Looks like Matts pension plan is on hold...

[talisman]

Hmmm, I guess I misread this.....



So I'm the one that need to go read?



GFY coward.

Don't cry for me, Argentina.

[Slowhand]

It will have to be next week. I'm working some horrendous hours this week.

Of course, my OT is figured into city retirement, but I don't deserve it.


What a LOT of you don't realize is that I've paid almost $140k into the city's retirement system. I could have invested that.

It takes 5 years to be vested, and one of the things being considered is changing that to 10 years. That means if anyone was to quit with under 10 years in, they would have paid the system and not gotten one cent of interest.

You could have invested that, but could you have beat a guaranteed 8.5% return over the past 10 years? Methinks not. Your fund, run by professionals, mustered a whopping 5.5%.

[Slowhand]

So I'm the one that need to go read?

I can see how that was misinterpreted, but "they shouldn't have such a pension" (in reference to a type of pension) doesn't mean "they shouldn't have pensions."

[Slowhand]

I still don't understand what these "other factors" are that the city didn't consider that led to a $700mm shortfall (lol)

[03trubluGT]

Don't cry for me, Argentina.

Typical Eric.


You post a quick jab thinking you're witty and it ends up like egg on your face so you try to make another witty remark.

Deflect and maybe no one will notice that you look like a dumb ass. Is that your plan?

[talisman]

I still don't understand what these "other factors" are that the city didn't consider that led to a $700mm shortfall (lol)

Lawsuits from dogs getting shot.

[03trubluGT]

I can see how that was misinterpreted, but "they shouldn't have such a pension" (in reference to a type of pension) doesn't mean "they shouldn't have pensions."

Yea, nothing here is misinterpreted or taken out of context, but it was pretty clear to me.

I still don't understand what these "other factors" are that the city didn't consider that led to a $700mm shortfall (lol)

Like I said, I'm not in the know, I try to leave that shit to people who have it figured out. But I will get the skinny and post later. I don't have access to the resources right now, and we are going on a fishing charter to Galveston later this evening. I might get an answer Friday.

[talisman]

Typical Eric.


You post a quick jab thinking you're witty and it ends up like egg on your face so you try to make another witty remark.

Deflect and maybe no one will notice that you look like a dumb ass. Is that your plan?

"GFY Coward" was such a devastating rebuttal that I've got egg on my face? This is really what you're saying here? lmao

[Slowhand]

Yea, nothing here is misinterpreted or taken out of context, but it was pretty clear to me.

That wasn't my intended implication at any point, but you've decided that you're right so I don't see your interpretation changing.

Regardless, it's still an ad hominem approach to the argument; my personal feelings on whether government employees should have pensions or not has no bearing on the economic reality facing the city.

[Forever_frost]

Overtime should never be factored into a pension. It leaves too much room to pad your pay for the rest of your life. I'm of the idea of not offering benefits beyond "Hey you get hurt, you're covered". Take the money that you would have 'paid into your retirement' and invest it. Again, tax payers are getting tired of funding pensions and benefits that exceed what they earn

[Slowhand]

Overtime should never be factored into a pension. It leaves too much room to pad your pay for the rest of your life. I'm of the idea of not offering benefits beyond "Hey you get hurt, you're covered". Take the money that you would have 'paid into your retirement' and invest it. Again, tax payers are getting tired of funding pensions and benefits that exceed what they earn

What you pay in should be the only thing that's factored in. The unions and the city can come to a sustainable, set, matching employer contribution to the plan, and then employees can contribute what they want. Then, when it comes time to retire, you get (your contributions + employer contributions)*actual return over the course of your employment. That's a grossly simplified model, but the principle is there, essentially.

[Slowhand]

"GFY Coward" was such a devastating rebuttal that I've got egg on my face? This is really what you're saying here? lmao

My e-respect for you has really plummeted because of your posts in this thread. Shame on you.

[talisman]

My e-respect for you has really plummeted because of your posts in this thread. Shame on you.

[sc281]

I say we do this:

Wait ten years til matt is set to retire. If the pension fund hasnt gone bankrupt by then.. Good for him. If it has, then tough cookies.

Judging by their financial disclosures, Id start saving my pennies matt.

[The King]

Defined benefit plans are a free ride for beneficiaries. They get a guaranteed benefit, regardless of what the economic environment is like. Meanwhile, the entity they work for is left on the hook for the difference. That's all well and good when you're talking about a private entity that agreed to fund the pension, but when taxpayers on are the hook it's a different story.

When private entities agreed to pensions they can no longer sustain, the taxpayers are often still on the hook courtesy of the federal pension guaranty program.