Slick Rick Perry "retires" to boost pension

[JoeChalupa]

http://www.texastribune.org/texas-politics/2012-presidential-election/perry-retires-boost-pension-pay/

Gov. Rick Perry has done something his opponents have been hoping he’d do for years: retire. But it’s not what the governor’s detractors had in mind.

Perry officially retired in January so he could start collecting his lucrative pension benefits early, but he still gets to collect his salary — and has in turn dramatically boosted his take-home pay.

Perry makes a $150,000 annual gross salary as Texas govenor. Now, thanks to his early retirement, Perry, 61, gets a monthly retirement annuity of $7,698 before taxes, or $6,588 net. That raises his gross annual salary to more than $240,000.

Perry spokesman Ray Sullivan said the governor's early collection of his pension benefits is "consistent with Texas state law and Employee Retirement System rules."

But the disclosure is sure to spark criticism of Perry, who has called for sweeping changes to Social Security for average workers and has railed against special "perks" that members of Congress get.


--Rick is one smooth rascal. He may forget somethings but this move sure didn't slip his mind.

[Yonivore]

http://www.texastribune.org/texas-politics/2012-presidential-election/perry-retires-boost-pension-pay/

Gov. Rick Perry has done something his opponents have been hoping he’d do for years: retire. But it’s not what the governor’s detractors had in mind.

Perry officially retired in January so he could start collecting his lucrative pension benefits early, but he still gets to collect his salary — and has in turn dramatically boosted his take-home pay.

Perry makes a $150,000 annual gross salary as Texas govenor. Now, thanks to his early retirement, Perry, 61, gets a monthly retirement annuity of $7,698 before taxes, or $6,588 net. That raises his gross annual salary to more than $240,000.

Perry spokesman Ray Sullivan said the governor's early collection of his pension benefits is "consistent with Texas state law and Employee Retirement System rules."

But the disclosure is sure to spark criticism of Perry, who has called for sweeping changes to Social Security for average workers and has railed against special "perks" that members of Congress get.


--Rick is one smooth rascal. He may forget somethings but this move sure didn't slip his mind.
What would you do if the option were available to you?

[Winehole23]

could this possibly mean Perry won't run again?

[Winehole23]

naw

[boutons_deux]

"monthly retirement annuity of $7,698 before taxes, or $6,588 net"

taxed at 15% like capital gains?

[scott]

Doesn't "retirement" usually entail leaving your job?

In other news, props to Slick Rick for looking like a 40-year old at age 61.

[Yonivore]

Doesn't "retirement" usually entail leaving your job?

In other news, props to Slick Rick for looking like a 40-year old at age 61.
Apparently not according to Texas ERS rules.

[Winehole23]

http://www.ers.state.tx.us/Employees/Your_ERS_Retirement/

[scott]

I'll fully admit that I'm too lazy to read your link Winehole, but I noticed there is a separate section for Elected Officials. I have a guess, based on no actual facts, that only Elected Officials get to "retire" while keeping their job and the paycheck that comes with it.

I wonder who put that in place for the elected officials...

[Winehole23]

I didn't read it either, I just put it there for everyone who doesn't know what ERS is -- I didn't until a minute ago.

[Stringer_Bell]

He does look pretty good for 40. Damn good, actually.

[cheguevara]

damn 61?? he looks 50 at most.

he might well be God's chosen son

[Yonivore]

I'll fully admit that I'm too lazy to read your link Winehole, but I noticed there is a separate section for Elected Officials. I have a guess, based on no actual facts, that only Elected Officials get to "retire" while keeping their job and the paycheck that comes with it.
That's correct.

State employees have to separate from employment for at least 30 days before being rehired into a government job.


I wonder who put that in place for the elected officials...
How curious are you?

[scott]

How curious are you?

Less curious than I am about your ability to detect sarcasm.

[Yonivore]

I'll fully admit that I'm too lazy to read your link Winehole, but I noticed there is a separate section for Elected Officials. I have a guess, based on no actual facts, that only Elected Officials get to "retire" while keeping their job and the paycheck that comes with it.

I wonder who put that in place for the elected officials...
However, if you will stop and think about it for a minute, what's the big deal?

If Rick Perry had retired and left office, there would be no negative impact on ERS. When he retired, both his and the State's contribution to his retirement account ceased.

They're not out any more money than they would be if he had retired and left. In fact, you could argue he is saving the State money by not being replace with a person whose retirement account was still receiving state contributions.

And, I think the difference between elected officials and employees are the terms of employment. He's hired by an electorate; they're not.

In any case, once he leaves office, he's stuck with the Retirement annuity he's receiving today. Had he opted to not retire and had he and ERS continued to contribute to his account, his annuity would have continued to rise...theoretically, depending on his age and years of service, to more than 100% of his current salary.

