Township Pension

Tom_Reingold said:

Is that 5 families term a mafia reference?

Indeed. The big 5 NYC pension funds were run separately, so each one has its own team of people. I seem to recall hearing that had changed.

Obviously not the official name of them as a group, but people think it's funny (it is sort of funny I guess in a black humor way).

Now- to be clear- the people working at these funds are in some cases just about rocket scientists (as they are at most pension funds) and are NOT politicians. I am sure they do the best they can within the limits of what they have to work with. So the nickname should not be taken to suggest otherwise. But they are very powerful in the sense that they have a massive impact on city finances and on the future of retirees.

Tom_Reingold said:

krugle said:

How much do employees contribute to their pension, on a percentage basis?

I suspect it's a "defined benefit" plan which means the employee's contribution is in labor, not money. This is different from modern savings plans which are "defined contribution" plans, where employees pay into it and sometimes employers also do.

I took a state position about 3 years ago after working in private sector previously. I'm required to pay 7.2% of my salary into PERS. I can contribute additional $ into a 403b. I will not be vested in the pension system until I've worked for NJ for 10 years. The amount of retirement benefit is based on employee's length of service and average final salary.

(The police & fire pension system is different, but, of course, their risk is substantially higher.)

And FWIW: I am currently paid about 40% less than what I was paid while working in private sector (for a contractor), for similar work (but less travel).

Pensions are touted as what makes the state positions competitive with private sector. However, it wasn't uncommon for our contracting group to poach the state/Fed top talent by offering quite high salaries.

Keep in mind that these high salaries, paid by private-sector contractors, use money from the state and fed gov's contracts. I would guess more tax dollars go to contractors than to internal salaries and pensions. Our contracting group would often win the contracts by proposing bare-bones cheap work. Then when it became apparent that the scope of the contract would not be sufficient, the up-sells (or "sell-ups") occurred to bring in the real profit to the contracting group.

The contracting group also contributed a 5% match (I think it was) towards our 401K.

I think this is the main problem with many legacy pension programs. The payout percentage is too high and the programs will eventually go bankrupt without significant modifications.

krugle said:

I'm happy that people get pensions, and remember the day when it was much more common. But do have to say, many of these pensions are extremely high. They look to be in the 80% range.

People choose to accept jobs with low salaries and good pensions for various rational reasons. I can't see them as greedy or undeserving.

yahooyahoo said:

I think this is the main problem with many legacy pension programs. The payout percentage is too high and the programs will eventually go bankrupt without significant modifications..

Are you saying the actuaries who developed the pension plan got their math incorrect? Or did the politicians who muddled with the plan and management of it, muck up the way it was supposed to stay solvent?

The fault lies either with politicians or the actuaries hired by the politicians. The state employees and the state tax-payers were both led to believe that the state could manage its finances properly. Neither employees nor taxpayers are to blame. But both will pay the consequences. As will that one politician who ends up holding the 'hot potato' and makes both pay the consequences. Afterwards, the rest of the politicians will go back to playing the same games.

It's not that pensions need to be completely thrown out (the math and probabilities can be made to work out) as much as we need politician reform (to ensure that politicians follow the prescribed path needed to make sure the math works out).

No it refers to the number of discrete pension systems of which NYCERS is the largest.

Also keep in mind that some of these people receiving pensions may be ineligible for social security, so their pension is their only source of retirement income. Take away the social security factor and their benefits may not be as "generous" as they seem.

Why wouldn't they qualify?

Tom_Reingold said:

Why wouldn't they qualify?

In some cases if you're enrolled in a government pension plan, you don't pay into social security.

Same is true for some public and quasi-public corporations.

Interesting. I had no idea.

When the pension plans were designed 30, 40, or 50 years ago the assumptions probably made sense to everyone. However, times change and the economy changes and reality evolves. Unfortunately, the pension programs will need to evolve somehow so everyone doesn't lose their shirt.

sprout said:

yahooyahoo said:

I think this is the main problem with many legacy pension programs. The payout percentage is too high and the programs will eventually go bankrupt without significant modifications..

Are you saying the actuaries who developed the pension plan got their math incorrect? Or did the politicians who muddled with the plan and management of it, muck up the way it was supposed to stay solvent?


The fault lies either with politicians or the actuaries hired by the politicians. The state employees and the state tax-payers were both led to believe that the state could manage its finances properly. Neither employees nor taxpayers are to blame. But both will pay the consequences. As will that one politician who ends up holding the 'hot potato' and makes both pay the consequences. Afterwards, the rest of the politicians will go back to playing the same games.


