Poll: Should We All Pay to Fix RI's Pension System?
Vote in our poll and share thoughts in the comments section.
Rhode Islanders are just days away from seeing a legislative proposal that would overhaul the state's pension system, creating a whole new retirement plan for public workers that, according to the Associated Press, would include raising retirement ages and halting any cost-of-living adjustments for retirees.
After years of living under a broken pension plan, Gov. Lincoln Chafee told the Providence Journal on Thursday that he thinks all of Rhode Island's taxpayers — even those who don't work as government employees — should "share" the "sacrifice" in fixing the system that so many Rhode Island community and state employees, and school teachers, depend on.
While no tax increase is anticipated in the proposal that comes out next week, Chafee did say he thinks taxpayers could end up paying a lot over time as the pension debt payments gets stretched out over years.
We want to know: do you think we should all share the burden in fixing this state problem? Vote in our poll and share your thoughts in the comments section below.
William F Horan
7:34 pm on Friday, October 14, 2011
I will relocate before I pay one more dime to fix this coprrupted mess.
The Puiblic sector pensions are way above commerical private sector pay outs while pay in is well below the outside commerical market plans. Unless they reform to SS retirement age and private pension payout rates their is no hope of reform. Better to go bankrupted and let a judge give all working and retired piublic sector employees a hair cut.
Distant Cousin
8:26 pm on Thursday, October 20, 2011
Mr. Horan, best to have your facts straight before you post. State employees pay in (contribute) 8.75% of their pay and teachers pay in 9.5%. Please find me pension plans, public or private, that require higher contributions from employees. Whatever reasonable complaints you may have about state retirement plans, the employee contribution level is not one of them.
DownTown
8:40 pm on Thursday, October 20, 2011
Taxpayers have been putting in 23% of a state workers pay into the pension plan up till this year when that goes up to 36%.
Show me a private sector company that puts 36% of an employees salary aside for their retirement.
Distant Cousin
9:11 pm on Thursday, October 20, 2011
Jim, please give me a citation for the evidence supporting your claim that the taxpayers have been putting 23% of state workers' pay into the retirement system. That may be what was put in this year, I do not know, but it certainly was not put in years past. The problem we have today is because your elected officials found it easier to build in an unrealistic rate of return on pension investments (8.5% / year) than to tax you what was required to pay in the actual amount needed for the promises they made to your public employees. The economy went south and so did the investment returns. But if you show me state contributions to the fund of 23% of employee pay for each year since 1990, I will be happy to admit my error. I don't think you'll find it.
DownTown
9:46 pm on Thursday, October 20, 2011
Its nearly impossible to get anything from that long ago and worse since projo.com wiped out their archives - everything is now providencejournal.com with Google searches reaching nothing that comes back projo.com. If they have converted their archives then Google hasn't spidered them yet.
I never said that was the rate since 1990 just that its going up from 23% to 36% which is covered in this AP story. The employee contribution by law remains at 8.75%.
As I said show me a private sector company that puts in cash at a 4 to 1 ratio and guarantees a defined benefit and I'll show you a company that is in bankruptcy.
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/RI-ups-taxpayer-contribution-apf-1130282601.html?mod=pf-retirement
PROVIDENCE, R.I. (AP) -- Rhode Island's retirement board has voted unanimously to raise taxpayers' contributions to pension plans for state employees and teachers.
The board's vote comes about a month after it approved a new set of assumptions that placed the state's unfunded pension liability 27 percent higher than previously thought.
Wednesday's vote means the state's contribution rate for state employee pension plans will jump over 10 percentage points -- to over 36 percent from 23 percent -- for the fiscal year starting July 1, 2012. The contribution rates for public school teachers that fiscal year will also rise, to over 35 percent from about 22 percent.
DownTown
9:52 pm on Thursday, October 20, 2011
Distant Cousin, what's unrealistic is a defined benefit plan with free medical and a 3% COLA .
No one gets that in the private sector because it's impossible.
The unions supported the Democrats year in and year out and now the unions want to blame the taxpayers. Then you supported Chafee because Caprio ran on pension reform.
Well you got what you wanted.
DownTown
10:10 pm on Thursday, October 20, 2011
Taxpayers have made the correct and legal contribution except during the DEPCO bailout and that had limited effect.
Isn’t the pension problem because the state has never paid its fair share into the pension system, while state employees and teachers have never missed a payment?
Although the state made contributions “in accordance with law” prior to 1986, the state did not follow proper actuarial standards until 1986. Accordingly, it was not properly calculating the amount of contributions necessary to fund the plan. Since 1986, however, with the exception of a partial contribution in FY1992 during the Depositors Economic Protection Corporation (DEPCO) credit union crisis, the state has made all actuarially required contributions as required by law. Likewise, state employees and teachers have made their contributions as required by law.
However, making contributions as required by law and contributing enough to cover benefit costs are two different notions. Improperly funding the pension system is not a new problem. Sadly, this crisis was created decades ago, simply because no one bothered to calculate costs with honest and accurate numbers.
Is the Rhode Island credit union crisis in the early 1990s, also known as the DEPCO crisis, the main reason for the state’s current unfunded pension liability?
the system’s actuaries calculated that the impact of this improper act, however, was limited, accounting for less than 1 percent of the system’s unfunded liability
Joe Sousa.
6:12 am on Thursday, October 27, 2011
RI. Red is coming home to roost. Pension and benefit costs continue to rise.
We can only pray the legislature fixes the problem without sticking it to the taxpayers.
I have little hope they will. Greed has brought RI to it's knees. Apathy let it happen.
stoney larue
8:45 pm on Friday, October 14, 2011
The thing that really burns me up is when a person getting a federal pension wants to complain about other people getting a pensions.