Seems he's done the State a favor, IMHO.

[Yonivore]

Less curious than I am about your ability to detect sarcasm.
Oh, I detected it.

[scott]

However, if you will stop and think about it for a minute, what's the big deal?

If Rick Perry had retired and left office, there would be no negative impact on ERS. When he retired, both his and the State's contribution to his retirement account ceased.

They're not out any more money than they would be if he had retired and left. In fact, you could argue he is saving the State money by not being replace with a person whose retirement account was still receiving state contributions.

And, I think the difference between elected officials and employees are the terms of employment. He's hired by an electorate; they're not.

In any case, once he leaves office, he's stuck with the Retirement annuity he's receiving today. Had he opted to not retire and had he and ERS continued to contribute to his account, his annuity would have continued to rise...theoretically, depending on his age and years of service, to more than 100% of his current salary.

Seems he's done the State a favor, IMHO.

Man, that would be a really good argument if only it were true!

The "negative" impact is versus what the state would be paying if the Lege hadn't codified an extra payday for themselves.

He's effectively getting a 60% annuity now, costing $90k/year gross. If he waited 60 more months to retire, his annuity would rise to $107,250 gross ($17,250 more/year).

So to equal the $450,000 he'll collect over the next 5 years, he'd have to stay alive for another 26 years after that just to break even on a nominal basis (in other words, leaving out any kind of time value of money). If we simply apply a discount rate of 5%, Rick would have to live another 50 years for Texas to have been "done a favor".

Nice try though.

[scott]

Note: those numbers are estimates, because I don't know Rick's actual years of service, but the results will be the same. Rick isn't saving the state money by retiring now rather than later.

Message board math rules apply: certain assumptions were made to expediently provide a response to a post.

[Th'Pusher]

Man, that would be a really good argument if only it were true!

The "negative" impact is versus what the state would be paying if the Lege hadn't codified an extra payday for themselves.

He's effectively getting a 60% annuity now, costing $90k/year gross. If he waited 60 more months to retire, his annuity would rise to $107,250 gross ($17,250 more/year).

So to equal the $450,000 he'll collect over the next 5 years, he'd have to stay alive for another 26 years after that just to break even on a nominal basis (in other words, leaving out any kind of time value of money). If we simply apply a discount rate of 5%, Rick would have to live another 50 years for Texas to have been "done a favor".

Nice try though.

Have you seen the guy? I have no problem believing he'll live to be 111.

[scott]

Have you seen the guy? I have no problem believing he'll live to be 111.

Actually... this is a good point.

I take it back, he probably is saving the state money.

[Yonivore]

Man, that would be a really good argument if only it were true!

The "negative" impact is versus what the state would be paying if the Lege hadn't codified an extra payday for themselves.

He's effectively getting a 60% annuity now, costing $90k/year gross. If he waited 60 more months to retire, his annuity would rise to $107,250 gross ($17,250 more/year).

So to equal the $450,000 he'll collect over the next 5 years, he'd have to stay alive for another 26 years after that just to break even on a nominal basis (in other words, leaving out any kind of time value of money). If we simply apply a discount rate of 5%, Rick would have to live another 50 years for Texas to have been "done a favor".

Nice try though.
I never said it wasn't good for him but, it's certainly not costing the State any more money and, in fact, what I said is true. The State of Texas is no longer contributing to his ERS Retirement account. That's money saved. The State of Texas is not contributing to the Retirement account of a replacement employee. That's money saved. If he had waited another 5 years to retire, his annuity would have been more. That's money saved.

You do realize, of course, the money to pay his annuity isn't the same as the money to pay his salary -- except, of course, for the budget item that is now gone -- the State's contribution to his Retirement account.

I don't see why it's a bad deal. So, he makes out for a few years. If he had waited, his annuity would have be more. Frankly, he's doing himself a disservice by retiring early...particularly when he intends to continue working.

[Yonivore]

Note: those numbers are estimates, because I don't know Rick's actual years of service, but the results will be the same. Rick isn't saving the state money by retiring now rather than later.

Message board math rules apply: certain assumptions were made to expediently provide a response to a post.
Your math discounts the fact that part of the $450,000, over the next 5 years is actually a salary for work performed and is completely separate from his retirement. Either he or someone else would be getting paid that amount. The only difference being the someone else would also be getting money from the State dumped into their retirement account.

[scott]

Your math discounts the fact that part of the $450,000, over the next 5 years is actually a salary for work performed and is completely separate from his retirement. Either he or someone else would be getting paid that amount. The only difference being the someone else would also be getting money from the State dumped into their retirement account.