It's not that pensions need to be completely thrown out (the math and probabilities can be made to work out) as much as we need politician reform (to ensure that politicians follow the prescribed path needed to make sure the math works out).

yahooyahoo said:

When the pension plans were designed 30, 40, or 50 years ago the assumptions probably made sense to everyone. However, times change and the economy changes and reality evolves. Unfortunately, the pension programs will need to evolve somehow so everyone doesn't lose their shirt.

There is an annual actuarial report to make the math work out, but evolution is political.

In N.J. public employment, three parties pay into the fund. The employee, the employer and the state. The default has been with the state's part of the contribution. They have defaulted for decades. Christie paid for one or two years then he defaulted.

Public pension plans in NY have been adjusting for decades. 50 years ago, there was what is now referred to as tier 1. Most if not all of those members have since retired. Last I heard they were up to tier 6. Each subsequent plan has a lower cost than the prior tier. Tier membership is determined by the plan accepting new members at the time of hire.

sprout said:

yahooyahoo said:

I think this is the main problem with many legacy pension programs. The payout percentage is too high and the programs will eventually go bankrupt without significant modifications..

Are you saying the actuaries who developed the pension plan got their math incorrect? Or did the politicians who muddled with the plan and management of it, muck up the way it was supposed to stay solvent?

If pensions were funded on the basis of real actuarial science, we wouldn't be having this discussion. Pensions are, instead, funded on the basis of political expedience.

yahooyahoo said:

I think this is the main problem with many legacy pension programs. The payout percentage is too high and the programs will eventually go bankrupt without significant modifications.

krugle said:

I'm happy that people get pensions, and remember the day when it was much more common. But do have to say, many of these pensions are extremely high. They look to be in the 80% range.

And when the plan was designed, average life expectancy was much lower. The changing demographics make DB pension plans very difficult to fund. It's near impossible to work for 35 years and then retire for another 30 years without receiving more benefit than originally anticipated.

Also, this is a creepy thread. I find no joy in debating individual pension recipients.

Woot said:

Also, this is a creepy thread. I find no joy in debating individual pension recipients.

Alex4855 does.

Alex enjoys trying to make us mad at workers, so he can get into parties with the politicians that got us into this mathematical mess.

Woot said:

yahooyahoo said:

I think this is the main problem with many legacy pension programs. The payout percentage is too high and the programs will eventually go bankrupt without significant modifications.

krugle said:

I'm happy that people get pensions, and remember the day when it was much more common. But do have to say, many of these pensions are extremely high. They look to be in the 80% range.

And when the plan was designed, average life expectancy was much lower. The changing demographics make DB pension plans very difficult to fund. It's near impossible to work for 35 years and then retire for another 30 years without receiving more benefit than originally anticipated.

The plans aren't set it and forget it. Actuaries spend a lot of time trying to determine, with great precision, when we are going to die.

Woot said:

Also, this is a creepy thread. I find no joy in debating individual pension recipients.

It does feel a bit weird to look at the private info of individuals, but thus it has always been for public workers. They work for you- you pay the bills, you own the business- so you need to know what you're paying them. The internet made it a hell of a lot easier to get the info of course.

It is worth saying however that unless there is some belief that some sort of fraud is going on (nobody seems to be saying there is) that these people played by the rules of employment offered to them. They took an offer, and that offer was stipulated in painful detail, also available for anyone to see throughout their employment. We can whine (no one here is mind you) about how nice it is to get 6 figures at 55 every year for life, but these people did nothing but take the job and do the job under the terms offered.

A discussion of whether current benefits offered for public employees are necessary to retain talent is worth having. But for guys and gals who have already shut it down..... can't change the rules now. Well, you COULD.... but not right.

Food for thought.... cops as an example. They may be overpaid. Or maybe not! But remember, you want them paid by YOU, and paid well enough that you get good people, and good enough that they're not shaking you down or looking to make a little extra money on the side from people who can afford to bribe them.

For patronage jobs and all that, a different discussion.

At least one of the dudes on that list is no longer alive. Is this site current. I pray to Jesus not.

jerseyjack said:

In N.J. public employment, three parties pay into the fund. The employee, the employer and the state. The default has been with the state's part of the contribution. They have defaulted for decades. Christie paid for one or two years then he defaulted.

I have a crazy idea. Make it a criminal offense to jigger the pension system such that won't work, and criminal charges can be filed after an elected official leaves office.

Robert_Casotto said:

At least one of the dudes on that list is no longer alive. Is this site current. I pray to Jesus not.

I don't know if that one is, but this one should be. It is possible that the payment is going to their surviving beneficiary, under an assignment of their pension.

http://php.app.com/agent/governmentretirees/search/sort:lastn/direction:asc?lastn=&firstn=&location=MAPLEWOOD+TOWNSHIP&FundName=&retireyr=

FWIW, at NJTransit, new exempt employees no longer get pensions. They get a 401K and a 401A which is vested after a couple of years. So the need to stop top heavy pension plans (with more people drawing revenue than revenue coming in) has been addressed in some regard. And as mentioned before, many railroad workers do not get SS, they get a railroad specific program instead.

