Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Tuesday, April 17, 2018

A forthcoming report on the Los Angeles Unified School District's retirement costs will show that the district has nearly $15 billion in unfunded health care costs for current employees and retirees.

Advertisement

Advertisement

More

Alternate links: Google News | Twitter

This change in accounting standards is expected to affect pension systems from coast to coast, leaving a more realistic (but also more expensive) picture of what taxpayers and governments will owe to current public employees when they retire. The change will also require public entities to show their OPEB liabilities on official balance sheets, something that few governments previously did.

In other words, the LAUSD is running out of ways to hide its public employee debt -- and is running out of money to pay for it. The school district has only $244 million in assets to cover more than $15.2 billion in liabilities, the report shows.

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

Money will just materialize.

- Pinchaidiot

#1 | Posted by boaz at 2018-04-17 11:11 AM | Reply

"While there are a variety of rules governing when school district employees can retire, most are eligible for retirement when their years of service and age add up to 80. In other words, a 55-year-old with 25 years of employment could retire with full benefits. The report shows that the most common ages for LAUSD employees to retire are between 59 and 61."

that's ridiculous. It should be 85 at a minimum. what...maybe 3% of the private sector can retire at 59-61...why should public school teachers?

I'm not anti-public school teachers...I don't want them to get cheated on pensions or health care benefits or pay. But it's harder to treat them better while they're working if we let them retire so early with full benefits.

#2 | Posted by eberly at 2018-04-17 11:27 AM | Reply

"While there are a variety of rules governing when school district employees can retire, most are eligible for retirement when their years of service and age add up to 80. In other words, a 55-year-old with 25 years of employment could retire with full benefits. The report shows that the most common ages for LAUSD employees to retire are between 59 and 61."
that's ridiculous. It should be 85 at a minimum. what...maybe 3% of the private sector can retire at 59-61...why should public school teachers?
I'm not anti-public school teachers...I don't want them to get cheated on pensions or health care benefits or pay. But it's harder to treat them better while they're working if we let them retire so early with full benefits.

#2 | POSTED BY EBERLY

Actually, the answer is simple: Its Cheaper.

For most states, teacher's pensions are based off their highest five years of pay. Usually thats the last five years they work. So if they retire early, they generally lose out on a higher pension.

At the same time, the school generally replaces them with a teacher who is much cheaper (read Newer).

Here's another problem to consider: If you get rid of the pension, how much more will you have to pay teachers to convince people to join the profession? And most importantly, to get them to stay in the profession? It's not an easy job dealing with people's kids; especially the bad kids.

#3 | Posted by Sycophant at 2018-04-17 11:37 AM | Reply

I have read posts that say they deserve it because they signed a contract.

What are the unfunded pension and healthcare costs of the military? Can we afford to pay it? When can the military retire with a full pension?
How does that compare to the private sector.

The US has trillion dollar deficits, why not cancel all pensions and healthcare for government employees until the budget is balanced.

#4 | Posted by bored at 2018-04-17 11:54 AM | Reply


@#3 ... For most states, teacher's pensions are based off their highest five years of pay. ...

Obviously, the method of calculating pensions needs to change as well.

While I am usually in favor of unions, this area, i.e., public workers, is one area where I think the unions have outlived or over-stepped their benefit.

Instead of assuring good working conditions and pay, the unions appear to aim for extracting as much money from government as possible via early retirements, poor pension cost algorithms, and other inflated retirement benefits.

They win these benefits because politicians think only about the next re-election, not the next generation, and give in to the union demands that are so out of line with private industry.

#5 | Posted by LampLighter at 2018-04-17 12:01 PM | Reply

"The US has trillion dollar deficits, why not cancel all pensions and healthcare for government employees until the budget is balanced."

How would that be fair? How about raise the taxes high enough that we could eventually balance the budget like we did back when America was so great. MAGA done the real way.

#6 | Posted by danni at 2018-04-17 12:05 PM | Reply


@#4 ... The US has trillion dollar deficits, why not cancel all pensions and healthcare for government employees until the budget is balanced. ...

If you're talking about canceling anything, I'd start with the huge tax cuts the Republicans recently gave to the 1% and corporations.