M. P.
9:29 pm on Friday, October 14, 2011
Public sector is public sector... doesn't matter if it's a state pension or a federal pension. Most state employees pay in to the system but are not in charge of how that system is managed (or mismanaged). There is no reason they should be penalized when they paid their money into the system only to have it squandered by a bunch of politicians.
Elaine
11:38 am on Saturday, October 15, 2011
I couldnt have said it better myself....
Q-L&B
3:45 pm on Monday, October 17, 2011
The deals crafted are far too generous. No one should retire on the tax payers dime with a large percentage of the their salary and below age 65.
Ts9x
10:10 pm on Friday, October 14, 2011
Absolutely not. The pensions were an over promise, no real funds to support the payout structure. Pensions should be cut, reformed and brought within realistic guidelines. Tax payers should not be burdened with errors of pension administrators & government officials.
Elaine
11:40 am on Saturday, October 15, 2011
Ts9x...not sure if you know it but state workers are tax payers also....and we did service for private sector people also...I hate it when we are not considered tax payers too,
Distant Cousin
8:33 pm on Thursday, October 20, 2011
Ts9x, you say that taxpayers should not be burdened with the errors of government officials. Those are the officials the taxpayers elected. Why should a small percentage of taxpayers, public retirees and employees, be saddled with the burden caused by the representatives of all of us. They say Medicare will go broke in a very short time. Should we renege on Medicare's promises so that taxpayers don't have to bear the burden of those government officials' errors?
Stefanie Caliri
10:15 pm on Friday, October 14, 2011
The unfortunate thing is we as tax payers are going to pay for it whether we like it or not. They'll never come out and say "Guess what RI" but every person paying taxes in the state will be responsible for covering the tab the state legislation created by "borrowing" from the pension system after deeming it illegal for the private sector to do the same thing.
John H Hedley
10:48 pm on Friday, October 14, 2011
We are already paying for this in the form of higher borrowing costs that the capital and bond markets have built into most recent RI bond offerings. That's why its critical to get things like school done under budget and to get all the recent utility and sewer work resurfaced. However the dickering and delay which have been the watchword of those two endeavors suggests Newport is burning.
My math is based only on the paltry public information available but Newport needs 3.5 percent annual growth in revenues to just tread water- i.e. not fill the pension shortfall. I don't see how it can even do that in the face of declining property values, a dwindling middle class and an alarming reliance on low wage (and heavily subsidized) seasonal tourism and college students- all under the backdrop of a prolonged 70's style recession.
Will the last sane person in Newport do their part and turn off the lights when you leave?
Donald Squires
6:59 am on Saturday, October 15, 2011
D.S.
When the topic of the penson's short fall comes up, no one talks about how we got there. Yes, state workers and teachers do pay into the system with the agreement that they would get something in return (no other option). But only a certain group gets the big prize.
What is the reason that we are in this mess? Maybe it is because during the 90's the HOUSE OF THIEFS (state house) did not contribute the State's share into the system. Or maybe it was the judges and state police which rec'd 100% of their salaries and did not contribute to the system. Before we increace taxes, the plan should be to make the golden cows to either contribute their share (9%) of their salaries or rec'd their pensions from the time the golden cows started contributing. For the people that have all the answer, please let me know why the former governer's wife was put on the pay roll for $1,00.
Bill
7:41 am on Saturday, October 15, 2011
I would be willing to pay for the unacceptable mess we are in because, well, frankly, I have no choice. The State and Municipalities have no money other than what they take from us, plus the occasional revenue stream like the beaches. That said, we need to plug the giant, gaping hole in our system which allows these overgenerous benefits to even be considered by small handfuls of people negotiating contracts. I personally feel there should be no pensions. Almost every other sector, industry, etc. in the country has done away with pensions. Why do we still have them here? We have them because they are sweetheart benefits which can be used as bargaining chips. There are no easy answers to the massive debt issue. There is one simple answer to the ongoing problem... Pass a state law eliminating pensions for all current and new employees. Ensure that the law covers municipalities as well. Provide a standard employer match for an employee-managed retirement fund. It seems most of the country offers a structure that equates to a $.50 match for every dollar, up to 4% of the employee's salary. Then chip away at our current obligation through whatever means necessary to ensure our children's children's children won't be burdened with paying this debt in perpetuity.
Joseph Farias III
8:06 am on Saturday, October 15, 2011
Having grown up in Ma, and being so close to RI, Ive always considered myself more of a Rhode Islander ..... and when I decided back in 2005 to open my business in RI... I felt very positive that I would be a long standing member of the business community in this great state... and having been through the economic downturn and still surviving .....With talks of raising the bridge toll yet again... now this ? If this were to pass, I will definitely consider relocating my business! I suppose however... they will find some other way to screw us all for their mistakes and mis managements. In business, if you mess up, you go out of business. In government...it seems you still get your paycheck even if your not providing positive results. We can vote them in, why cant we fire them ? Just sayin !
Sick of Tiverton
9:01 am on Saturday, October 15, 2011
HELL NO!! We are one of the highest tax brackets allready..now raise it again!
James Wermuth
9:35 am on Saturday, October 15, 2011
I would like to see all current pensions be renegotiated before agreeing to burden taxpayers with the fix. Bring ALL pensions in line with national standards (30 years minimal service required - 35 years for full pension) and stop double dippers from making a sham out of the process.
Elaine
11:44 am on Saturday, October 15, 2011
First of all state workers pay taxes too and what about the people like maybe grandmothers and grandfathers who have been receiving these pensions and maybe only worked the agreed 28years...does that mean you should take away their pensions since they didnt work the min,. of 30 years like you suggest. Oh but of course, all the children can now support them in their elder years....can you?
