3 ms·
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
by 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 agoUK 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 agoThere'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 agoI can see that the second regulation would slow down change significantly. The first paragraph I think is fairly general.