#7 | Posted by LampLighter at 2018-04-17 12:14 PM | Reply

"For most states, teacher's pensions are based off their highest five years of pay. Usually thats the last five years they work. So if they retire early, they generally lose out on a higher pension."

So, you're concluding that it's cheaper for the public entity (state or city or whomever handles the pension) to have teachers retire at 59 than at 65?

Can you cite proof for that conclusion? I get what you're saying about the lower pension to retire earlier but that doesn't automatically mean the state is better off by paying a pension to a 59 year old when the 59 year old could defer to 65? As the article says, the "common" teacher is hanging it up at 59-61.

Considering what we are looking at with SS and how other folks are compelled to work until 67, it seems logical that we can find some help here for teachers by requiring they work a little longer.

I want teachers to be taken care of. Letting them retire so early that it puts significant financial strain on the pension itself is wrong for everyone.

#8 | Posted by eberly at 2018-04-17 12:17 PM | Reply

#6 It isn't fair, but somehow it can be talked about for teachers but not the military. Why not?

#9 | Posted by bored at 2018-04-17 12:19 PM | Reply

The US has trillion dollar deficits, why not cancel all pensions and healthcare for government employees until the budget is balanced.

#4 | POSTED BY BORED

We wouldn't have those if we got rid of cut and spend Republicans.

#10 | Posted by Sycophant at 2018-04-17 12:22 PM | Reply

Advertisement

Advertisement

"For most states, teacher's pensions are based off their highest five years of pay. Usually thats the last five years they work. So if they retire early, they generally lose out on a higher pension."
So, you're concluding that it's cheaper for the public entity (state or city or whomever handles the pension) to have teachers retire at 59 than at 65?
Can you cite proof for that conclusion? I get what you're saying about the lower pension to retire earlier but that doesn't automatically mean the state is better off by paying a pension to a 59 year old when the 59 year old could defer to 65? As the article says, the "common" teacher is hanging it up at 59-61.
Considering what we are looking at with SS and how other folks are compelled to work until 67, it seems logical that we can find some help here for teachers by requiring they work a little longer.
I want teachers to be taken care of. Letting them retire so early that it puts significant financial strain on the pension itself is wrong for everyone.

#8 | POSTED BY EBERLY

Yeah, I know. It didn't make sense to me either until an accountant explained it to me who worked for several school districts.

You also have to remember they don't get paid an pension equal to what their pay was. It's generally some fraction. That's where the math comes in.

No one is compelled to work until 67 unless they haven't saved for retirement or don't have a pension.

#11 | Posted by Sycophant at 2018-04-17 12:25 PM | Reply

11

agreed...and most teachers I know retire early and then teach as a sub to supplement their income (because the pension is less than what they were earning)....makes no sense...they should just stay teaching, IMO.

I agree nobody is compelled to work until 67 but they are anyway....most folks don't save for ---- and have no pension anyway.

#12 | Posted by eberly at 2018-04-17 12:54 PM | Reply

Raise taxes on the porn industry.

Or trump properties.

#13 | Posted by Tor at 2018-04-17 03:46 PM | Reply

Good luck with that. Total unfunded obligations across all 50 states are up to 1.4 trillion.

#14 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2018-04-17 03:55 PM | Reply

When can the military retire with a full pension?

======================

After 20 years of service and they get zero if they leave early.

How does that compare to the private sector.
#4 | POSTED BY BORED

======================

Private sector generally has pension benefits that kick in so that you are fully funded after 4 or 7 years but you own the money regardless of how long you last. Basically, no matter when you quit, that money is yours. The military is entirely different in that you are owed nothing if you don't last all 20 years.

Further, it is very different is that the military constantly tests the fitness of their troops and will discharge them if they are physically unfit such as BMI and PT times (PT rating is a sliding scale based on age). Also, they have the right to discharge you for conduct you do in your life - unlike teachers, etc. So, in short, it is nothing like the private sector and they get a pretty crap deal overall.

Based on your posting, it is pretty clear you don't yet have a job - one of the eye opening experiences you will have after you graduate high school.

#15 | Posted by Rex_Buyt at 2018-04-18 04:29 AM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2018 World Readable

Drudge Retort