THIS IS AN ARCHIVE OF LAKE TAHOE NEWS, WHICH WAS OPERATIONAL FROM 2009-2018. IT IS FREELY AVAILABLE FOR RESEARCH. THE WEBSITE IS NO LONGER UPDATED WITH NEW ARTICLES.

California pension funds running dry


image_pdfimage_print

By Marc Lifsher, Los Angeles Times

A decade ago, many of California’s public pension plans had plenty of money to pay for workers’ retirements.

All that has changed, according to a far-reaching package of data from the state controller. Taxpayers are now on the hook for billions of dollars more to cover the future retirements of public workers, with the bill widely varying depending on where they live.

The state’s pension goliath, the California Public Employees’ Retirement System, had $281 billion to cover the benefits promised to 1.3 million workers and retirees in 2013. Yet it needed an additional $57 billion to meet future obligations.

The bill at the state teachers’ pension fund is even higher: It has an estimated shortfall of $70 billion.

The new data from a website created by state Controller John Chiang come at a time of growing anger from taxpayers over the skyrocketing cost of public workers’ retirements.

Until now, the bill for those government pensions was buried deep in the funds’ financial reports. By making this data available, Chiang is bound to stir debate about how taxpayers can afford to make retirement more comfortable for public workers when private-sector employees’ own financial futures have become less secure. For most non-government workers, fixed monthly pensions are increasingly rare.

Read the whole story

image_pdfimage_print

About author

This article was written by admin

Comments

Comments (11)
  1. legal beagle says - Posted: November 16, 2014

    Let me try to explain this union-politician rip off in just a one sentence and then a comment. It is simplicity as it best: government unions (thanks Gov. Brown) legally pay off the politicians (mainly dems) with massive campaign and proposition money and the grateful pols
    return the favor with insane pay levels and great pensions.
    How would you non government worker types like to retire at 50 or 55 at 80 to 90% of your highest salary
    with full medical and other benefits instead of retiring at 65 for maybe 30 or 40% of your highest earnings with no benefits?
    And remember government jobs pay more and have better benefits than the equivalent private sector jobs.
    Another really scary factor is enforcement people will tend to do the bidding of their government masters if push comes to shove.

  2. marlene @ Tahoe says - Posted: November 16, 2014

    So, Without much ado, the privately employed are working to pay unionized government shlubbs exhorbitant retirement packages, some including their spouses, until they are dust!! The private working people of the state have become slaves…… Where will these massive payoffs come from???….. hmmmmm ~~ a levied tax on our homes??? that will effect our children, our estates????? The new homeless people!! What a fine MESS you have developed MOONBEAM!! Divide and conquer, the way of the DEMS!!

  3. Steve says - Posted: November 16, 2014

    Hopefully the day is not far off when politicians and legislators are forced to confront the fact that the benevolent, distorted public pension shakedown of taxpayers is simply unsustainable and must be reinvented.

  4. Bill Swim says - Posted: November 16, 2014

    I’m a bit more concerned with how Obama will handle immigration reform
    and the resulting costs.

  5. sunriser2 says - Posted: November 16, 2014

    I don’t hate public employees but feel betrayed. I know we need roads, schools, police… etc.

    The staffing and pay levels in the mid 1980’s were reasonable and sustainable.

    I think it was 1999 when the years served multiplier went from 2 to 3. Then the spiking practice of saving sick/comp time for twenty + years to be paid out in their last year to bump up their pension in some cases to more than they earned when they worked is disgraceful.

    Then they file a disability claim for aliments that anyone else would call aging to get the majority of their pension tax free.

    They will have a lot to explain to do in the coming years. I bet most of them will sell their homes at a huge profit and move to AZ by then to avoid taxes.

  6. Devil's Advocate says - Posted: November 16, 2014

    A lot of misinformation is floating around here. Here is CALPERs response to the article floated by the PRESS DEMOCRAT that horribly misstates the CALPERS Portfolio…

    The Right Numbers Tell the Story on Pensions
    November 10, 2014

    A recent editorial in the Santa Rosa Press Democrat, “Numbers tell the story on pensions,” incorrectly states that “despite a strong five-year run that has seen new record highs for the Dow Jones and other stock indexes, CalPERS still had $50 billion less in its fund in 2013 than it had before the recession started in 2007.” Actually, CalPERS had more in its fund in 2013, even at the lowest point last year, than it did in 2007 before the start of the recession – almost $30 billion more. The peak net asset value in 2007 for the CalPERS fund was $254.6 billion for the month ending September 30. The peak in 2013 was $283.5 billion for the month ending December 31.

    Furthermore, it should be pointed out that while CalPERS uses a 7.5 assumed rate of return, both the near-term performance measurements (3-year, 12.0 percent; 5-year, 10.9 percent) and the long-term measurement (20-year, 8.3 percent) have outperformed this target.

    ============================================================
    BOTTOM LINE:

    CALPERS is 80% funded. It has over 293 Billion in Assets. The above article misstates the facts and assumes that ALL liabilities are paid at once. This assumptions relies on ALL public workers to retire at the same time. This is ridiculous. Obviously, retirees retire at a more standard pace.
    I just wanted to chime in… It wasn’t too long ago when we were saluting poublic employees for taking out the King fire, now it seems the trolls are out in full force.

    Peace,

  7. dumbfounded says - Posted: November 16, 2014

    Just adorable in it’s simplicity. However, the theory that Governor Brown, either Eugene or Jerry, created or are somehow responsible for public unions is absurd, in my humble opinion. They started in the 1800’s according to a two second search on the internet.

    Would you rather that “enforcement people” do the bidding of a minority, Legal?

    On the other hand, it is obvious that the public union paradigm cannot stand as it is.

  8. legal beagle says - Posted: November 16, 2014

    DA, if that is the case then the taxpayer should not be on the hook as a backfill. Let us see that aspect change. Bet it won’t happen.

  9. Eric says - Posted: November 17, 2014

    And they do little to nothing to stop pension spiking.

  10. Justice says - Posted: November 17, 2014

    Nationwide there should be a choice to pay into Unions or not, instead of it being a DNC fundraising program.

    This state is reported to have a 200 billion unfunded liability, I am not sure with which retirement system, it could be the teachers who have a really messed up situation needing attention instead of crazy trains and water tunnels and licenses and free entry and benefits for people illegally in the country. This is where the failure of the leftist agenda is not to mention their failure in public safety and the results of Prop.47 and Realignment being get out of jail free passes for thousands.

  11. nature bats last says - Posted: November 17, 2014

    Injustice bla bla bla bla rant rant bla dribble rant dribble dribble bla bla……