Mike P.
9:53 am on Saturday, October 15, 2011
1. We elected the politicians
2. Politicians made contractual agreements
3. Politicians failed to properly fund pensions they agreed to
4. Politicians borrowed against an already underfunded pension system
It’s our fault, we put these buffoons in office (and will again) and so we all shall pay.
I love the halfwits who blame the employees. These employees contributed the correct amount to the system and are now losing their benefits. Yes, blame the little guy for the conduct of the idiots we continue to put in office.
Elaine
11:45 am on Saturday, October 15, 2011
Yeah Mike P
Distant Cousin
8:41 pm on Thursday, October 20, 2011
... And let's not forget who benefited from the underfunding of the retirement systems. For many years, the state employees and teachers contributed more than most employees anywhere. It was the state that withheld its fair share and it is the taxpayers who benefited by having lower taxes than they would have had if the state had made adequate contributions. He who dances has to pay the piper, so quit whining.
DSilva
10:33 am on Saturday, October 15, 2011
Agree with Mike. It is everyone's problem to solve and everyone is gong to have to help fix it. While I agree that the employees did what was agreed to, if they aren't part of the solution there will be nothing left for them. And a lot of them are residents who voted in this group as well. We all have to fix it.
Q-L&B
3:47 pm on Monday, October 17, 2011
Wrong
Jean Marie Veegh
10:39 am on Saturday, October 15, 2011
Mike and a few others hit the nail on the head. These meatheads were elected....i.e. .....we get the government we deserve. It's time to wake up and get this state (and fed) government overhauled.
Dexter Liu
10:41 am on Saturday, October 15, 2011
Could anyone tell me why tax payers should continue to pay for the mess the union bosses and their willing co-conspirators in the legislator created? If real reform isn't done this time around Rhode Island will be out of options... folks, anyone been following what's been happening in Detriot? Median single family home in greater Detroit is now less than $90K (RI is $205K and falling) personal crime risk is measured at 403 (when this same measure is 100 as a national average... lower the number the lower the risk)... wake up people, this is truly serious what's happening at the State House! Union rank and file, you must demand reform so your retirement will be sustainable and don't accept lies that suggest tax payers will continue to fund this monstrosity in perpetuity!
Distant Cousin
8:53 pm on Thursday, October 20, 2011
Dexter, you ask, "Could anyone tell me why tax payers should continue to pay for the mess the union bosses and their willing co-conspirators in the legislator created?" I'll try: Because the legislators were the officials the taxpayers elected to act for them. They were our representatives and we should be bound by their acts. If we proved a criminal act, that would be one thing. But don't come back 20 years later and cry that you don't like the deal your agent made for you. I give you a hypothetical: If the state signed a contract with a private company to pay $50,000 per mile for highway, would it be OK for the state to come back after the company had built the highway and and say we think those government officials made a bad deal, so we are only going to pay $25,000 per mile? Why is this different?
Jean Marie Veegh
10:46 am on Saturday, October 15, 2011
PS - by the way, maybe there would be a few extra bucks to dig us out of these fiscal catastrophies if the illegal alien issues were appropriately addressed. Maybe we need to focus on helping our legal citizen's first. Just a thought.
DownTown
9:46 pm on Sunday, October 23, 2011
Tell that to Chafee. By the time he comes up for reelection illegals will be voting.
Jean Marie Veegh
10:52 am on Saturday, October 15, 2011
I'm from Detroit. Born and raised, left 6 yrs ago. Perfect example of corrupt hard left social governing. Thanks Coleman Young & Kwami. The unions contributed to snuffing out automotive. Believe me, you do not want this. PS - I also still sell bank owned real estate there...that 90k median number seems way too high. Most sales past 6 mths under 50k.
Dexter Liu
11:19 am on Saturday, October 15, 2011
Jeannie, I lived in Mt. Clemens in the 80s and believe me when I went back in 2006, it has changed even for the worse! This from when the auot industry suffed its worst recession in the 80s! So you know exactly what I am talking about... it is hard to imagine Detriot getting worse than when I lived in the area, but it most defenitely has! I see Rhode Island on the same trajectory and now having lived in RI since Detroit, it's deja vu! BTW, the 90K figure I got from the Internet, but I'm sure you're right because I was recently in Northern Ohio and the folks there were telling me plenty of homes in the Detriot and surounding area were going for $7-8K... now they are bull dozing them! God help us all if Rhode Islanders don't wake up soon...
Bear401
11:24 am on Saturday, October 15, 2011
The tax payers are going to pay one way or another....The Cost Of Living, will continue to rise, & this includes property taxes, utility rates, gasoline, heating oil, & for those who pay for a portion of their healthcare, which UNC increases every 2 yrs like clockwork. Once you freeze the COLA, blue collar employees especially, will begin to qualify & apply for assistance, from both the federal & state government. All of that gets paid for by your taxes. Those that pay for a portion of their healthcare has those payments taken automaticlly from their retirement check so that cuts into their net income from the start. Remember just a few short months ago RI ranked as one of the worst states to do business & live in because of the high Cost Of Living. This economy is consumer driven so making it more difficult for people to be one, will make it tougher for this state to get on it's feet though it never fully does anyway.....Those who can do so will pack up, grab their retirement, while also saying good bye to the variety of taxes they pay in this state & move to one with a far more manageable Cost Of Living & help the economy there. That has been, & is already, happening. I'm sure some "genius" will have some smart remark to say about that, but you'll be left behind to make up the financial difference for those that have left & will leave in the future......So either way everyone will pay. The only question will be how.