Robert_Casotto said:

At least one of the dudes on that list is no longer alive. Is this site current. I pray to Jesus not.

I posted two examples up-thread where pension payments are still being made to someone even though the beneficiary and the surviving spouse are both long dead. I was surprised nobody else thought it was noteworthy.

kthnry said:

Robert_Casotto said:

At least one of the dudes on that list is no longer alive. Is this site current. I pray to Jesus not.

I posted two examples up-thread where pension payments are still being made to someone even though the beneficiary and the surviving spouse are both long dead. I was surprised nobody else thought it was noteworthy.

The guy you listed isn't in either the app.com or state database.

marylago said:

kthnry said:

Robert_Casotto said:

At least one of the dudes on that list is no longer alive. Is this site current. I pray to Jesus not.

I posted two examples up-thread where pension payments are still being made to someone even though the beneficiary and the surviving spouse are both long dead. I was surprised nobody else thought it was noteworthy.

The guy you listed isn't in either the app.com or state database.

I don't know what those databases are, but the two I cited are listed in the findthedata web site.

Henry Turek: http://nj-pensions.findthedata.com/l/237767/Turek-Henry

Henry Turek was born in 1918 and retired from Trenton State Prison on March 1979 (37 years ago) after being employed for 31 years. A member of Turek's family collects an annual pension of $11,577, based off a salary of $0, that is funded by the POPF - Prison Officers' Pension Fund. Turek's monthly pension payment is $965.

His wife's obituary: http://www.saulfuneralhomes.com/obituary/Stephanie-Turek/Hamilton-NJ/1436840 (died 10/3/2014)

---------------

Arthur Zinn: http://nj-pensions.findthedata.com/l/256492/Zinn-Arthur-J

Arthur J. Zinn was born in 1918 and retired from Maplewood Township on December 1976 (40 years ago) after being employed for 25 years. A member of Zinn's family collects an annual pension of $20,265, based off a salary of $15,389, that is funded by the PFRS - Police and Firemen's Retirement System. Zinn's monthly pension payment is $1,689.

His wife's obituary:

ZINN - Margaret M. (nee Jung) 95, of Haledon on August 18, 2002. Beloved wife of the late Arthur Zinn (1982). Devoted mother of Arthur Zinn Jr. of Haledon. Loving grandmother of Brian Zinn of Haledon. Private Graveside Service. The family request donations be made to the Haledon Ambulance, 407 Morrissee Avenue, Haledon, NJ 07508. Arrangements by Vander Plaat-Vermeulen Memorial Home, 530 High Mountain Road, Franklin Lakes.

NJ Yourmoney.gov

https://data.nj.gov/pension_explorer

Asbury Park Press Data Universe

http://php.app.com/agent/governmentretirees/search

kthnry said:

Arthur Zinn: http://nj-pensions.findthedata.com/l/256492/Zinn-Arthur-J

Arthur J. Zinn was born in 1918 and retired from Maplewood Township on December 1976 (40 years ago) after being employed for 25 years. A member of Zinn's family collects an annual pension of $20,265, based off a salary of $15,389, that is funded by the PFRS - Police and Firemen's Retirement System. Zinn's monthly pension payment is $1,689.

His wife's obituary:

ZINN - Margaret M. (nee Jung) 95, of Haledon on August 18, 2002. Beloved wife of the late Arthur Zinn (1982). Devoted mother of Arthur Zinn Jr. of Haledon. Loving grandmother of Brian Zinn of Haledon. Private Graveside Service. The family request donations be made to the Haledon Ambulance, 407 Morrissee Avenue, Haledon, NJ 07508. Arrangements by Vander Plaat-Vermeulen Memorial Home, 530 High Mountain Road, Franklin Lakes.

So to sum up, Mr. Zinn worked for MW for 25 years retiring in 76 and collected a pension until he passed in 82(6 yrs). At that point Mrs. Zinn collected the same pension until her passing in 02(20 yrs). Another family member is still collecting the pension 40 years after the retirement of the employee and 34 years after his death.

kthnry said:

Robert_Casotto said:

At least one of the dudes on that list is no longer alive. Is this site current. I pray to Jesus not.

I posted two examples up-thread where pension payments are still being made to someone even though the beneficiary and the surviving spouse are both long dead. I was surprised nobody else thought it was noteworthy.

I damn sure find it noteworthy.

And what of employees who pass away a few years after retiring who don't leave defendants. Sure, some retirees collect for decades, some don't.