Comments on: Riordan drops L.A. pension reform

By: Tough Love

Tough Love — Wed, 05 Dec 2012 01:48:05 +0000

Skippy, Cat got your tongue ?

So how much of that stolen Taxpayer wealth can we attribute to your retroactively increased pension ?

**********************

When the inevitable sh** hits the fan, these retroactive increases should be at the top of the list for elimination.

By: Tough Love

Tough Love — Tue, 04 Dec 2012 14:45:54 +0000

Skippy, Improved yes …. but ONLY applicable to FUTURE service. If (and that’s a big if) there was justification to raise the formula factor from 2% to 3% per year of service and an employee already had 10 years of service, those 10 years should have remained at 2%, with only FUTURE years at 3%.

Here’s an extreme, but accurate example of why the retroactive change as applied was indeed a theft of Taxpayers wealth …..

Suppose a police officer was hired in 1972 at age 25. This officer had 29 years of service at the time SB400 was passed in 2001. If he retired after 30 years at age 55 in 2002 (with say $100K pensionable compensation), his pension (pre-SB400 increase) would have been 2% x 30 years x $100,000 = $60K annually (COLA adjusted), with a lump sum value of just about $1.2 Million.

The the SB400 increase from 2% to 3% as retroactively applied to his pension is 50% greater, with a lump sum value of just about $1.8 Million.

What would have been fair (again, IF and ONLY IF the factor increase from 2% to 3% was justifiable) would have been a pension calculated with 29 years at 2% and 1 year (the year post SB400 implementation) at 3%. This would have increased the lump sum value of his pension by only $20K instead of the $600K via the RETROACTIVE application of the 3% in SB400 to PAST years of service.

This officer worked one more year at his regular job. What service did he provide for that $600,000 ?

Nothing ….. it was, as I previously stated, simply a theft of Taxpayer wealth … concocted by your Union, CalPERS, and accommodating (bought and paid for) politicians.

By: Skippingdog

Skippingdog — Tue, 04 Dec 2012 02:44:31 +0000

So in your world a pension benefit can never be improved once an individual begins work? Is that what you’re really trying to sell, TL?

By: Tough Love

Tough Love — Tue, 04 Dec 2012 02:16:16 +0000

Skippy, Baloney, promotions and raises apply to FUTURE service at least “theoretically” because you’re more knowledgeable and skilled over time. Getting an increase in the pension factor applied to PAST years is nothing but a theft of Taxpayer wealth concocted by your Union, CalPERS, and accommodating (bought and paid for) politicians.

*********************
By the way, I said “theoretically” above, because we both know that in the Public Sector world of Union contracts, getting a promotion/raise rarely requires merit, just that you’re still breathing.

By: Skippingdog

Skippingdog — Tue, 04 Dec 2012 02:06:37 +0000

Precisely the same services I provided when I received pay increases, promotions, and other benefit increases over the course of my public service career. All of those were computed into the final compensation I received for purposes of my retirement, so they’re no different from an increase in my pension benefit that was provided as increased compensation as well.

By: Tough Love

Tough Love — Tue, 04 Dec 2012 00:46:42 +0000

Quoting Skippy …”Pensions are nothing more than deferred compensation for a service already rendered.”

So tell us Skippy, EXACTLY what “service” did you provide for that portion of your pension granted RETROACTIVELY via SB400.

Perhaps you have a time machine and went back in time to those years and worked more hours ? Was that it ?

By: Tough Love

Tough Love — Mon, 03 Dec 2012 20:25:54 +0000

Cuing into the FINAL court decision … as to whether CalPERS can be stiffed w/o consequence to the stiffing city ….. will be watched (by the financial, and Public Sector employee communities) with the devotion of watching a presidential runoff, the last 2 minutes of a tied Superbowl, or that head-to-head sprint to the NYC marathon’s Central Park finish line 15 or so years ago).

I’m hoping for the stiffing of CalPERS and the hair-cutting the pensions …. because, with the Union/politician collusion and self-interest that generated these grossly excessive pensions, THAT’s what is necessary, appropriate, and fair to the Taxpayers.

By: Skippingdog

Skippingdog — Mon, 03 Dec 2012 19:05:09 +0000

Math – Pensions are nothing more than deferred compensation for a service already rendered. That’s why they are held in trust for the employee.

By: Skippingdog

Skippingdog — Mon, 03 Dec 2012 19:02:55 +0000

Consider this, RTN: If your argument held water why has it not been used in the nearly 80 year history of Chapter 9 law? The bankruptcy lawyers who developed the legislation and have argued it before every court in our nation were and are very smart people.

What are the chances that you’ve suddenly stumbled onto a previously unconsidered but compelling legal theory? My guess is they’re about nil.

By: Skippingdog

Skippingdog — Mon, 03 Dec 2012 18:59:45 +0000

You might also want to bone up on your Equal Protection argument. So long as there is a “rational basis” for what you might perceive as discriminatory treatment, the Supreme Court has long held that there may be functional differences that remain legal.

The basic test is similar outcomes for similarly situated individuals. Therefore, the comparison would not be between public and private employees, but between private/private or public/public entities.

Good luck anyway. The more you know, the more you grow.