Eureka #10 In Pensions
The Times Standard reports the City of Eureka ranks tenth of cities across the state in pension costs. That means over 11% of the city's revenue will go to paying pension obligations. San Rafael comes in #1 with over 17% of it's revenues going to pensions.
Wow! I'd always wondered about that and broached the subject here before. I can't believe they beat me to the punch with that information. I guess I'll have to satisfy myself with having first raised the issue.
posted by Fred Mangels @ 9:12 AM
7 comments
7 Comments:
Quite the ego you've amassed there Fred...
Fred, you have my permission and encouragement to ignore anyone who posts anonymously.
Ok. Thanks.
But he's kinda right. It does stroke the ego when my hard- hitting commentary is sought after, not only from local officials, but people across the nation. It really is hard to be humble!
I'm glad there are still career jobs with pensions. Their decline mirrors the decline of America.
We should all work for slave wages, right? That way, when our hourly rate is less than China's or Singapore's or Guam's hourly rate, all those jobs will come back over to the United States. Woo hoo! Mission accomplished?
God forbit we should have tariffs to level the playing field, pushing these countries to treat their citizens with a modicum of human decency.
These pensions didn't just pop out of the air today or yesterday. They were promise to people as part of their compensation packages decades ago. Eureka and every other participating entity knew these were coming and shouldn't be surprised by any of this.
I'll disagree, at least in part. What blew that bank was the dotcom boom and resulting big revenues back around '99 and 2000. That's when the legislature figured they had so much money they could easily afford to give public safety workers their 90% after 30 years retirement. Counties and cities soon followed suit.
What that means, btw, is if a cop or firefighter puts in 30 years, they get 90% of their pay as pension (health care, too, I believe). That means the texpayers are still responsible for most of his pension after he's retired. If the investments work out, then we're fine. When they don't, as they haven't in the past, then there's huge shortfalls the tax payers are responsible for.
We might still have pension shortfalls, but it wouldn't have been as bad had they not been so generous back in 2000.
I believe that under the "old" system Eureka police and fire could retire, at 90% max, but without paid medical. Compensation was based on an average of the last 36 months of salary. Other city employees received 2.7% instead of 3%. However, their retirement was based on their last 12 months of salary and compensation could reach 103%, based on years worked. No paid medical. Please feel free to fact check this.
Post a Comment
<< Home