Bear401
11:40 am on Saturday, October 15, 2011
For those who think we all make huge salaries, my gross income from my retirement Before any deductions for healthcare, taxes, etc, is less than $30,000/yr & that is after 30+ years of service.....I would also like to add that if this state is in such sorry financial straights then how is they always seem to find money to hand out pay upgrades to non-union management/middle management types & those in favored unions like the RI Alliance of Social Service Employees(Local 580). These upgrades will give each of those that got them Two Pay Raises In One Year. I mention Local 580 because the former administration really only attacked unions that represented blue collar workers. Local 580 has a clause in their contract that gives it's members an Extra $19.00/hr when they work on weekends & the former administration seemed to have no issue with that & gladly signed that contract.
Q-L&B
3:49 pm on Monday, October 17, 2011
Try working 50 years bear and getting the average social security wage 12K. 30k is extremely generous - you should have been saving your pennies on the side during your 30 year tenure
.
Dexter Liu
12:42 pm on Saturday, October 15, 2011
Bear401, you will be pleased to know most people know that rank and file are only making a fair wage and just trying to survive like the rest of us. We're all in this together! The problem is, as you pointed out, politicians propped up by union leadership are being completely dishonest with both you and I... they made promises they can't keep and try to cover with lip service and deflect blame! Our corrupt politicians are literally destroying our state and driving away job producers. That does no one any good! You worked damned hard, was promised a pension for which you planned your retirement around and now you're faced with this calamity. The trouble is, instead of doing the right thing (like not giving free tuition, health benefits, social services, food stamps, etc. to illegal aliens) the corrupt legislative partners of your union bosses continue to lie to you. They point are pitting tax payers against rank and file members as a distraction. I empathize with you and all honest hard working rank and file members. The real villain is your leadership and the corrupt politicians who continue to buy votes with promises they can't keep. None of us want Rhode Island to become Detroit... but if they succeed in their lies and no real sustainable pension reform is forthcoming, Rhode Island will become Detroit... check it out online... trust me, we don't want to go there!
Robert E
12:46 pm on Saturday, October 15, 2011
Unfunded pensions have nothing to do with the unions it has to do with management promising something to the workers and then spending the money on something else. If they had put that money away at the time instead of saying we can spend it now and just put it back later we would not be in this mess. The workers upheld their part of the bargain and the politicians mismanaged the funds. Blame the politicians that created this mess and then blamed the workers to cover their own butts to get reelected.
DownTown
10:21 pm on Sunday, October 23, 2011
According to the RI.gov web site the only time pension fund money was spent on anything other than pensions was in 1992 when for a short time it was used to shore up the credit unions till Depco was started. That same web site states that the one time spending represents 1% of the current problem.
Distant Cousin
10:14 am on Monday, October 24, 2011
RIPEC says that in addition to DEPCO, the state also did not make its full contribution in 1995. The state also weakened the soundness of the retirement fund in 1989 and 1990 when it offered early-retirement to higher-paid employees so they could be replaced by lower-paid new-hires, to save taxpayers money. But those savings were at the expense of the soundness of the retirement funds. In effect, in 1989, 1990, 1992 (DEPCO), and 1995 the taxpayers put their contributions on their credit card. Now they are complaining about the interest due on the credit card.
The bigger problem is that the state used unrealistic actuarial numbers. They assumed too high a rate of return (8.25%) and too low a wage inflation rate (3.0%). This resulted in further weakening of the retirement funds. I do not know if this was a mistake or done intentionally to avoid tax increases. Either way, the taxpayers benefited because they contributed less than was required. Finally, the market went south requiring the employer to make up for the shortfall on investment returns. If instead of tanking the market had run at 20%/year the state would have had to contribute less. If that had happened would you support giving the retirees increases in benefits?
I think the system should be changed so that the employees bear more of the risk. I just think the changes need to be prospective. Switch new and unvested employees into a new hybrid system, but keep our promises to the retired and those near retirement.
Bear401
4:05 pm on Saturday, October 15, 2011
Dexter & Robert I agree with what the two of you have said. One of my major omplaints with the union that represented me was that they kept their mouths shut for too many years as we were torn apart in the media by everyone running for Governor with lies & total misrepresentation of the facts. Suddenly they run into a strongly anti labor/working class administration like the last one & Now they are trying to play catch up against all of what has been said over the last 25 years. I would like to know where they were when the state was "borrowing" from the fund as well as not putting in their part of the donation to the retirement fund. The state took that money and added to the top of an already top heavy bureaucracy by creating more positions for cronies in management & pay upgrades to others. I saw it happen year after year......Let's not forget the big selling point the state gave all of us for the creation of a state lottery all those many years ago. The profits after deducting operating costs was supposed to be divided up & returned to each municipality to fund the school budgets. Well the state stole than money too.....Some people will try & blow off all of these things by calling them a "drop in the bucket." Well there have been A Lot of drops like these put into that bucket & now it's overflowing & the employees are expected to pay for it.
Dexter Liu
4:14 pm on Saturday, October 15, 2011
nuff said... to straighten out this mess we just need to clean house up in Smith Hill so that we have honest and ethical representation!
jed
9:00 pm on Saturday, October 15, 2011
Dexter,
You and your buddies in the Tea Party need to understand that the GA put aside the benefit payments to fix the credit crisis created by Joe Molicone and his cronies. You reaped the benefit then and now you want to crucify the state employees and current GA members for the sins of the past that you benefited from. You better get your facts straight before you and the tea baggers start jumping on issues.
