|
Forum: Internet Links Topic: fuck New Jersey started by: Malcolm Posted by Malcolm on Mar. 01 2016,11:47
< It's the law >.QUOTE The former Republican presidential candidate cut state pensions in 2014 as part of a reform bill designed to address budget problems in the state. A group of public-sector unions, however, were quick to file a lawsuit to stop the reforms. They argued the cuts violated a contractual agreement the state had to fund retirement. The highest court declined to hear the case after a nearly two-year legal fight.
Posted by TheCatt on Mar. 01 2016,12:30
No way, fuck the union, Go Jersey.
Posted by Malcolm on Mar. 01 2016,12:41
(TheCatt @ Mar. 01 2016,14:30) QUOTE No way, fuck the union, Go Jersey. There's ample room to fuck them both. Posted by TPRJones on Mar. 01 2016,19:46
Much as I hate unions, the state shouldn't be able to retroactively screw over employees by ducking out of signed contracts. Shouldn't have signed those contracts in the first place, sure, but it's too late now.
Posted by TheCatt on Mar. 01 2016,20:05
(TPRJones @ Mar. 01 2016,22:46) QUOTE Much as I hate unions, the state shouldn't be able to retroactively screw over employees by ducking out of signed contracts. Shouldn't have signed those contracts in the first place, sure, but it's too late now. New Jersey has debt of $170billion. It has to restructure this crap. Posted by TPRJones on Mar. 01 2016,20:14
Sure. But until they declare bankruptcy and go through the mess that entails they shouldn't be able to break contracts to past employees. There's many other portions of that debt that should become bad debt before they get down to this one.When you're 70 and retired and alone living off your pension what would you do if they cut it by 70%? Keep in mind that past state employees don't qualify for social security, either. Posted by TheCatt on Mar. 02 2016,06:00
(TPRJones @ Mar. 01 2016,23:14) QUOTE Sure. But until they declare bankruptcy and go through the mess that entails they shouldn't be able to break contracts to past employees. There's many other portions of that debt that should become bad debt before they get down to this one. When you're 70 and retired and alone living off your pension what would you do if they cut it by 70%? Keep in mind that past state employees don't qualify for social security, either. The point is to avoid bankruptcy. Why drive off a cliff when you can see it coming? I see nothing like a 70% cut happening here. Posted by TPRJones on Mar. 02 2016,08:23
From the article:Original amount owed to retired old people: $2.25 billion New amount that will be paid to retired old people: $681 million Cut in benefits payments implied: 70% But, yeah, it's just retired old people. If they'd just die faster that'll save the state a lot of money. Posted by Leisher on Mar. 02 2016,08:39
QUOTE If they'd just die faster that'll save the state a lot of money. Isn't that what Obamacare is for? Posted by TheCatt on Mar. 02 2016,08:46
(TPRJones @ Mar. 02 2016,11:23) QUOTE From the article: Original amount owed to retired old people: $2.25 billion New amount that will be paid to retired old people: $681 million Cut in benefits payments implied: 70% But, yeah, it's just retired old people. If they'd just die faster that'll save the state a lot of money. No, you're looking at yearly contributions to the pension fund. Not the amount of money in the fund. The pension fund is already at $72 billion dollars. The cut from 2.25 to 0.681 bn is 1.569 bn, which is a 2.18% cut in the total amount of the pension fund. Posted by TPRJones on Mar. 02 2016,08:58
Oh. The article is badly written, because it clearly states they were cutting actual pension benefits by 70%. But upon this I read < the actual order > and it seems you are correct, it's just the current deposits for active employees that were cut. In fact the future benefits aren't even being cut, they're just not putting in the money needed to pay for those future benefits.I stand corrected. Although making state employees "help fund their personal retirement plan" is a bit misleadingly simplified just because as state employees they are removed from the social security system specifically because the state is supposed to be taking care of their pensions. If that second part is no longer going to be true perhaps the first part should also be reexamined. |