California county administrator to get $423,644 a year -- after retirement

[iceberg]

This is a citizen who served their community for 40 years. They took what they could get and played by the rules. So why demonize them, and teachers, and unions, and government employees if you're in favor of capitalism?

Because you've eaten the freaking cheese man. Fallen for the propaganda while never looking at the real crooks.

yet, you refuse to talk to me, yet you say you're in my head.

i'm here.

talking. listening.

willing to take whatever i give.

and yet, you ignore me and tell others, you're in my head.

i think you're a piece of shit. i'll say it when i need to.

i think you're a fucking coward for ignoring me.

who's in whose head?

that speaks for itself.

 

[superpunk]

The fact that you can't tell the difference in the two situations is baffling.

I'm just as baffled by the fact that the completely legal methods draw so much more ire from conservatives than do the illegal.

 

[bkeavs]

We must do something about NYC police retirement payouts as well. Cops being paid 125K after 20 years for the rest of their life including medical and dental. There are 40,000 cops in NYC. Its unsustainable
Friends of mine 42 years old retired from the job already on their second career getting all that money from the state

 

[dbair1967]

What a shock. Liberal doesn't understand why this is a bad thing.

 

[peplaw06]

I'm just as baffled by the fact that the completely legal methods draw so much more ire from conservatives than do the illegal.

I'm not really in a position to debate your subjective opinion that one draws "more ire" than the other. Not sure how you would prove that. I don't see what it has to do with the thread, other than to try to derail it.

 

[Dodger12]

We must do something about NYC police retirement payouts as well. Cops being paid 125K after 20 years for the rest for the rest of their life including medical and dental. There are 40,000 cops in NYC. Its unsustainable
Friends of mine 42 years old retired from the job already on their second career getting all that money from the state

Your numbers are way off. You may be confusing their final year's salary with their pension (which may be half your figure). Even then, a NYC police officer would probably have to work some crazy overtime to hit that salary figure. The reality is that the NYPD is underpaid to work AND live in NY or the surrounding boroughs. The reason these folks leave after 20 is not because they get some great pension, but because they're young enough to get a second job to supplement their pension.

 

[bkeavs]

Your numbers are way off. You may be confusing their final year's salary with their pension (which may be half your figure). Even then, a NYC police officer would probably have to work some crazy overtime to hit that salary figure. The reality is that the NYPD is underpaid to work AND live in NY or the surrounding boroughs. The reason these folks leave after 20 is not because they get some great pension, but because they're young enough to get a second job to supplement their pension.

Their pension is based off the last 3 years of employment salary. The majority of cops those last 3 years work in excess of 30 hours a weeks overtime to maximize their pension
The figure may be inflated a bit but not much.

I don't know a retired police officer that doesn't have a 100k pension. That's for the lowest end police officer with no promotions

 

[Dodger12]

I don't know a retired police officer that doesn't have a 100k pension. That's for the lowest end police officer with no promotions

Maybe I'm old but I don't know a retired cop with 20 years of service that has a 100k pension.

You get 50% of your salary for 20 years of service. For each additional year after 20, you get 1.66% extra on top of the 50%. If you go to 40 years your pension will be based on 83.2% of the highest paid 3 years of your last 5 years.

Your numbers would be somewhat accurate if an officer retires after 40 years of service and has been promoted during those years. But I rarely see anyone doing 40 years in the PD.

http://www.nyc.gov/html/nycppf/downloads/pdf/tier_2_spd.pdf

Members are eligible for Service Retirement upon completion of 20 years of Allowable Police Service. The application for Service Retirement must be filed at the Police Pension Fund at least 30 days before discontinuance of active police service. A Service Retirement pension benefit is as follows:

50% of final average salary

plus

1/60th of total earnings after the 20th anniversary

plus

75% x 1/60th x average earnings for the last five years x
number of years (to the day) of all prior non-uniform service

plus

Annuity value of City ITHP contributions after the 20th anniversary

plus

Annuity value of ASF in excess of the required amount

less

Annuity value of ASF shortage

 

[bkeavs]

Those numbers are correct but the pension is based on the average pay of your final 3 years. Cops know that and purposely work as much overtime as possible.

I have 5 retired cops working for our company now that have all done that

 

[ThoughtExperiment]

Exactly, and it's not just cops. Lots of municipal workers put in insane OT their last year or two to bump up a pension that they will be getting for 30 or 40 years. And that pension can be far more than the average private sector worker makes in a year. It's total insanity.

 

[JBond]

Pensions are an antiquated idea that greedy unions dreamed up. How about people pay for the things they want. If they want good healthcare, pay for it. If they want a cushy retirement, save money and pay for it. This asinine idea that people should be paid by the tax payers for being non productive is ridiculous.

 

[Dodger12]

Those numbers are correct but the pension is based on the average pay of your final 3 years. Cops know that and purposely work as much overtime as possible.

