4 ms·

"He generally doesn't work outside 8 a.m.-to-5 p.m. hours. He commutes in a 2005 Honda Element with over 175,000 miles on it. His 2015 salary was $127,121.75, a

"He generally doesn't work outside 8 a.m.-to-5 p.m. hours. He commutes in a 2005 Honda Element with over 175,000 miles on it. His 2015 salary was $127,121.75, according to a Nevada Policy Research Institute database." Seems like a fairly careful kind of chap. "Despite the investment success, Nevada only has about 73% of assets needed to fund future retirement obligations to workers." I'm wondering what they will do about that. Increase contributions to new members? Increase employer's contribution (if any)?

danieltillett 10y ago
The same that way that all sovereign debt problems are solved - higher taxes if possible and default if not.
- Shivetya 10y ago
  Hope no one thinks you are being snarky, but court cases have come to that conclusion more than once and it includes cases where the pension fund lost money in the market or suffered theft. In all cases the taxpayer is on the hook for the difference. Now a recent case in California suggests that pension agreements can be adjusted but I expect that to lose on appeal. Regardless more states and cities will have to go to court to fix their overly generous pension agreements (even in my state the number of double dippers or pensioners with 70-100k incomes from pensions is high)
  - keithpeter 10y ago
    UK resident: don't employees pay into their funded pension schemes? Can't employer just up contributions and cut benefits for newly hired ones? Background: My public sector pension is funded through contributions from employer and employee and benefits paid out of revenue, so no investment or equity. Govt has just increased contributions paid to cover costs. Newer employers work longer to receive benefit (retirement age increased during Coalition government). PS: not even close to 70K mind you, think factor of 5 to 7 less!
  - bradleyjg 10y ago
    There's two different types of laws in play. One has to do with already accrued and vested pensions. Under federal law those are tangible property that can't be adjusted outside of bankruptcy. Separately some states, including NY, IL, and CA have state constitutional doctrines that forbid changing the accrual formula for existing employees. This is much more stringent rules, and means that any change will take many decades to work through the system.
    - keithpeter 10y ago
      I can see that the second regulation would slow down change significantly. The first paragraph I think is fairly general.
maxxxxx 10y ago
>> "Despite the investment success, Nevada only has about 73% of assets needed to fund future retirement obligations to workers." I'm wondering what they will do about that. Increase contributions to new members? Increase employer's contribution (if any)? << Cut taxes which then starts a period of massive economic growth which then will lead to higher tax income?
- ceejayoz 10y ago
  > Cut taxes which then starts a period of massive economic growth which then will lead to higher tax income? "Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." Ask Kansas how that worked: http://www.kansascity.com/news/politics-government/article73732807.html http://www.kansascity.com/news/politics-government/article73...

danieltillett 10y ago

The same that way that all sovereign debt problems are solved - higher taxes if possible and default if not.

Shivetya 10y ago
Hope no one thinks you are being snarky, but court cases have come to that conclusion more than once and it includes cases where the pension fund lost money in the market or suffered theft. In all cases the taxpayer is on the hook for the difference. Now a recent case in California suggests that pension agreements can be adjusted but I expect that to lose on appeal. Regardless more states and cities will have to go to court to fix their overly generous pension agreements (even in my state the number of double dippers or pensioners with 70-100k incomes from pensions is high)
- keithpeter 10y ago
  UK resident: don't employees pay into their funded pension schemes? Can't employer just up contributions and cut benefits for newly hired ones? Background: My public sector pension is funded through contributions from employer and employee and benefits paid out of revenue, so no investment or equity. Govt has just increased contributions paid to cover costs. Newer employers work longer to receive benefit (retirement age increased during Coalition government). PS: not even close to 70K mind you, think factor of 5 to 7 less!
- bradleyjg 10y ago
  There's two different types of laws in play. One has to do with already accrued and vested pensions. Under federal law those are tangible property that can't be adjusted outside of bankruptcy. Separately some states, including NY, IL, and CA have state constitutional doctrines that forbid changing the accrual formula for existing employees. This is much more stringent rules, and means that any change will take many decades to work through the system.
  - keithpeter 10y ago
    I can see that the second regulation would slow down change significantly. The first paragraph I think is fairly general.

maxxxxx 10y ago

>> "Despite the investment success, Nevada only has about 73% of assets needed to fund future retirement obligations to workers." I'm wondering what they will do about that. Increase contributions to new members? Increase employer's contribution (if any)? << Cut taxes which then starts a period of massive economic growth which then will lead to higher tax income?

ceejayoz 10y ago
> Cut taxes which then starts a period of massive economic growth which then will lead to higher tax income? "Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." Ask Kansas how that worked: http://www.kansascity.com/news/politics-government/article73732807.html http://www.kansascity.com/news/politics-government/article73...