No it isn't, the $450k is the incremental difference of what he is getting paid because he "retired" versus if this stupid system didn't exist ($90k year * 5 years), it excludes his salary that is separate from his retirement.

The "bad deal" isn't that he took it and stayed working versus him taking it and actually retiring... the "bad deal" is that the Texas Legislature gave themselves a payday that no other state employee gets in the first place. This isn't a Perry issue, it's an "Elected Officials Giving Themselves An Extra Tummy Rub" issue.

[scott]

it's certainly not costing the State any more money and, in fact, what I said is true.

It's only true when you're starting point is the extra payday the Lege set up for themselves.

It's costing the state LOTS of additional money compared to a situation where the Lege treated Elected Officials just like any other state official. Rick Perry wouldn't have retired in Jan, and we would have saved $90k less whatever the state's annual contribution is (far less than $90k).

Try to follow along.

[Yonivore]

It's only true when you're starting point is the extra payday the Lege set up for themselves.

It's costing the state LOTS of additional money compared to a situation where the Lege treated Elected Officials just like any other state official. Rick Perry wouldn't have retired in Jan, and we would have saved $90k less whatever the state's annual contribution is (far less than $90k).

Try to follow along.
Again, you're simply wrong.

The State would be paying more if it were paying another Governor the same salary Perry will be getting over the next five years PLUS contributing to the other Governor's retirement account.

As it is, the State of Texas is paying less for a Governor who no longer requires the State to contribute to his retirement account.

The ERS would be paying more if Rick Perry had waited five years to retire and watched his annuity increase by whatever amount it would be for the additional years of service. As it is, they've frozen the rate and that's what he'll be paid no matter how long he is employed. The State and ERS are done contributing to Rick Perry's retirement.

You're just pissed because he's getting almost double his monthly salary for the period of time he remains employed by the State. In the end, both the State and ERS are saving money by his early retirement.

[scott]

Again, you're simply wrong.

The State would be paying more if it were paying another Governor the same salary Perry will be getting over the next five years PLUS contributing to the other Governor's retirement account.

As it is, the State of Texas is paying less for a Governor who no longer requires the State to contribute to his retirement account.

The ERS would be paying more if Rick Perry had waited five years to retire and watched his annuity increase by whatever amount it would be for the additional years of service. As it is, they've frozen the rate and that's what he'll be paid no matter how long he is employed. The State and ERS are done contributing to Rick Perry's retirement.

You're just pissed because he's getting almost double his monthly salary for the period of time he remains employed by the State. In the end, both the State and ERS are saving money by his early retirement.

This post is another clear illustration of how you are incapable of any basic rational thought.

You are contending $240k is less than $150k. There is a phrase for that kind of thinking in the academic world: "fucking stupid".

If this program didn't exist, we'd only be paying Perry $150k, instead of $240k. The "savings" you allude to I've already dispelled, unless Perry manages to live to be 116 years old.

You're trying to argue that Fucked Up Scenario A is cheaper than Fucked Up Scenario B which overlooks the fact that both are more expensive than "Non Fucked Up Scenario".

You're an idiot, as demonstrated continually over the course of your posts.

[scott]

Basically, here are the scenarios:

1) Elected officials are treated like any other state employee, and you don't get to just start collecting retirement when you feel like it.

2) Elected officials get to "retire" only in the sense they get to collect retirement, but still work and get both their retirement and salary & that's what he does.

3) Elected officials get to "retire" only in the sense they get to collect retirement, but still work and get both their retirement and salary, but instead he just retires and thus we are paying his retirement plus the salary & benefits of a new governor.

Scenario 2 might cost less than scenario 3, but both definitely cost a shit load more than scenario 1.

[Yonivore]

Try looking at it this way.

The State of Texas and The Employees' Retirement System of Texas are two separate entities with two separate funding mechanisms and two different purposes.

The State of Texas saves on Perry because, unlike a replacement employee, they are no longer contributing over 6% of his salary to the Employee's Retirement System. 6% of a Governor's salary, over five years is a pretty significant amount -- and, they will continue to realize that savings for as long as Rick Perry remains in office. They no longer have to find 6% of his salary to deposit into his retirement account over at the ERS. If Perry has retired and left office, that wouldn't be the case.

The Employees' Retirement System of Texas saves -- or, at least breaks even -- on Perry so long as he isn't an actuarial anomaly. The difference in his annuity now and what it would be 5 years from now isn't insignificant but, at some point, (around the time the actuarial tables predict he'll die), they will have paid him the same amount. If he dies early, they save. If he lives longer, they don't. But, again, the State budget is unaffected.

Governor Perry get's a bump in his salary for five years at the expense of having a smaller annuity when he finally leaves office.

[scott]

Try looking at it this way.

