From the NY Post:Amid its budget crisis, the city is on track to lay off teachers, close fire companies, cut social services and impose other sacrifices. Yet such reductions could be avoided if the city reformed its unusually costly commitments for retiree health-insurance and brought them in line with those of other public-sector employers.
Retired city employees can remain on the city's health insurance without paying any part of the basic premium; when they enroll in Medicare, the city reimburses the cost of their Part B premiums. By contrast, health insurance for retirees is rarely offered in the private sector. And in most states, retired public employees must pay a substantial share of the premium.
Providing this benefit for New York City retirees is a big and growing burden on local taxpayers. Retiree health insurance cost $1.5 billion in the current year and is projected to be $2.2 billion by 2015 -- a growth of 50 percent in just four years.
Some City Council members have suggested tapping into the city's Retiree Health Insurance Trust fund to avert the cuts, but that's the wrong end of the right solution. Tapping into the trust would simply take away money that is already set aside to help address existing retiree health-insurance obligations. What's needed is to change those obligations, which have already created a $70 billion unfunded liability.
That's something that the city can do in collaboration with municipal labor unions -- because, unlike public pensions, which are protected by the state Constitution, retiree health-insurance benefits are not guaranteed.
37 comments:
Unions are living in the "good old days". Private companies no longer offer retirement with bennies. It's all about 401K and IRA to pay for your medical insurance.
When the government (fed/state/city) had cash to burn it was fine, but just like in the private sector time to take care of yourself.
The policy and model the city/state must transition to is one based on the private sector. Certain public employee jobs - those with specific physical job descriptions - Fireman, Police and Sanitation positions could remain exempt. Those in desk jobs their whole career will not have the insurance in retirement. Early retirement should be banned for all positions unless it's a disability issue. Reform must come to that area too. Retirement benefits must be limited to reaching 62/65 years of age.
The misconception here is that the pensions are draining taxpayer money from the city. Bloomberg tried this tactic when he went after the police officers' Variable Suppliment fund. He claimed it was a Christmas Bonus, paid by the city to retired cops, when in fact, it was proven to be funded by interest from a loan given to the city by the PBA decades ago, and managed by its own management fund.
The pension systems I know of seem to be the only systems that are running properly these days. They are funded primarly by the members' contributions over the course of their employment, interest and proper management of the fund. Why allow the city to step in and use this money? If you were a business owner and after taxes, the city decided they were entitled to access to your profits, would anyone here allow that?
So hardworking middle class folks shouldn't have decent health care because the private sector has managed to squeeze workers hard?
The trend towards separate accounts for retirement and healthcare is going to lead to a generations of impoverished seniors who can't afford decent housing, food or health care. Retirees who are forced to abandon their homes of decades because they can't afford them.
What's that going to do to our neighborhoods? And our economy?
Why would someone move from the other side of the world to start a new life, only to keep up with the same savage behavior and traditions?
Anonymous wrote:
"Certain public employee jobs - those with specific physical job descriptions - Fireman, Police and Sanitation positions could remain exempt."
I whole heartedly agree with your point in transitioning to a private sector paradigm, but why are "certain public employees" omitted from such an otherwise well reasoned approach?
In other words, why would or should one compromise a tried and tested ideal (individual liberty in the form of private enterprise, a la Founding Father John Adams) for a particular profession or group of people?
If fair compensation is needed for certain professions to attract skilled employees, what's the rationale to include ponzi schemes like Social Security/Pensions or collectivist institutions like "health care" to the equation?
Note: There is a world of difference between Health Care and Medical Insurance.
"The misconception here is that the pensions are draining taxpayer money from the city."
you have to be an idiot to believe otherwise - but, unfortunately, there are many idiots.
If I charge someone $200.00 for a bandaid - it's ok. afterall it's free enterprise - unbridled capitalism.
There is ONLY one bandaid manufacturer in Bangladesh that provides me with the cheapest bandaids in the world, and I can then sell them at a very high profit. They employ 5 year old children which is great because w/o this job they would be prostituting themselves to eat and clothe thenmselves so I'm doing a real good thing by doing business with them.
I charge $200.00 per bandaid - because I can.
City/state workers ALWAYS have been paid less than those in the private sector - that is COMMON knowledge. The trade-off was health insurance cost.
Sooooo if STUPID to say that public employees "have to pay their fair share".
the word of the era is UNSUSTAINABLE in regards to public employee's pensions and benefits.
Stupid? There are no private sector police officers or firefighters. Teachers make a lot more than their Catholic school counterparts. There are thousands of city jobs that have no private equivalent. So please try a different argument.
Time for public employees to pay their fair share?? It's time for PRIVATE sector emplyees to question why THEY don't get the same job protection and benefits. The rich have managed to convince all of you private sector asses that you shouldnt be entitled to them.
