[BobNJ1960]

Originally Posted by MrGompers

This is way off. The link I provided with the retirement tiers actually outlines the benefits.

This link provides far more details regarding retirement benefits for tier I.Which is the sweetest tier with the sweetest benefits. Its no where close to "40% top 5 years pay for life" I will let you analyze the formulas yourself.

Connecticut State Employees Retirement System Tier I Summary Plan TYPES OF RETIREMENT

Also, if a person worked their entire career for Govt their SS benefits will be reduced and in some cases completed eliminated (this is known as the Govt pension offset)

This type of thinking and misinformation is the biggest reason why Govt employees need unions.

In the end you and others do not have to worry though, since the Govt gravy train stopped in 2011.

The state of CT will not see significant savings though until all the tier I employees die off. This should start around 2030.

Tier 3 1.333333% per year * 30 years = 40%

[MrGompers]

Originally Posted by Robert137

Actually it is very generous, especially for early retirement. Just looking at your link, an employee with 25 years of service can retire at age 55 with a lifetime annual benefit equal to 50% of their average salary, starting immediately, that is, unreduced for early retirement, plus whatever Social Security they are entitled to. There are slight reductions in this for other age/service combinations. These early retirement benefits exceed those found in private defined benefit plans. Starting an unreduced benefit early has way more value than having to wait until age 65, about 8% per year.

Required state contributions won't decrease as these pensioners die--all that is taken into account in the mortality assumptions and "leveled out". If you look at any projections of required contributions, they generally increase over the years.

That's because as the years pass more people enter retirement at Tier I. Given enough time the contributions to support Tier I will be zero as they all die off.

Then we are on to the next retirement tier, and since their benefits are reduced in comparison to Tier I the contributions will be lower.

The actuaries have all this figured out already though since some of the Tier I employees will actually NOT make retirement since they will die too early and have no surviving spouse. The same can be said about SS benefits too.

Not sure why you think contributions would not increase.

[MrGompers]

Originally Posted by BobNJ1960

Tier 3 1.333333% per year * 30 years = 40%

You are looking at the wrong chart, but I'm not going to explain it to you. You can believe what you want.

[JayCT]

Originally Posted by MrGompers

You are looking at the wrong chart, but I'm not going to explain it to you. You can believe what you want.

Don't bother. I can't imagine there are that many Tier 1 employees left to retire. And those that are left, are likely just going to pass on while working or soon after retiring but again as you note they take that into account. Jay

[BobNJ1960]

Originally Posted by JayCT

Don't bother. I can't imagine there are that many Tier 1 employees left to retire. And those that are left, are likely just going to pass on while working or soon after retiring but again as you note they take that into account. Jay

Tier 1 = 2% year= 60% after 30 years.

1.333% is the Tier 3 rate.

[MrGompers]

Originally Posted by JayCT

Don't bother. I can't imagine there are that many Tier 1 employees left to retire. And those that are left, are likely just going to pass on while working or soon after retiring but again as you note they take that into account. Jay

What's extra funny is I have NOT even accounted for survivors benefits. Its very likely people who worked during the tier I era had the traditional stay at home wife who DIDN'T work. That page doesn't explain the survivor benefits, but to my knowledge the penalty is at least 10% reduction of benefits for life. It may be as high as 20%, but its been years since I've met someone in this situation.

While I know its anecdotal my own grandmother never actually worked a full time job in her life. After her kids grew up and left the house she only worked part time because she was bored. My grandfather retired around 1983, although he didn't work for the Govt.

[MrGompers]

Originally Posted by BobNJ1960

Tier 1 = 2% year= 60% after 30 years.

1.333% is the Tier 3 rate.

This is getting tiring, but the info is right in front of you. The page even gives a "theoretical maximum" and a "theoretical minimum" for all employees in Tier I who have attained at least 25 years of service. Its not 60%.

Additionally, the Tiers have sub tiers. There is actually a Tier Ia Tier Ib and Tier Ic. Once again its noted on that page.
Tier 1a is the sweetest tier with the sweetest benefits and I can't imagine many people are still in this tier.

Despite what you believe or don't believe the real tragedy in this situation is the state's taxpayers have to shore up the retirement fund(s) of all tiers in today's money. No doubt it would have been cheaper to pay into those funds when they were due.

The future value of money is always greater than 1

[JayCT]

Originally Posted by MrGompers

This is getting tiring, but the info is right in front of you. The page even gives a "theoretical maximum" and a "theoretical minimum" for all employees in Tier I who have attained at least 25 years of service. Its not 60%.

Additionally, the Tiers have sub tiers. There is actually a Tier Ia Tier Ib and Tier Ic. Once again its noted on that page.
Tier 1a is the sweetest tier with the sweetest benefits and I can't imagine many people are still in this tier.

Despite what you believe or don't believe the real tragedy in this situation is the state's taxpayers have to shore up the retirement fund(s) of all tiers in today's money. No doubt it would have been cheaper to pay into those funds when they were due.

The future value of money is always greater than 1

People forget the reason that those benefits are so good to begin with. Pay for government workers was not good so the state and local governments offered better benefits. When I got out of college I had an offer to work for the state but the pay was over 30 percent less than an offer I had in private industry. I could have taken the government job but I could not afford to live on my own or eventually buy a home which was my goal at the time. The future benefits were enticing but I went for the up front money. Jay

[MrGompers]

Originally Posted by JayCT

People forget the reason that those benefits are so good to begin with. Pay for government workers was not good so the state and local governments offered better benefits. When I got out of college I had an offer to work for the state but the pay was over 30 percent less than an offer I had in private industry. I could have taken the government job but I could not afford to live on my own or eventually buy a home which was my goal at the time. The future benefits were enticing but I went for the up front money. Jay

I graduated from college in 1995 and interviewed with two state agencies after graduation. At the time the salaries they were offering were equal to starting salaries in private industry. This is for accounting.

One of the agencies actually told me that I would be on probation for one year and could be fired for any reason during that time. One year seems excessive to me, every private industry job I've ever had - had a 90 day probation period. State jobs also do not promote quickly, although your pay will rise.

Promotions and titles are important when you're starting out at age 25.

The other agency actually had a lot of "prestige" connected to it and had a lot of opportunity to work with high level Govt elected officials, but even that is less meaningful to most 25 year olds than money.

In the end I was not hired by either agency, but if I was I could imagine quitting within five years. My salary rose fairly quickly in private industry and I don't think Govt could have matched that.

Both of these positions were also non union. The interviewers made sure I knew that before the interview started. So every one in state Govt is not necessarily in a union and covered by union contracts.

[Mike 75]

Originally Posted by MrGompers

I read that article quickly, and I think they are pointing out that the Dems had a 2/3rds majority in the house in 2008. However, to over ride veto's the legislature needs to have 2/3rds majority in the house and senate.

I'll make it easy for you.

"With a two-thirds majority in both chambers, a Democrat-controlled legislature could override Gov. M. Jodi Rell’s veto in the coming term."