You try looking at it from the angle of Elected Officials not getting to enact legislation to treat them better than the rest of the country.




Governor Perry get's a bump in his salary for five years at the expense of having a smaller annuity when he finally leaves office.

And, as already demonstrated, that 5-year bump costs has a greater present value of the smaller annuity, unless he lives to be one of the oldest people in history.

You continue to miss the point. It doesn't matter if Perry did the right thing for the state in this case, because this case isn't that important. What is important is this entire system exists to begin with.

[Yonivore]

Basically, here are the scenarios:

1) Elected officials are treated like any other state employee, and you don't get to just start collecting retirement when you feel like it.
You can start collecting retirement when you meet the criteria set by the ERS Board. He apparently did. It wasn't when he felt like it.


2) Elected officials get to "retire" only in the sense they get to collect retirement, but still work and get both their retirement and salary & that's what he does.
He's not the only one. Goes on all over the place. In fact, there are private companies that have hired pensioners, out of retirement, and put them back to work. Usually as a consultant but, the result is the same.


3) Elected officials get to "retire" only in the sense they get to collect retirement, but still work and get both their retirement and salary, but instead he just retires and thus we are paying his retirement plus the salary & benefits of a new governor.
But, you're not paying all the benefits. He's no longer receiving a retirement contribution. And, as a retiree, he entitled to insurance coverage at the same cost as if he were not retired.


Scenario 2 might cost less than scenario 3, but both definitely cost a shit load more than scenario 1.
Except you're mistaken.

[scott]

I do love how you'll jump through hoops to defend anyone with an R beside his name though. If a Democrat did this we'd probably have all sort of plagiarized posts from you with ellipses in the thread title.

Bottom line: elected officials shouldn't have statutorily codified this perk for themselves.

[scott]

Except you're mistaken.

Wrong again, idiot.

[Yonivore]

You try looking at it from the angle of Elected Officials not getting to enact legislation to treat them better than the rest of the country.
Well, he's not a legislator and Texas State employee's ability to retire and rehire of, in this case retire and retain (which also used to be allowed at agencies) has been going on a lot longer than Perry has been in public office.


And, as already demonstrated, that 5-year bump costs has a greater present value of the smaller annuity, unless he lives to be one of the oldest people in history.
It's not a bump. It's his salary. His retirement is actually less than it would be if he waited five years.


You continue to miss the point. It doesn't matter if Perry did the right thing for the state in this case, because this case isn't that important. What is important is this entire system exists to begin with.
I believe it's you that's missing the point.

You'd only be right if the position were to remain vacant. Otherwise, the salary you're paying Governor Perry would be going into the pocket of his replacement - a 1 for 1 exchange. And, on top of that, you'd be contributing another 6% of that guy's salary to the ERS for his future retirement - an additional cost.

[Yonivore]

Wrong again, idiot.
So, the salary we're going to be paying Perry would not be paid to his replacement?

[Yonivore]

I do love how you'll jump through hoops to defend anyone with an R beside his name though. If a Democrat did this we'd probably have all sort of plagiarized posts from you with ellipses in the thread title.

Bottom line: elected officials shouldn't have statutorily codified this perk for themselves.
You never asked me if I agreed with the practice. I don't. I think when people retire they should retire. However, ERS rules and State policy allow it. And, back to your sarcastic comment about wondering who instituted this...I'm willing to bet there's a Democrat in the wood pile somewhere but, I don't know either. I do want to say I remember the whole retire and retain started around the time Mark White was Governor.

But, your inference this is costing the state more is inaccurate. It simply isn't. And, it only costs ERS more if he beats the actuarial tables -- which is the case no matter when he retires.

[Yonivore]

Wrong again, idiot.
Frankly, I thought you better than this. You're usually not one to sink to name-calling. Particularly when the other person doesn't start it.

[Yonivore]

This post is another clear illustration of how you are incapable of any basic rational thought.

You are contending $240k is less than $150k. There is a phrase for that kind of thinking in the academic world: "fucking stupid".
No, but, $240k is less than the amount of a different Governor's salary (plus ERS contribution) and Perry's annuity, combined.

[Yonivore]

Since you like scenarios so much.

Scenario 1) Governor Perry's salary, $150,000. State's 6% contribution to his retirement account, $0.00. Governor Perry's annuity, $90,000. Grand Total - $240,000.

Scenario 2) Governor X's salary, $150,000. State's 6% contribution to his retirement account, $9,000. Governor Perry's annuity, $90,000. Grand Total - $249,000.

It's disingenuous to include his annuity as part of his salary the way the article did. If he's entitled to draw retirement pay, it's his account and he followed the rules to access it.

And, after consideration, it's not this practice that bothers me, it's state funded pensions altogether. I would rather be paid an additional 6% and be allowed to invest for my own retirement.