More amazing - how middle class & working class republican voters will defend the rights of the super rich to get endless tax breaks, subsidies and pay lower tax rates than the rest of us. Assholes. The rich are just getting richer on ALL of our backs. And you're all putting out the red carpet for them
Unionized workers always got less pay than their private sector counterparts and the tradeoff was these benefits. If you take away all these benefits then the city in fair labor practices will have to pay alot more in salary when the contracts are settled. So there is really no big cost savings.
In this country, employees aren't entitled to anything but a paycheck. The rest is what is used as enticement to get the employee to want to work there.
Once again, there are no equivalents for many public sector positions. Even my friends in private unions think there is a major problem with what municipal unions get.
And last time I checked, Cuomo was a Democrat.
Well, Democrats can be owned by the same special interests as Republicans, can't they?
And why do people see the benefits other people have and think they should be taken away? People ought to demand and fight for the exact same treatment for themselves.
If not, and instead they act like scared little sheep while allowing the ultra-rich and corporations to in essence enslave them, then they'll have exactly the kind of state that they deserve.
Because the government can pay whatever it wants, it doesn't have to be profitable. A private sector business has to be profitable to stay in business. Giving employees everything but the kitchen sink as benefits is not going to work for them.
I realize that there are people out there who would happily strip me of my pension but try to process this fact: I earned my pension. After fighting for this country (Nam) I came home and trained as a math teacher. I was promised my pension, salary & benefits & I took the job. I lived up to my end of the bargain. If incoming NYC employees are willing to take what's being offered currently then by no means do I have a beef with them. A deal is a deal & I'm glad that my pension will remain intact. To those of you who are jealous go into civil service or quit whining. I'm enjoying my retirement immensely & I thank all NYC tax payers for keeping their end of the bargain. Long live Queens Crapper! Long live Israel! Long live the Israeli soldiers who shot the Syrians dead at their border. We could learn a thing or two couldn't we?
City council pulls from the same benefits package, are they going to give theirs up as well.
City council pulls from the same benefits package, are they going to give theirs up as well.
Since when has the Civil Servent, who went into their chosen profession knowing there was no chance of ever becoming rich. Who went into it and gave to society, and was fine with his or her decision knowing that one day they could enjoy old age in comfort health wise? People, if Civil servants had to rely only on their pensions, with no medical benefits, how many more elderly would be eating cat food, and neglecting to take care of themselves? I guarantee the pool to choose from would be bleaker than it is today, for many would choose different career paths.
Crappy, while teachers do make more than their Catholic school counterparts, they are required to obtain a certain level of education that Catholic teachers do not. A NYC teacher, in order to keep their job and make top pay (after almost 20 years) must have a Masters degree plus an additional 30 credits.
Maybe it would be smarter to have the same standards that Catholic schools have and pay less? All that extra education certainly isn't producing positive results.
it is reported that the average public employee earns much more,almost double,(with pension and benefits)than their private sector counterpart.
see :the John Stoessel documetary on this controversy on fox news on Sun.@8pm.
a city in Alabama ,that was warned years ago to cut the civil employee's pensions and benefits,presently is bankrupt. the workers lost it all.
a population cannot vote politicians into office,(with the help and campaign financing , by the public unions, and expect the politician to bargain honestly for the entire population.it is a gangster government negotiating process.
most of the income taxes are paid by the moderate to high earning private sector Capitalists. Profit is always a motivator.
45% to 50% of U.S.residents pay NO INCOME TAXES.
How do you like the gas prices at $4.00 per gal.
the government loves it .the tax they get allows them to waste more revenue.
a auto industry leader just asked obama to force a $1.00 gas tax on motorists ,so they can force us to buy their new cars. when GM is sold soon ,the taxpayers will lose $20,000,000,000.00.
the feds can just print dollars when their bank is empty.cities and states cannot.
corporate taxes are the highest in the world in the U.S (35%). no one can make a profit with this,so no one is being hired now. remember we are capitalists not European socialists.
"More amazing - how middle class & working class republican voters will defend the rights of the super rich to get endless tax breaks, subsidies and pay lower tax rates than the rest of us. Assholes. The rich are just getting richer on ALL of our backs. And you're all putting out the red carpet for them."
well said!
"defend the rights of the super rich to get endless tax breaks, subsidies and pay lower tax rates than the rest of us."
The rich have the highest tax burden. And I haven't read anyone here say they deserve endless tax breaks. This is about NYC public union members paying for their benefits to match the rest of the country.
Well said Fadlo !
"Instead they act like scared little sheep while allowing the ultra-rich and corporations to in essence enslave them, then they'll have exactly the kind of state that they deserve."
Sounds more like you're talking about the Queens Machine.
Why are we racing to the bottom by resenting benefits protected by unions in the public sector when we should be using our energy to strengthen the rights of workers in the private sector? Unions are imperfect but so is every mechanism created by humans. As our best alternative, are we really enlisting to do the dirty work of the financial elite?