Maybe you would be better off looking to replace the idiot you have representing you now who is a real example of TEA PARTY excellence. You and the PCC have nothing to say about ANYTHING until the poster child for women beating, lying, and complete fraud is dealt with.
Raymond F. Palmieri Sr.
4:30 pm on Saturday, October 15, 2011
Here is a unique idea. How about the Public Union members fire most of their high paid lobbyist and cut the pay of all union bosses in half. Then take that money along with all the union dues money that those bosses have put aside to buy the votes of politicians, plus what money was to be spent to defeat the politicians that won’t do what they want and put all that money back into their members retirement funds. Then the union members could have their dues cut or set that money aside into a 401K every year. Additionally, we could put a surtax on the retirement pensions of all the politicians that voted for these unsustainable pensions. Then I guess the taxpayers are stuck for the rest of the money, unless I missed something.
Bill
6:54 am on Sunday, October 16, 2011
I'll do one better. How about we extend the Hatch Act to all public sector jobs plus all union jobs. The whole reason it exists is to prevent the excessive influence and corruption which exists in RI.
M. P.
5:13 pm on Saturday, October 15, 2011
For all those in favor occurring the public sector pension... why stop at the state level? Let's do the same at the federal level too. No more collecting federal pensions for those retiring in their mid 40s... Let them wait until they reach retirement age. After all, those pensions are also paid by the tax payers.
Bill
6:44 am on Sunday, October 16, 2011
Pension reform was already done at the civilian federal level. The pension was almost completely eliminated. In its place, they have a qualified retirement plan like a 401K.
Robert E
9:23 pm on Saturday, October 15, 2011
Pensions are deferred payments for work done. "Benefits" are pay for work, not a handout. Pensions and benefits are arranged by contract. If there is not enough money for them, it is because the contracted funds have been taken by officials and spent on other things.
Bill
6:51 am on Sunday, October 16, 2011
True, to a point. All pay for a given job generally keeps pace with inflation. Someone working in the DMV, theoretically, should be making the same income in today's dollars that someone else was making 10 years ago with the same experience doing the same job in 10 year ago dollars. Pensions are a defined benefit. They have mandatory COLAs which are not tracked to inflation. They ignore fund growth. They ignore increases of life expectancy. A qualified retirement plan is truly a defered payment. The money is funded. It grows with inflation and market forces. It lasts for however long it lasts.
Bear401
6:32 am on Sunday, October 16, 2011
Jed. Thanks for pointing that out. Many have forgotten the Credit Union crisis of the early 90's. The problem the system has now is that the state continued to set aside money that was supposed to go into the system & did other things with it. I am hardly a Tea Party supporter or member. I am a retired state employee who may now be paying a price for the sins of the past that you & others have mentioned. However no General Assembly has done anything to put an end to the culture of cronyism, corruption & the never mentioned hypocrisy that has become entrenched in the way the state goes about it's business for everything from vendor contracts to crony hires in management, to handing out retirements to people from a system that those people never contibuted to & treating members of certain unions better than members of others. It's those three issues that run through everything that has damaged this state & have given it it's well deserved bad image
02809
9:28 am on Sunday, October 16, 2011
Here is a report published in 2010 by the National Institute on Retirement Security.
Public and private workforces differ in important
ways. For instance, jobs in the public sector require
much more education on average than those in
the private sector. Employees in state and local
sectors are twice as likely as their private sector
counterparts to have a college or advanced degree.
• Wages and salaries of state and local employees are
lower than those for private sector workers with
comparable earnings determinants (e.g., education).
State employees typically earn 11 percent less; local
workers earn 12 percent less.
• Over the last 20 years, the earnings for state and
local employees have generally declined relative to
comparable private sector employees,.
You can read the report in its entirety here:
http://www.slge.org/vertical/Sites/%7BA260E1DF-5AEE-459D-84C4-876EFE1E4032%7D/uploads/%7B03E820E8-F0F9-472F-98E2-F0AE1166D116%7D.PDF
Average Joe
9:52 am on Monday, October 17, 2011
Reported by the National Institute of Retirement Security? Hmmmmmmm. Let see, this group is made up of various union groups and providers of pension plans. I wonder if this report is biased???
DownTown
2:36 pm on Sunday, October 16, 2011
State workers pay taxes but receive far, far more from taxes than they pay in taxes, so raising taxes in this situation will be beneficial to them.
Meanwhile raising taxes on the private sector taxpayer for the union pensions provides no benefit to them.
Unions have backed democrats during every election I can remember except the last because Caprio ran partially on a pension reform platform. The unions backed Howdy Doody instead because of that.
Private sector taxpayers did not make any promises and have already paid whatever taxes have been due over the years for pensions.
Q-L&B
3:52 pm on Monday, October 17, 2011
Agree!
Joe Sousa.
6:26 pm on Sunday, October 16, 2011
My prediction is the Legislature will try to fix the problem by raising taxes and fees while cutting aid to cities and towns. This will kill the RI economy creating a bigger mess. This state is a sinking ship with Capt.Chafee plotting a coarse strait toward the rocks. Crash and burn
Q-L&B
4:02 pm on Monday, October 17, 2011
I am so sick and tired of the union entitlement attitudes. Been a well known fact for years, get a job with the city or state, work 25 years or so and then have a 30-40 year retirement with a full boat of "bennies". It's nauseating and unrealistic. I always ask the question, on the rare occasions I venture out midday from the workplace during the week and their is traffic everywhere. "Doesn't anybody work around here? Then I remember,-this is Rhode Island, where the public sector workers have found their retirement heaven"
Sharon Rivers
10:30 am on Tuesday, October 18, 2011
I think the City should go into receivership and take the management of the City out of the hands of the Council and School Committee. They are all ill-equipped to solve this problems. They are way over their heads and we taxpayers are going to pay higher taxes than what we pay now and we still will suffer from reduced services,
poorly maintained infrastructures and children who score 3rd form the bottom in state testing, SATS and AP exams.