[ElNono]

This post is another clear illustration of how you are incapable of any basic rational thought.

I could've told you that and saved you a bunch of posts...






.. but I was busy. Sorry.

[Yonivore]

I could've told you that and saved you a bunch of posts...

.. but I was busy. Sorry.
In what universe is $240,000 greater than $249,000?

[Yonivore]

I could've told you that and saved you a bunch of posts...

.. but I was busy. Sorry.
And, I think, instead of giving up, scott realized his error. It's okay, we all make mistakes.

[Nbadan]

:lol

So wrong but yet so right...that's why Yoni made my top ten and Scott hasn't

[Yonivore]

Here's a couple of questions for you two brainiacs.

Should drawing on your Individual Retirement Account be contingent on whether or not you're still working?

Social Security?

Why should a State retirement account, into which you contributed the lions share (I think the employee contributes 12% and the State 6% of the gross salary), be any different?

[Nbadan]

In what universe is $240,000 greater than $249,000?

So much for shared sacrifice...do all state workers get to rent a mansion, with taxpayer money, for 10K per month too...

[Nbadan]

Here's a couple of questions for you two brainiacs.

Should drawing on your Individual Retirement Account be contingent on whether or not you're still working?

Social Security?

Why should a State retirement account, into which you contributed the lions share (I think the employee contributes 12% and the State 6% of the gross salary), be any different?

You cannot retire and still draw your regular salary....no other state job lets you do that...

[Yonivore]

You cannot retire and still draw your regular salary....no other state job lets you do that...
Actually, you're wrong, the State of Texas is chocked full of double-dippers.

With non-elected officials, it does require a 30 day separation but, it goes on all the time.

[Yonivore]

So much for shared sacrifice...do all state workers get to rent a mansion, with taxpayer money, for 10K per month too...
Now, you're changing the subject.

[Yonivore]

So much for shared sacrifice...do all state workers get to rent a mansion, with taxpayer money, for 10K per month too...
$90,000 dollars of that $240,000 is from his ERS Retirement Account -- not funded by the budget (well, not after he retired). It's not accurate to call it salary money.

Perry is making the same $150,000 dollars a year -- except that the State is no longer sending an additional $9,000 per year to his ERS retirement account.

What about that is not making sense?

[Nbadan]

Actually, you're wrong, the State of Texas is chocked full of double-dippers.

With non-elected officials, it does require a 30 day separation but, it goes on all the time.

I work with many state pensioners and some of them do contract work after retirement, but none make their regular salary while doing the contract work....that's insane...

[Nbadan]

$90,000 dollars of that $240,000 is from his ERS Retirement Account -- not funded by the budget (well, not after he retired). It's not accurate to call it salary money.

Except that when the TRS money falls short for any given year it does come from taxpayers...whether you think Perry deserves this money is irrelevant, perception is what matters and Perry is a weasel...

[Yonivore]

I work with many state pensioners and some of them do contract work after retirement, but none make their regular salary while doing the contract work....that's insane...
I personally know several dozen State employees that retired and rehired into the same job at the same pay.

Actually, they net more because they're not longer contributing to their retirement accounts either.

Make a few calls next week. Ask if the practice exists -- and, for how long.

Oh, and when I've seen them hired back as consultants/contractors, they're being paid more than when they worked at the agency.

[Nbadan]

I personally know several dozen State employees that retired and rehired into the same job at the same pay.

Actually, they net more because they're not longer contributing to their retirement accounts either.

Make a few calls next week. Ask if the practice exists -- and, for how long.

Yeah, no offense, but I'll wait for actual statistics to show me that state pensioners retire, collect from TRS and still work their regular jobs for regular pay...

[Yonivore]

Except that when the TRS money falls short for any given year it does come from taxpayers...whether you think Perry deserves this money is irrelevant, perception is what matters and Perry is a weasel...
I'm not sure that's ever occurred but, it would benefit all retirees; not just the ones still working.

[Yonivore]

Yeah, no offense, but I'll wait for actual statistics to show me that state pensioners retire, collect from TRS and still work their regular jobs for regular pay...
Form where are you going to wait for them?

[Nbadan]

It;a right there in the website that was posted earlier....Perry cannot collect both


If you accept a position as a state
employee after retirement from the
elected class, you are required to be
a member of the employee class and
to contribute to ERS. You will continue
to receive your annuity payment, and
service credit in the employee class
will provide you additional retirement
benefits.
If you retired with at least eight years of
service, exclusive of military credit as
an elected official, you will be eligible
to transfer employee class service to
your retiree elected class account.
If you return to the Texas Legislature or
any other elected state office, you are
again eligible for membership in the
elected class. Your annuity payments
will stop and be recalculated to reflect
any additional service and resume only
after you no longer hold the elected
position. No other type of employment
affects your rights to retirement
benefits.

http://www.ers.state.tx.us/Retirement/Retirement_Benefits_for_Elected_State_Officials/

[ElNono]

In what universe is $240,000 greater than $249,000?

