On Wisconsin! (Read 2075 times)

Yes, in the country where he was born, men are not allowed to wear shorts.

Hehe.  Is true.  We wear lots of skirts in Hawai'i.

you think "3 on 3" guy is really gonna make that steal?

you think "3 on 3" guy is really gonna make that steal?

Four Secret Service snipers don't think he will.

did mr commodore punch him, too?

Oh we're talking hoops.

That reminds me of the time the Celtics traded Kendrick Perkins for a Serbian dude.

Oh we're talking hoops.

 

That reminds me of the time the Celtics traded Kendrick Perkins for a Serbian dude.

Can't believe you still remember that.

To bring it back for a second, this guy says that Walker's pension proposal doesn't help taxpayers a bit. All of public workers' total compensation package does come from taxpayers, but taxpayer burden won't change with Walker's changes. It's the take-home/cash portion of workers' compensations packages that will change. As in, same amount of total money from taxpayers, but workers take home less because they defer more to their pensions.

 

I assume this works because the deferred money is invested and the state can use the return on investment to cushion the budget shortfall. But yeah. Interesting stuff. And almost silly stuff.

The gentleman is correct, but, like the media he is critical of, he is only telling part of the story.  Yes, the state's contribution to an employee's pension fund is part of their compensation.  (Here in Missouri we receive an annual benefit statement which itemizes our compensation.  It breaks down the amount we are paid directly in wages and the amount that is paid on our behalf into the pension fund.  Black and white.)

Typically, states do not put 100% of that money into the pension fund; where it would pay administrative cost, be invested, grow, and be available to pay future pensions.  Only a percentage is paid into the fund with the assumption that the earnings off the investments will cover the funds not deposited.  Many states for years have underfunded their pension funds and used the money to cover other budget items (think social security "trust fund" on the federal level.)  When times were good and the investments were growing gang-busters, some states saw an chance to reduce the contribution and spend those funds elsewhere.

In recent years, the growth has not been there.  Now, states must either (1) contribute more to the pension funds, taking away from other programs they have "borrowed" the money from state employees to pay for, or (2) continue to underfund the pension fund.

Problem is, these are fixed-benefit plans.  When the employee retires they are due $X.XX.  If the money is not in the pension fund to pay out, the difference has to be made up by the taxpayer.

So, (1) for Walker's plan to have any benefit to the taxpayer, the additional state employee wages paid for their pension would need to go into the plan, not to fund other state services, (2) the taxpayer liability / burden may not change so much short-term, but could -- and almost certainly will --benefit long-term, (3) yes, workers take-home pay would be reduced.  You're close on your observation; however, the state doesn't pad its budget with the return on investment, but rather on the amount contributed to the plan to begin with.  Notwithstanding, a good return on investment makes it easier for the pols to make the argument to raid the state employees pension fund to pay for their pet projects.

Private-sector, Public-sector, Unions aside, irresponsible and incompetent pols put these problems on steroids.

Good summary, MoBram.

In recent years, the growth has not been there. 

And what's been the catalyst for the market tanking in the last couple years?

(Hint: it ain't teachers, unions..or even politicians.)