Look at the concentration of wealth in the hands of a few. Look at the shifting burdens of taxes and benefits of bailouts and subsidies.
This is a classic "divide and conquer" and we're enabling it. We think we'll right the course of our economy and balance the books by gutting family benefits of public workers? Are we out of our minds?
"corporate taxes are the highest in the world in the U.S (35%). no one can make a profit with this,so no one is being hired now. remember we are capitalists not European socialists."
In theory. Never in practice.
Who said anything about gutting benefits? Why do liberals feel the need to exaggerate all the time? Maybe instead of instigating class warfare, they should try closing tax loopholes and stop paying people to be poor. The wealthy shoulder more of the tax burden now than they ever have before. They also are the largest givers to charity, which employ millions. Vilifying a segment of society for being successful is counterproductive and quite frankly, asinine.
BEWARE of the class war fare Marxist advocate on this thread.
when tax revenues dry up from the private sector,in a state, there will be no money to pay for the out of control public union employee salary increase and benefits.
the politicians are in the pocket of the unions.
do you count the "FINANCIAL ELI TE" as Teddy, Joe and P atrick Kennedy and family,George Soros, Steven Rattner,Lauren Bacall, Martha Stewart, Stanley Chesley(the master of disaster lawyer),Jamie Gorelick ,Chris Dodd, Oprah, Mario Cuomo, Barbara Boxer, Alec Baldwin, Michael Moore, Carolyn Maloney, etc, etc, how did "spread the wealth" advocates acquire all their wealth ? and are they going to get a" Waiver" from their socialist leaders in government when it all" hits the fan ?"
Klink Cannoli said..."what's the rationale to include ponzi schemes like Social Security/Pensions or collectivist institutions like "health care" to the equation?"
What a pompous jerk this guy is.
The reason your sorry parents aren't ending their live in the sort of utter poverty as did generations 70 years ago is Social Security and Medicare.
Those, NOT Policeman of The World status will define us as a great country in the future.
Actually, most of our parents are ok today because they saved during their lifetimes for retirement. Can't say that about baby boomers or generations after them.
Anonymous wrote:
"What a pompous jerk this guy is."
================================
Why thank you very little. Does your gift of sound debate include tantrums and foul language as well? Didn't your Mommy-State teach you about civility and common courtesy? By your definition, I suppose, a pompous jerk is someone that asks a poignant question?
My parents worked hard and invested there earnings in proper "retirement" instruments, as do I. They do not rely on the teat of the government for their elder years to survive. This wouldn't in the least define my family as sorry. Now if you define your family and the generations before them as relying on Social Security to survive, then that speaks volumes about their investments, spendthrifts, work ethics, and maybe their intelligence. Doesn't it?
Not everyone in the US lived in utter poverty during the depression of the 1930s (Approximately 1929 to 1943 - that's less than one generation. Get your generations and history timeline straight). You had about a 25% unemployment peak at its worst in about 1934. Pretty close to the real amount we have in todays recession. We are going through very similar financial times today as we did in the decade of the 30s. Ponder that for a few minutes. See what those around you, who are in financial trouble, do to survive.
An honest and reasoned view at such systems as Social Security and Pensions reveal an essential ponzi scheme. Output (payout) exceeds input (taxes plus interest) despite increasing tax corrections over the years. Changing demographics for the percentage of Retirees versus Workers breaks the system altogether. Let alone introducing the variable for the expanded length of life for the average retiree today. Where is the soundness in this? Do we, as a nation, rely on altruism as a solution to the math? Perhaps to those of your mindset government should force more of the people with earned wealth to relinquish their wealth for those that have not earned any wealth? Doesn't this sound historically familiar to you?
- "Those, NOT Policeman of The World status will define us as a great country in the future."
================================
I think you've been drinking too much collectivist kool-aid. And your grammar is horrendous beyond comprehension. But I think I can manage. The US is the greatest society human history has ever known. Take a thorough look back millennia of civilizations and try to understand why the Aristotelian awakening in the Middle Ages to the Enlightenment era where science, reason and the individual become the prominent philosophy birthing this unique nation. There is no match in history that equals such a societal system.
Altruistic fantasy is a denial of human nature.
i watched the John Stoessel show,"the MONEY HOLE" on Sun.
did you know that: Pritchard Ala. is the city that went
broke & did not pay their pensions
to the public employees.
Puerto Rico could not pay their
public employees and fired 17,000.
45,000 Free bike helmets were
given to residents of a wealthy
section of Manhattan.A fed. grant
$2.6 million to chinese prostitutes,IN CHINA, to drink booze positively.
$1.5 million to build a robot to
fold laundry.
1 million for blackberrys to ,stop smoking
$8million for signs to publicize above.
English translation, please?
A useful video:
http://front.moveon.org/scribbling-sharpie-illustrates-the-truth-about-our-economy/?id=28091-18113803-dV0ZJtx
Post a Comment