In the same universe where $240,000 is greater than $150,000, apparently.


And, I think, instead of giving up, scott realized his error. It's okay, we all make mistakes.

You think wrong. You simply are unable to grasp what his point is.
Hint: His point has nothing to do with hiring another governor.

[ElNono]

Than again, you're just dumb Yoni. That's very likely the reason scott decided he had better things to do.

[Nbadan]

In the same universe where $240,000 is greater than $150,000, apparently..


Hard to believe Texas pays Perry to do anything...much less Govern

what a goober state...

[Nbadan]

Perry gives a whole new meaning to the term 'slick Perry'


Glen Maxey, the first openly gay member of the Texas State Legislature and longtime Democratic activist, spent most of last summer helping a reporter for a "national news outlet" nail down persistent rumors of Rick Perry's sexual relationships with men. The story got killed. So Maxey has published an e-book laying out the evidence. Among the charges: Rick Perry has a small dick.
In Head Figure Head: The Search for the Hidden Life of Rick Perry, which was published today, Maxey tells the story of a four-month investigation (conducted, oddly, mostly through Facebook messages and chats that he liberally reproduces) he collaborated on with an unnamed reporter. According to Maxey—who, while obviously a partisan, is as far as I can tell not a crank and served 12 years in the state legislature—he located two men who claimed to have had sex with Perry. One was a male prostitute who told associates that Perry had hired him three or four times a year for hotel parties with Perry and an aide. The other was a man who responded to a Craigslist ad allegedly posted by Perry. Along the way, there are dozens of other more tenuous second-hand reports, including one man linked to Perry who pointedly refused to deny the accusations.

It's all very anonymous and hazy and who knows if any of it is true. But the fact that this is coming from a fairly prominent Texas political figure brings it out of the realm of pure rumor and offers an engaging little glimpse into how your news sausage is made (or in this case, not made).

http://gawker.com/5868489/all-your-rick-perry-gay-sex-rumors-collected-in-one-handy-book?tag=2012

[Yonivore]

It;a right there in the website that was posted earlier....Perry cannot collect both
http://www.ers.state.tx.us/Retirement/Retirement_Benefits_for_Elected_State_Officials/
Hey, take it up with ERS. Obviously, the Governor's interpretation of the requirements differ. And, I'm not going to research your out of context paragraph to figure it out. I do notice the bolded sentence says he is "eligible" for membership not that he again becomes a member and maybe that affects whether or not the annuity payments stop. I honestly don't know.

I do know, however, the State isn't out any more money with Perry retired than they were when he wasn't.

It doesn't change the fact that the State isn't paying out any more in salary to the Governor -- in fact, with the ERS contribution gone, they're saving $9,000 per year.

The $90,000 annuity is not salary. It is a distribution from Governor Perry retirement account into which he contributed 12% and the State 6% until he retired. If he retired, left office, and got a $300,000 position with some private company, no one would say they were paying him $390,000.

And, depending on whether or not Perry beats the actuary, the ERS isn't out any money either -- but, that would be the case whether or not he was working.

Once again, this is why government shouldn't be in the business of pensions. People like you get their panties in a wad when they think someone is getting away with something they're not.

[Yonivore]

Hard to believe Texas pays Perry to do anything...much less Govern

what a goober state...
That's what the position pays and he won election fair and square.

[Yonivore]

I'm sorry, I went and looked anyway and the second paragraph of the .pdf you linked clearly states, "Membership in the elected class is optional."

So, it is possible Governor retired and opted out of membership when he reach the age eligible to draw on the account.

I think part off the problem is you're stuck on the word "retirement" kind of like you were are on the word "waterboarding."

ERS determines eligibility to draw on retirement accounts based on factors other than whether or not you're working. Typically, when people retire, they leave employment and start drawing on their accounts. That doesn't necessarily mean they have to, though.

[Yonivore]

If you are a member of the elected class with eight years of service credit, exclusive of military service, you are entitled to receive a monthly annuity upon reaching retirement age. Current law provides this “vested” right to retirement benefits if you do not withdraw your contributions, even though you leave an elected office. You do not have to be a contributing member at the time of retirement.
It's been 11 years as Governor and a few more before that as Lt. Governor.

[Nbadan]

I'm sorry, I went and looked anyway and the second paragraph of the .pdf you linked clearly states, "Membership in the elected class is optional."

So, it is possible Governor retired and opted out of membership when he reach the age eligible to draw on the account.