Q-L&B
11:18 am on Tuesday, October 18, 2011
@ Sharon Rivers. Totally agree - they are ill-equipped, the council's are hardly academic and pro-blue collar, union, lackeys. They do not have the financial acumen or experience to run an urban budget! I am also hoping for receivership and actions taken like in Central Falls. It is the only way to right the wrongs that have been done all these years. "Fat Cats" living on the tax payers dime. I will say it again, no public servant should be able to retire after only 25 years of service and collect a large percentage of their income for up to 40 years or more!!
Distant Cousin
9:19 pm on Thursday, October 20, 2011
A question for those of you who are on or near Medicare or are collecting or near to social security retirement: Like the state retirement system, the social security and Medicare trusts are underfunded. Would it be OK with you if those paying into SS and Medicare today decided that Congress and the SS and Medicare Administration made a bad deal and wanted to end SS and Medicare? Is there any difference other than that you get SS and Medicare, but do not get a state pension?
John H
11:49 pm on Saturday, October 22, 2011
Let it all go broke. Government shouldn't be involved in any of this. Limited government was the idea behind the Revolution and the Constitutional Convention- a bloated state government and teaching civil service (more teacher's/administrators/staff pre capita than any other nation), a compulsory savings program and compulsory health care system are NOT limited and did not- couldn't not- ever meet the 'general welfare' standard so, for good reason, these programs are destined to ALWAYS FAIL! Let those who surrendered their freedom to big governement- who chose a path of least resistance and refused to work for a real living- suffer for their foolish ways.
Distant Cousin
3:12 pm on Sunday, October 23, 2011
John, I notice none of the rest of those who are ready to say to heck with public employees, other than John, seem to be in favor of ending or significantly cutting social security or Medicare. How many others agree with John that we should let SS and Medicare go broke? Why aren't you ready to be consistent?
John H
8:58 pm on Sunday, October 23, 2011
I'm pretty sure they are being consistent this is just the most glarring, in their face, instance of the kind of governement they don't want and never asked for. Unlike SS and Medicare the pension issue- by nature of its more proximate relationship to- is one on which can actually take direct and efficatious action.
I understand- to some extent- your frustration and outrage: yes the legislators did drop the ball years ago, but those legislators who set you up were YOUR people. The BNA for three decades running has consistently rated RI as one of the top five states controlled by labor unions. Unions are the source of an outright majority of the money raised by the permanent Democratic majority- no other state legistlature can say that, ever. Maybe you regularly attended local meetings, maybe you just cashed a paycheck- either way you chose to hang your star with that economic and political lifestyle. The people the legislature were beholden to were your comrades- the betrayal is theirs alone and yours too by default.
Distant Cousin
9:17 pm on Sunday, October 23, 2011
John, am not in one of the pension systems that is being "reformed," so I will not be hurt by any of this. Nor have I ever been a union member, or voted a straight ticket. I have over the years voted for many Republican candidates. You're consistent; you say let them all go broke, presumably you are including your own Medicare and SS benefits. I think you are wrong, but I can't call you hypocritical and I respect your consistency. I have two daughters who may never collect social security. By your analysis, they should stop paying into the system, and work actively to abolish it. The reason most of those who object to public pensions also say, "don't touch my Medicare or SS" is because they will collect those. It's the usual slaughter other's programs, but don't touch my sacred cow. If any of you who think we should renege on the pension promises we made to public employees are honest enough to admit you would fight ending social security and Medicare, please explain how you reconcile those views.
John H
12:23 am on Wednesday, October 26, 2011
My appologies for the assumption- your tone was remarkably like that of a stakeholder. I am fully paid into SS through 1999 but since then I've leveraged the tax regulations and loopholes in the self employment tax to LEGALLY shield a significant chunk of my earnings from SS under the belief that I will either be means tested out (or downward significantly) or the system won't exist in it's currently reconized form by the time I reach 65. The risk is all mine, no one else is harmed but the IRS and SSS take a dim view of it. Medicare is little different... if only because it's impossible for a doctor to treat somone who is 65+ without going thru medicare (because it's illegal). Here again, I don't expect this program to be functional- at least in its present incarnation- when I reach enrollment age.
I guess my remaining compaint is your apples to apples assumption- rooted in contract law logic- that SS, Medicare and civil pensions are all on an equal footing. I just don't see that: SS and Medicare aren't contractual- you don't get a choice, by and large, to participate in these programs.
So if you step back and dispassionately view pensions and SS/Medicare the comparison is fruit salad: pensions are elective and discretionary Medicare /SS are compulsory. So I don't think it is disengenuous to oppse the pension bailouts while concurrently supporting those federal programs- I just happen to oppose them all.
Distant Cousin
9:14 am on Wednesday, October 26, 2011
John, I will reply more fully later, I enjoy your thoughtful (though mistaken :-) ) posts and hope you reply; but a couple of quick thoughts: You say that SS and Medicare are different from RI’s pension crisis because “pensions are elective and discretionary; Medicare /SS are compulsory.” Au contraire! If one works for the state, there is no choice, no discretion. One is not asked would you like to be in the state pension system? State law requires that every state employee participate in the state pension system. There is no opting out; the money is just taken out of your pay. It is exactly like SS and Medicare. If you worked for the state for 30 years, you paid into the mandatory system on the promise you would get something specific at the end of your career. There is no difference between breaking state pension promises, and breaking SS and Medicare promises. That’s why I believe it is hypocritical to defend one’s own SS benefits while attacking state workers’ pensions.
