|
Iamsemisweet -> RE: California AND bust (11/10/2011 4:24:00 PM)
|
I can honestly say I didn't understand what you were saying. That is why I asked. I am not feeling so much anger (I don't live in CA, and my state is actually in relatively good shape in terms of pensions, both because of how they are funded and because of a surprisingly favorable actuarial situation) as concerned. This is huge. Either people are going to lose their pensions because municipal bankruptcies are going to go through the roof OR services are going to suffer in order to meet these obligations. Doesn't that concern you? I like paved streets and libraries, myself. And yes, I think double dipping is part of the problem.
As for how pensions are supposed to be funded, I think that varies from state to state. My research showed that public pensions in CA are only partially deferred comp, but that the state also uses defined benefit plans. They have several systems, that vary depending on the type of entity. Do you have any authority for your proposition that PE are "supposed" to be funded each paycheck? As for taking up a larger and larger percentage of the budget, in our CA example at least:
David Crane, the former economic adviser—at that moment rapidly receding into the distance—could itemize the result: a long list of depressing government financial statistics. The pensions of state employees ate up twice as much of the budget when Schwarzenegger left office as they had when he arrived, for instance. The officially recognized gap between what the state would owe its workers and what it had on hand to pay them was roughly $105 billion, but that, thanks to accounting gimmicks, was probably only about half the real number. “This year the state will directly spend $32 billion on employee pay and benefits, up 65 percent over the past 10 years,” says Crane later. “Compare that to state spending on higher education [down 5 percent], health and human services [up just 5 percent], and parks and recreation [flat], all crowded out in large part by fast-rising employment costs.”
Do you have some reason to believe that statement is inaccurate?
quote:
ORIGINAL: Iamsemisweet
quote:
ORIGINAL: thompsonx
quote:
ORIGINAL: Iamsemisweet
Not quite sure where you are going with this, thompson. Is your point that the cities and states should be OK with devoting a higher and higher percentage of their budget to paying pensions, to the point where they have little money for existing services, because the military and Barry Goldwater did it?
I have no idea how you got there from what I said.
I am questioning your anger at someone who works a job and earns a pension and then chooses to get another job and get a second pension.
I remain unconvinced that cities and states need to devote a larger percentage of their budget to pay for pensions.
Pensions are not suppose to come out of the general fund. Pensions are funded each payday since they are a form of defered compensation. If they are not so funded then someone in accounting needs to go back to school.
|
|
|
|