I think part off the problem is you're stuck on the word "retirement" kind of like you were are on the word "waterboarding."

ERS determines eligibility to draw on retirement accounts based on factors other than whether or not you're working. Typically, when people retire, they leave employment and start drawing on their accounts. That doesn't necessarily mean they have to, though.


Nah, I did more research on it and Perry qualifies for retirement under the rule of 80 which ERS determines by a combination of age and years of public service, military service...yada, yada...legally he can start drawing retirement, but from a political and philosophical point, it would have been better for Perry to hold off on drawing retirement until he left public office...Perry is a horrible Governor and this just adds to that horrible legacy..

[Yonivore]

Nah, I did more research on it and Perry qualifies for retirement under the rule of 80 which ERS determines by a combination of age and years of public service, military service...yada, yada...legally he can start drawing retirement, but from a political and philosophical point, it would have been better for Perry to hold off on drawing retirement until he left public office...Perry is a horrible Governor and this just adds to that horrible legacy..
Okay, so now that we agree he can legally draw an annuity.

Can you also admit to the fact the State is getting by $9,000 cheaper as well?

Whether or not you like him as Governor is irrelevant.

[Nbadan]

Okay, so now that we agree he can legally draw an annuity.

Can you also admit to the fact the State is getting by $9,000 cheaper as well?

Whether or not you like him as Governor is irrelevant.

No, the state isn't saving anything...he and the state still have to continue to contribute to ERS...there goes your 'savings'...

[Nbadan]

...nice creative financing too....no wonder Republicans can't balance a budget..

[Yonivore]

No, the state isn't saving anything...he and the state still have to continue to contribute to ERS...there goes your 'savings'...
Where'd you find that?

[Nbadan]

On the website linked above...

[ChuckD]

What would you do if the option were available to you?

Probably not rail against other people using similar options available to them.

[Yonivore]

On the website linked above...
I didn't see that. Care to point to the paragraph or should I re-read it?

[Yonivore]

Probably not rail against other people using similar options available to them.
I'm guessing your alluding to something Perry's said?

[ChuckD]

Here's a couple of questions for you two brainiacs.

Should drawing on your Individual Retirement Account be contingent on whether or not you're still working?

Social Security?

Why should a State retirement account, into which you contributed the lions share (I think the employee contributes 12% and the State 6% of the gross salary), be any different?

SS allows you to make a grand total of $14K on additional income if you take the early option before you start being heavily penalized.

[Yonivore]

SS allows you to make a grand total of $14K on additional income if you take the early option before you start being heavily penalized.
Thank God!

[ChumpDumper]

Damn, I just saw yoni defend a man sucking off the government teat his entire adult life.

[scott]

Since you like scenarios so much.

Scenario 1) Governor Perry's salary, $150,000. State's 6% contribution to his retirement account, $0.00. Governor Perry's annuity, $90,000. Grand Total - $240,000.

Scenario 2) Governor X's salary, $150,000. State's 6% contribution to his retirement account, $9,000. Governor Perry's annuity, $90,000. Grand Total - $249,000.

It's disingenuous to include his annuity as part of his salary the way the article did. If he's entitled to draw retirement pay, it's his account and he followed the rules to access it.

And, after consideration, it's not this practice that bothers me, it's state funded pensions altogether. I would rather be paid an additional 6% and be allowed to invest for my own retirement.

In both scenarios they are still Governor Perry. He didn't ACTUALLY retire, he only did it from this financial perspective, so the real scenarios are:

1) Governor Perry is still governor, making $150k and state paying their match of $9,000 for a total of $159k

2) Governor Perry is still governor, making $150k and state paying him $90k retirement for a total of $240k.

The scenario in which Perry ACTUALLY retires and we get to $249k doesn't apply... since he didn't actually retire nor is there any indication that he would.

[scott]

You think wrong. You simply are unable to grasp what his point is.
Hint: His point has nothing to do with hiring another governor.


Than again, you're just dumb Yoni. That's very likely the reason scott decided he had better things to do.

Correct on all accounts.

[Yonivore]

In both scenarios they are still Governor Perry. He didn't ACTUALLY retire, he only did it from this financial perspective, so the real scenarios are:

1) Governor Perry is still governor, making $150k and state paying their match of $9,000 for a total of $159k

2) Governor Perry is still governor, making $150k and state paying him $90k retirement for a total of $240k.

The scenario in which Perry ACTUALLY retires and we get to $249k doesn't apply... since he didn't actually retire nor is there any indication that he would.
The $150,000 check is issued on a warrant from the State of Texas.

The $90,000 check is issued on a warrant from the Employees Retirement System of Texas and paid from funds earned on investment of the contributions made during the time he was participating in the plan.