As to your own participation in SS, I know of no legal way to shelter qualifying earned income from the FICA tax, but I could well be wrong. Understand, I don’t care what you do, but don’t fool yourself into thinking “no one is harmed….” If someone avoids paying the SS taxes, and presumably the matching employer’s share, the SS Trust loses 15% of every “sheltered” dollar. The Trust fund will be weaker, so everyone relying on it is harmed.
John H
11:43 pm on Wednesday, October 26, 2011
I stand corrected regarding the non-elective nature of RI's state pension system. Another bewildering aspect of RI- I seem to recall most local and state workers in Illinois had a participatory component to their pension. Silly me for thinking that RI would just as progressive. As for my SS contributions- for 10 years I've been self employed and my FICA/self employment tax contributions (employer side and FICA deductions) have been as absolutely rock bottom as the law allows. I simply won't be collecting- excuse me, losing- as much as my contemporaries will when SS goes belly up. I haven't lived here as long as you but I 've been here long enough to see that Chafee/Riamondo is going to happen and the courts will let most of it stand when the litgation dust settles. I guess we both think this is a bad thing but for radically different reasons.
Arthur Dolloff
8:03 am on Friday, October 21, 2011
I lost over 40% of my retirement funds in the Wall street theft, who is going to pay me back???
Suck it up...every one is going to get hurt at some time...theirs is coming!!
Tom
1:24 pm on Sunday, October 23, 2011
Exactly Arthur. It's beyond me why I'm going to be held responsible for paying for the retirements of municipal employees when the only retirement I'm going to get is whatever I can afford to put away in a 401K. This madness needs to stop. Let municipal employees figure it out themselves, and NOT on the backs of taxpayers.
Distant Cousin
2:59 pm on Sunday, October 23, 2011
It must be nice to be able to totally disconnect yourself from any action your state and federal legislatures have taken. That way you have no responsibility for anything that your country or state does. Go to war without a good reason, no problem. Secede from the union, no problem. Renege on a promise of health care to the aged if they pay into it while they work, not my problem, the Legislators made that promise not me. Are there any actions of your government that you do bear responsibility for? Better not enter a K with the Government, or work for a private business that does. You and your company built that road? Tough luck, the current taxpayers have decided they can't afford to pay for it. By the way, if the government doesn't have to keep its promises, why should private parties have to keep theirs? Great society you guys will construct.
Tom
3:27 pm on Sunday, October 23, 2011
Nonsense. Why should I pay taxes to guarantee a retirement for municipal employees when I have no such guarantee? As I said before, the only retirement I will get is whatever I can afford to put into a 401K, and it's not much. When our infrastructure is crumbling, but there’s only enough money to pay municipal retirements, something has gone terribly wrong. Towns need to stop spending, cut waste, and stop paying insane benefits and retirements to unionized municipal employees. I’m told that there are Middletown cops that will retire with $80k a year. I’m afraid to ask what the Firefighters make. If true, that’s a crime. A municipal employee makes more in retirement than the mean salary of Middletown residents (approx $48k). A Harbor Master? More insanity. A new beach pavilion at second beach? Madness. Time for tax payers to take back the town, and our money.
Distant Cousin
3:55 pm on Sunday, October 23, 2011
Tom, the offer of a public pension in return for a certain number of years of work was out there when you were choosing jobs. You could have accepted that offer and gotten a pension paid for by the taxpayers. You chose to accept another offer of employment without that promise; maybe you chose another promise instead. Why should someone not get what was promised to them, because you decided not to accept the same offer of employment with a pension. Maybe you now think you made a bad choice. If so, that is not the public employees fault.
Tom
12:36 am on Monday, October 24, 2011
Cousin, that has to be the most absurd argument I have ever heard. However, it’s one of the best Red Herrings I’ve seen to date. So your argument is; all the poor taxpayers who failed to sign up for the municipal employee welfare plan are just out of luck, because they made a bad decision by not joining a union? It’s the taxpayers fault for not getting on the bandwagon, therefore they should be held accountable for paying for the bandwagon.
Cousin, you must be in the union with logic like that. If so, I want to keep you as a “Distant Cousin”
Distant Cousin
9:54 am on Monday, October 24, 2011
Tom, First, I have never been a member of any union, nor am I in any state or local pension plan. I’m also not a teacher or state or local employee. I have no dog in this pension fight. Second. It is neither absurd nor a red herring, but a direct response to your absurd argument that you should not have to pay for the pension promises your government made because you are not going to get a pension. (See above on 10/23 at 3:27 pm: “Why should I pay taxes to guarantee a retirement for municipal employees when I have no such guarantee? As I said before, the only retirement I will get is whatever I can afford to put into a 401K, and it's not much.”) I will never get GI Benefits: no VA mortgage, no VA health care, no veterans’ education benefits. Under your above logic, I should not be required to pay taxes for the promises my government made to our soldiers to induce them to sign up for a war I did not want? We pay for all the decisions our government has made, not just the ones we agree with or directly benefit from.
DownTown
3:08 pm on Sunday, October 23, 2011
Between this pension fiasco and the $9+ million/year Bristol Warren schools are losing over the next 10 years taxes in the area will become difficult to keep up with.
If we move it won't be to another RI town or city, it'll be to another state altogether.
Thankfully it's not yet against RI law to move out of state but I'll wager the unions are working on it.
