I'd be showing up to the Capitol with pitchforks
https://transparentcalifornia.com/
Run a few searches - 150-200k pensions are the norm with someone that has 30 years of service. Unbelievable.
I'd be showing up to the Capitol with pitchforks
https://transparentcalifornia.com/
Run a few searches - 150-200k pensions are the norm with someone that has 30 years of service. Unbelievable.
Your Illinois pensions aren't any better.
hypocrisy spotter wrote:
Your Illinois pensions aren't any better.
I'm upset about Illinois pensions too, but CA takes it to another level.
Every state should have public employee pensions.
Not too dissimilar to the UK. Our public sector workers (civil servants) have amazing pensions. New starters don’t have the same perks, but overall the pensions are a massive drain on public finances.
We have one employee in a public sector pension (historic anomaly), he pays in 9%, we pay in 32%! Yes, we pay 32% of his annual salary into a public sector pension scheme. Absolutely disgusting! And justified as it’s inherited!
The new created state scheme is employee 3%, employer 6%, by comparison.
Heres a better idea kiddo..get a job there.
Quit yer whining.
Tommy2Nuttz wrote:
Heres a better idea kiddo..get a job there.
Quit yer whining.
Oh sure, I'll just show up in California and get a plum gov't job with no connections.
Great idea champ.
Thought you were going to show up with a pitchfork?
Be committed chump.
hypocrisy spotter wrote:
Your Illinois pensions aren't any better.
Massachusetts much worse, Plus $150k payouts for unused vacation and sickdays.
State cops forced out but still get $250k annual pensions.
If workers getting pensions causes you to have your pitch fork out, I can only imagine your reaction when Trump gave farmers welfare in return for no work.
As someone who will one day receive a CA pension I half agree with you.
First the pension is calculated 2% per year of the three year average of your highest salary (not including overtime). If you hit 30 years you bump to 2.2%.
So working 30 years you would get 66% of your salary. I don’t think “most” are taking home 300k per year to get the numbers you state but some are. I do agree there should be a cap.
Remember we will not get social security and we are paying nearly 9% annually into our pension. The ones making out are the superintendents and fire & police chiefs that retire with 250-500k salaries.
One thing that should be looked at is school boards. Many offer elected board members health benefits not just for their term but for life. That should be changed!
Ciro wrote:
If workers getting pensions causes you to have your pitch fork out, I can only imagine your reaction when Trump gave farmers welfare in return for no work.
Link to farmers receiving 300k in straight cash every year for life for doing absolutely nothing?
Well, you know what that means, don't you?
I want to serve is equivalent to: I want to leech off the system
... but stated from an assumed higher moral ground
At the peak of the Great Recession, there were several hundred Californian public servants being compensated in excess of $200K/yr (many LA cops and firemen on that list). Yet the furor was over College Professors, many of whom were earning $40-80K/yr ($5K/course taught per semester).
I also remember the coach of a major college program who was scrutinized at the time over his pay which was on par with some of these pensions. I do not remember the program name but I recall that the coach motivated his pay by the number of paying spectators his program brings in for its home games.
Somehow, public employee unions always seem to be able to arrive at the "under-compensated" conclusion.
correction: coach of a major college Basketball program
The people receiving these large pensions made decisions on where to work throughout their lifetimes based partly on the pension agreements that were in place. They didn't hold a gun to anyone's head to get them.
I doubt any of these agreements were done in secret, so Californians might be upset but they should be upset at themselves for allowing them in the first place. They shouldn't be upset at the people receiving them.
We each have a civic responsibility to be involved. If we choose to blindly trust others, our anger should be directed at ourselves when things don't work out as expected.
I want to serve is equivalent to: I want to leech off the system
... but stated from an assumed higher moral ground
+1
Even worse than the abuse of the "charity" and/or "non-profit" monikers.
Inevitably all of these entities are going to be providing fewer services to future generations in order to cover their obligations to their retirees. Not surprisingly, California also has the third highest student : teacher ratio among the states.
Why can't people fund their own pensions? Why do they need a theft/Ponzi scheme on their behalf? Even worse that its the "public servants" who generate this wealth abscondment.
The pensions are high because the salary for many of the jobs is way less than you would get paid in the public sector.
Interesting tidbits on California:
1st - 3rd highest student : teacher ratio (23.4, almost 50% higher than the national average of 16)
1st highest average state income tax rate (13.3%)
8th highest average sales tax rate
AA- bond rating (tied for 4th worst among the 50 states, only New Jersey, Illinois, and Kentucky rate worse)
6th highest per capita expenditure on state pensions
So they tax their residents like hell, and 54.5% of their general fund goes toward education and yet they have one of the highest Student to teacher ratios in the county. That boggles the mind. Anyone want to chime in as to why that is? Are schools spending a greater ratio of their revenue on facilities and real estate than the national average due to seismic / building codes and inflated electrical costs and are left with less for their teachers?