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.
fuck New Jersey
It's the law.
Diogenes of Sinope: "It is not that I am mad, it is only that my head is different from yours."
Arnold Judas Rimmer, BSC, SSC: "Better dead than smeg."
Arnold Judas Rimmer, BSC, SSC: "Better dead than smeg."
New Jersey has debt of $170billion. It has to restructure this crap.TPRJones wrote: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.
It's not me, it's someone else.
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.
Edited By TPRJones on 1456892121
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.
Edited By TPRJones on 1456892121
"ATTENTION: Customers browsing porn must hold magazines with both hands at all times!"
The point is to avoid bankruptcy. Why drive off a cliff when you can see it coming?TPRJones wrote: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.
I see nothing like a 70% cut happening here.
It's not me, it's someone else.
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.
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.
"ATTENTION: Customers browsing porn must hold magazines with both hands at all times!"
If they'd just die faster that'll save the state a lot of money.
Isn't that what Obamacare is for?
“Activism is a way for useless people to feel important, even if the consequences of their activism are counterproductive for those they claim to be helping and damaging to the fabric of society as a whole.” - Dr Thomas Sowell
No, you're looking at yearly contributions to the pension fund. Not the amount of money in the fund.TPRJones wrote: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.
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.
It's not me, it's someone else.
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.
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.
"ATTENTION: Customers browsing porn must hold magazines with both hands at all times!"