Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Public Employee Pensions: Does the Worst Case Provide the Best Guidance for the Future?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » General Discussion Donate to DU
 
Hannah Bell Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-03-11 02:27 PM
Original message
Public Employee Pensions: Does the Worst Case Provide the Best Guidance for the Future?
How many state or local jurisdictions have lost 40 percent of their population in the last four decades and have their top elected officials convicted of corruption?

While this may fit the bill in some places, it is not typical for the country as a whole. Populations are continuing to rise in most areas and the number of elected officials who are convicted for corruption is still a relatively small minority.

This might lead one to wonder why both the New York Times and Wall Street Journal were so anxious to tell readers that the city of Prichard, Alabama foretells the future for their public employee pension plans. The city has stopped making pension payments to 40 retired workers who have earned them.

It is worth noting that the pension obligations do not appear to be quite the crushing burdens implied in these articles. The NYT reports that the average pension is $12,000 a year.

This means that if the full payment were made out of current tax revenue it would imply a tax of approximately $18 per capita on the town's 27,000 residents. This is less than 0.14 of the city's per capita income.

http://www.cepr.net/index.php/beat-the-press/


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
county worker Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-03-11 04:34 PM
Response to Original message
1. The pension were most likely defined benefit plans that the employees and employers
paid into. The money is invested and the retirement benefits are paid out of the profits of the investments. When the return on investment is not enough the amount put in must increase also.

The story and what I have heard that governments must raise taxes to pay the retiree benefits does not make sense to me. They may have to put more into the retirement accounts to earn enough returns for future benefits but not for current retirees' benefits.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
salin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-03-11 04:37 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. many municipalities (and states) underfunded - based on assuming the rosiest of
market predictions - per the rate at which growth would occur. Became a favorite 'balancing the budget' trick somewhere in the mid eighties.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Dec 26th 2024, 03:51 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » General Discussion Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC