Posted on 07/26/2002 12:02:52 PM PDT by randita
Under a law enacted last year, for example, a local government worker with 30 years' experience who retired at age 60 would receive a pension benefit equal to 90 percent of his highest salary. Previously, that same worker would have received only 60 percent of his highest salary.
No further comment needed.
Under a law enacted last year, for example, a local government worker with 30 years' experience who retired at age 60 would receive a pension benefit equal to 90 percent of his highest salary.
90 % ???? I did 28 years for IBM, forced out before I could make 30 and only get about 40 % of the last 5 years average with some damn formula!
calgov2002:
calgov2002: for old calgov2002 articles. calgov2002: for new calgov2002 articles. Other Bump Lists at: Free Republic Bump List Register |
So much for saving for a rainy day, just give it all to the unions NOW, and tax people more later.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/722892/posts
IN VERY SMALL PART to comply with rules-
NEWS ANALYSIS
Nest Eggs Cushioned From Market's Drop
Retirement: Diversified investments have kept pensions from falling as far as key stock indexes.
By JAMES FLANIGAN Times Staff Writer Story in LA Times
"In addition, pension funds typically invest with a long-term horizon. At the California Public Employees' Retirement System, the nation's largest public pension plan, investments are made on a 10-year perspective in accordance with strict ratios for allocating assets among bonds, stocks and real estate.
CalPERS is shifting more of its funds into stocks as part of a normal process to take profits and move money out of investments that have performed well (bonds) into those that have lagged (stocks). During the height of the stock boom, it shifted money from stocks into bonds.
These days "we are buying equities," said Mark Anson, CalPERS' chief investment officer. "We are selling our gains in fixed-income securities and buying $200 million to $300 million in equities with every 50 point drop in the S&P 500," Anson said. That index has fallen almost 400 points in the last year.
CalPERS' mammoth investment portfolio has lost only about 5% in the last year, going from $156 billion to about $149 billion at present, because gains in bonds and real estate reduced the overall losses.
How on earth was that sustainable? At age 60, you have a life expectancy of over 20 more years, and it's been increasing every year.
As the Boomers retire, that will increase the burden. Unbelievable.
Now the state wants more taxes, and so does my county.. they want to raise property taxes to pay for hospitals that help illegals who own no property and pay no taxes. Great freakin' system we got here in California.
To not have a Constitutional Amendment is to invite these disasters again in the future, assuming we can get out of this one with our pants on.
We had just such a proposition (the adjust for inflation/population part, anyway) in Proposition 4, which passed in 1979. Following is the summary (from California Ballot Propositions Database).
LIMITATION OF GOVERNMENT APPROPRIATIONS. INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.
Establishes and defines annual appropriation limits on state and local governmental entities based on annual appropriations for prior fiscal year. Requires adjustments for changes in cost of living, population and other specified factors. Appropriation limits may be established or temporarily changed by electorate. Requires revenues received in excess of appropriations permitted by this measure to be returned by revision of tax rates or fee schedules within two fiscal years next following year excess created. With exceptions, provides for reimbursement of local governments for new programs or higher level of services mandated by state. Financial impact: Indeterminable. Financial impact of this measure will depend upon future actions of state and local governments with regard to appropriations that are not subject to the limitations of this measure.
Unfortunately, it hasn't acted as much of a brake on state spending. Here's what a Claremont Institute Report, California's Fiscal Condition (Google cache: the original seems to be gone from the Claremont site) said about Prop 4's limits:
A third element in the taxpayer's triad of defense was a constitutional provision of more recent origin. In 1979, voters approved Proposition 4, better known as the Gann Spending Limit, which placed a flexible restraint on the total amount of funds the government could spend without voter approval. The limit was hardly draconian (it expanded with population and inflation), and from 1979 to 1990 allowed state general fund spending to increase from $12.6 billion to $31.2 billion in current dollars.In 1988 and 1990, Propositions 98 and 111 changed the formula for calculating Gann, sending the spending limit into the upper stratosphere of government finance, where it still orbits unobtrusively today. For example, Proposition 111, which the Legislature titled a "Transportation Improvement and Spending Limitation Act," increased the spending ceiling by $53.3 billion over a decade for purposes unrelated to transportation.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.