The writer keeps saying this over and over in the comments section: “characterizing the contribution to the state pension fund as some additional ‘gift’ is false.”
I have yet to see anyone besides him refer to the non-salary compensation as a gift.
This guy is just trying to find an angle to push his position; he’s not looking at the facts and coming to a conclusion, but trying to make facts support his already-arrived at conclusion.
Other than his own article, I have NEVER seen these benefits called a ‘gift’ as he keeps saying.
Ungar keeps saying that the matching state contribution to both the defined and the optional retirement plans is money that would be paid as salary if the state didn’t do it that way, so the employees are paying 100% anyways. Wait a second. If the state decided NOT to match contributions, would that be a cut in pay? Of course not. It might be a cut in benefits, but it’s not a cut in pay. Just ask the IRS what they tax as income. No, wait...