I have 5 retired cops working for our company now that have all done that

I agree that they work as much OT as possible when they near retirement but that OT needs to be approved. For a uniformed NYPD officer to make anywhere near what you're saying after 20 years of service, they'd have to have salaries in excess of $200,000 with overtime. That's impossible (for a uniformed officer).

Now, if your co-workers retired from PD's such as Nassau County or the Port Authority Police, I could believe it, but absolutely not an NYPD uniformed officer with 20 years on the job which was your assertion. The most a uniformed, non-promoted, officer would make is 90 plus thousand per year. If your co-workers retired from management positions within the NYPD, especially if they worked in specialized units that required OT, then a $100,000 a year pension is doable but even then, that would be difficult, if not impossible, with only 20 years of service.

My point is this. We've gotten to the point where it's en vogue to bag on public servants. That's horseshit. These jobs were all available to the public. No one was complaining when public servants were making starting salaries of $40,000 in NY and required to live in NY.

 

[superpunk]

My point is this. We've gotten to the point where it's en vogue to bag on public servants. That's horseshit. These jobs were all available to the public. No one was complaining when public servants were making starting salaries of $40,000 in NY and required to live in NY.

church

 

[ThoughtExperiment]

No one's bagging on them as people. You're taking this too personally, dodger. It's just an untenable situaton financially.

 

[Jon88]

church

What?

 

[Dodger12]

No one's bagging on them as people. You're taking this too personally, dodger. It's just an untenable situaton financially.

I take it personally, to some extent, because I want the information relayed to the public to be accurate. When there are myths and misconceptions that people spout and others take it as gospel, that's a problem. I agree that, given the economic climate, it's tough to justify increases in salaries and/or benefits. But we're not in the current situation because a teacher or police officer makes a moderate salary (depending on where they work) and can collect a reasonable pension after an agreed up time frame. It's just politically expedient today to bag on these folks and that's the bottom line.

 

[JBond]

I take it personally, to some extent, because I want the information relayed to the public to be accurate. When there are myths and misconceptions that people spout and others take it as gospel, that's a problem. I agree that, given the economic climate, it's tough to justify increases in salaries and/or benefits. But we're not in the current situation because a teacher or police officer makes a moderate salary (depending on where they work) and can collect a reasonable pension after an agreed up time frame. It's just politically expedient today to bag on these folks and that's the bottom line.

Continuing to pay people after they become non-productive is untenable. It will not work. It is not a shot at you or anyone in particular, it is just a financial reality. As the baby boomer generation continues into retirement and the ridiculous pensions start kicking in, you are going to see wide scale bankruptcies by municipalities, cities and even possibly states. The time for public unions and pensions is over. The public union members will have to be responsible for their own retirement just like the rest of us. Those who have served as civil servant their entire lives should get what was promised to them, but moving forward dramatic reform is required.

 

[ThoughtExperiment]

Actually, it's anything but politically expedient to criticize cops, firefighters, teachers, and other municipal employees. Most people immediately react negatively to any type of perceived criticism of those groups.

Which is a big reason the problem hasn't been and probably won't be addressed. Politicians don't want to touch it.

And some of these aren't "reasonable" pensions. Not when they're making far, far more than the average taxpayer who pays for them.

 

[Dodger12]

Continuing to pay people after they become non-productive is untenable. It will not work. It is not a shot at you or anyone in particular, it is just a financial reality. As the baby boomer generation continues into retirement and the ridiculous pensions start kicking in, you are going to see wide scale bankruptcies by municipalities, cities and even possibly states. The time for public unions and pensions is over. The public union members will have to be responsible for their own retirement just like the rest of us. Those who have served as civil servant their entire lives should get what was promised to them, but moving forward dramatic reform is required.

It has worked for years. You act as if the public sector has never been dealing with employee pensions. Municipalities, as well as our own government, are going bankrupt because they are not fiscally responsible. I agree that unions and pensions need to be looked at; there is a fair median. But the issue will not be solved by doing away with pensions if these federal, state and local governments don't change they way they spend overall.

But what I also find kind of funny is that people don't realize that many public sector employees pay into their pension plan. This is on top of social security payments. Yes, there are perks such as the agency matching a percentage of what you pay, but the bulk of the money paid is the employee's money. I'm not saying this is the same thing for every federal, state and local government entity, but this is where I have a problem with people painting this broad brush.

I'm not saying this as a fan of the unions because I'm not; I despise them. It's to the point now where they do the worker more harm than they do good. But these folks have become a convenient scapegoat and are the target of the public ire and it takes away from the real economic issues facing these governments.

 

[Dodger12]

Actually, it's anything but politically expedient to criticize cops, firefighters, teachers, and other municipal employees. Most people immediately react negatively to any type of perceived criticism of those groups.

Which is a big reason the problem hasn't been and probably won't be addressed. Politicians don't want to touch it.

And some of these aren't "reasonable" pensions. Not when they're making far, far more than the average taxpayer who pays for them.

Maybe you've not been watching the news lately about Wisconsin and I'm sure other states will follow, if they haven't already. I don't have any issue with folks being critical and in some cases, it's justified. Just be accurate with the facts.