pensions in 2005. UPS drivers still have a pension. UAW employees still get a pension. I found a good article on the history of pensions at http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/30/ma...ted=print&_r=0 if you're interested in learning facts, not propaganda.

[SunsetMan]

Originally Posted by CAcop

CalPERS "supplements" by having either employers or employees kick down more money. Right now me and the city are paying in at about a 60/40 ratio of about 30-40% of my base pay.

If there is no money coming in there will be no money going out for that government entity. They don't care how you do it but they want their money or you set up your own pension plan. Good luck with that. See Orange County for a nightmare. Oh, and San Jose is about to join them in hell.

Thanks for this explanation and all the others.

Does anyone have PROOF that CalPERS money has ever been raided?