John H
8:39 pm on Sunday, October 23, 2011
They won't prohibit it but don't be surprised at being served with a claw back lawsuit when you move out. :)
fred floon
9:46 pm on Sunday, October 23, 2011
Good luck selling your house: taxes are so high no one wants to move here, and you can't sell your house (taxes too high/no one wants to live here). So you're stuck...unions don't care if you go or stay, just keep paying those property taxes, and remember, "it's all about the children."
No, we're all the chumps here...Keep smilin', FF
DownTown
10:29 pm on Sunday, October 23, 2011
Rent your home out as a Section 8. That way the Feds will end up paying for the property taxes.
RI Jack
4:15 pm on Sunday, October 23, 2011
http://www.cnbc.com/id/45006325
Yari Jones
10:10 pm on Sunday, October 23, 2011
The unions have literally crippled this state. They only care about themselves and they expect the taxpayer to continue to pay through the nose for their gluttony. It's sickening. Tax payers are fed up with coddling these thieves. We are tired of hearing "we were promised, we were promised" when the taxpayer is promised NOTHING.
Q-L&B
11:19 am on Monday, October 24, 2011
Again union supporters: Private sector employees contribute 7.65% of their gross and employers match the same for upwards to 50 years or so. The annual ss payment is 12k per year and medicare benefit is paltry-must buy supplemental out of pocket insurance to afford to be sick. Myself, my benefit if I work and if I keep the current salary that I am at,until I am 70 (got my first job at age 15) will be eligible 2k per month or 24K a year.So, based on what a public employee pays in and the ridiculously low amount based on the years they have to work to retire, even with interest and all other market factors to maintain the pensions with COLA's promised, it is unrealistic. The employee and matching contributions should be a lot more than 9% range - to sustain numerous years (20-30-40 etc) of payouts. I was always advised to get a state or municipal job because "you would have it made", fortunately, my intuition always told me to stay clear of that job board-thank goodness.
Tom
2:42 pm on Monday, October 24, 2011
Municipal Employees and their master Unions do not see it that way. The only way they see it is; "Shut up and pay more taxes. Don’t you know I need to retire before I'm 50 so I can start a new career?" Just look at State Troopers. They don’t pay a dime in retirement but they are GUARANTEED a very nice retirement after only 20 years. There ought to be a law against that. The really sad part is, the taxpayer has no choice. We are literally held hostage and our money is extorted from us.
Portsmouth Concerned Citizen
5:21 pm on Monday, October 24, 2011
I agree with Tom. Look at our Military. This is the biggest effective union in the country. Except they don't have to fight for pay raises - it's just given to them. Over 9 years in Iraq and look at what they've actually accomplished. I think we should be asking for our money back. For Trillions of dollars, I expect some type of positive tangible result - not millions of people in the middle east region that have grown up to hate us.
Tom
12:46 am on Tuesday, October 25, 2011
Sorry Portsmouth Concerned Citizen,
I'm not with you on that one. While I agree the war was not worth the cost, the Soldiers were asked to accomplish feats well beyond any citizen of this country. Soldiers are not in a Union, nor do they want to be a part of a Union. However, they are the most effective fighting force on the planet. I'm willing to pay for that. Over 4500 Soldiers gave their life for this country. I have no problem giving them a retirement. Although, I do think they should be required to work for 30 years vice 20 years. I have yet to understand why State Troopers (or any Police Dept) only need to work 20 years and they get a full retirement.
Q-L&B
4:22 pm on Monday, October 24, 2011
I agree Tom. The unions sold these unrealistic dreams to their "lambs" in order to get their trust and contributions. It's a shame, but not surprising. When you are told a mistruth often enough it eventually is believed. I liken the unions to brainwashing monsters, who prey on the believing and trusting members who trust them to do the right thing and unfortunately, a lot of people are going to lose what they thought was rightfully theirs. Shameful behavior and I believe some people should be prosecuted-just like the some of these criminals who have stolen investor's monies.
clarence
12:15 am on Tuesday, October 25, 2011
I just read 58 school teachers are getting more than 110% of their base salary on their pension for life. Not counting healthcare , low cost drugs and most of all COLA's. Like they need it. We all are paying for this and they are living in Florida not paying RI taxs. Keep voting in the bums
DownTown
12:48 am on Tuesday, October 25, 2011
It's actually 58% of teachers who are receiving 100% or more of there pay in retirement.
http://news.providencejournal.com/breaking-news/2011/10/raimondo-about.html
M. P.
7:26 am on Tuesday, October 25, 2011
I don't think any member of the military or the police force should be allowed to collect retirement benefits until they reach retirement age. You want your pension... fine, but you wait until you reach your late 60s just like everyone else!
John Garagliano
7:57 am on Wednesday, October 26, 2011
This whole business of "promises" to the public sector and them paying into their pensions. Wow! They pay 8.5 or 9 or whatever % and get 60 - 80% back in pension. Plus many have grandfathered in for lifetime health care. Really?! They are out of touch with reality, for sure. I took my current job of 13 years with "promises" of a pension, affordable health care. Guess what! Pensions frozen, not much there. High Deductible Health Care - ouch! Pray not to get sick, but those prescription costs are "out of sight!" Pay raises company-wide are typically 1 - 2% if any at all. Year and a half ago we all had to take a 10% pay cut across-the-board. I put 13% of my pay into a 401K and when I retire I will be getting about 10% of my current pay back annually. And, of course, my taxes keep going up both locally and statewide to help cover the increasing costs of THEIR health care and pensions. To the public workers that state that they too are taxpayers, I understand, but a lot of that tax is circling around and coming back to you. BTW, my situation is fairly typical. I do not mean to "bash" public employees, just ask that they look around to get a "feel" of what the real world is like, out of your sheltered jobs.