[Yonivore]

Correct on all accounts.
What, your point is you don't like that Perry was able to increase his short term income without costing the State a dime and, in fact, saving it approximately $9,000 per year? Is your point that the ERS is likely to save money on annuity payments because Perry opted to start a $90,000 annuity instead of letting it grow to approximately $100,000 in 5 years?

What is your point?

[ChumpDumper]

Does he have to take any money at all?

[scott]

The $150,000 check is issued on a warrant from the State of Texas.

The $90,000 check is issued on a warrant from the Employees Retirement System of Texas and paid from funds earned on investment of the contributions made during the time he was participating in the plan.

It doesn't matter who issues the check, both are real dollars from state agencies of the state of Texas. Paying Rick Perry $90k of his retirement funds today means $90k less funds in the agency coffers. And where do you think the state's match is coming from?

You've wrongly assumed I care if it's Rick Perry or any other official doing this. I don't blame Rick for getting his in line with the system. I care that this system exists, and it shouldn't. You even agreed, but you're stuck on this ridiculous byzantine argument that he's saving the state money, which he isn't.

The only economic justification for having this system is to incentivize elected officials to try to stay in office longer (since this system creates the financial incentive for them to do so). If that is the goal of the system, it succeeds. I'm still against it. And unlike you, I'm against it no matter who instituted it or who benefited from it.

[Winehole23]

that's a notable difference

[scott]

What, your point is you don't like that Perry was able to increase his short term income without costing the State a dime and, in fact, saving it approximately $9,000 per year? Is your point that the ERS is likely to save money on annuity payments because Perry opted to start a $90,000 annuity instead of letting it grow to approximately $100,000 in 5 years?

What is your point?

My point, beside that you're an idiot, is that the system shouldn't exist like this for ANYONE (I've written it enough times in this thread, but its no surprised a Charlatan like you glossed over it).

It isn't saving the state any money, unless you like to make a twisty road of assumptions that lets you compare apples to oranges, like you have.

You're demonstratively incapable of grasping the concept of marginal thinking, which explains a great deal of your continued buffoonery.

[Winehole23]

with a capital C

[Yonivore]

It doesn't matter who issues the check, both are real dollars from state agencies of the state of Texas. Paying Rick Perry $90k of his retirement funds today means $90k less funds in the agency coffers. And where do you think the state's match is coming from?
It does matter and you're just fundamentally wrong about the nature of the two sources of dollars. But, I give, have your way, scott.


You've wrongly assumed I care if it's Rick Perry or any other official doing this. I don't blame Rick for getting his in line with the system. I care that this system exists, and it shouldn't. You even agreed, but you're stuck on this ridiculous byzantine argument that he's saving the state money, which he isn't.
And you've wrongly assumed it is my intent to defend Perry. The amount of money being transferred from the State to the ERS goes down by $9,000 per year.


The only economic justification for having this system is to incentivize elected officials to try to stay in office longer (since this system creates the financial incentive for them to do so). If that is the goal of the system, it succeeds. I'm still against it. And unlike you, I'm against it no matter who instituted it or who benefited from it.
I've grown ambivalent the longer I have this argument with you.

There is one Governor. No matter if it's Rick Perry or someone else, the State is going to expend $150,000 per year on that position. And, regardless of whether he retired and stayed or retired and quit working, the expenditures by ERS don't change; they're $90,000 per year. The only difference is when he retires and quits working, the new Governor will require the State to resume the $9,000 per year contribution. If he waited 5 years and retired and quit, ERS is out $100,000 per year and the State is still contributing the $9,000.

Where does the State lose money?

[scott]

Where does the State lose money?

Explained, and re-explained. Unfortunately you lack the basic comprehension skills required. Good luck with that.

[Nbadan]

Let's let other state employee like unionize teachers double-dip and see if Yoni is still so supportive

:lol

[Yonivore]

Let's let other state employee like unionize teachers double-dip and see if Yoni is still so supportive

:lol
Other State employees already do. I'm not sure if TRS has similar rules as ERS but, I've known about this for decades and I don't think you've ever seen me post anything about it.

[scott]

Yoni, since it saves the state money to let people "retire" while they are still working - why don't we have every Government employee on every level start collecting retirement benefits when they are 45 while they continue to work?

That would save the us tons of money, right?

[Nbadan]

....but the state doesn't have to match his $9,000 yearly contribution to ERS, except it does...

:lol

[scott]

That would make $100,000 less than $90,000.

Whether the Governor stayed in or left office when he became eligible to draw from his retirement account only affected the amount of the State's contribution and the ERS annuity -- both of which benefit from his decision to stay in office and accept a smaller annuity.

You still fail to comprehend one basic fact. There is no decision to "stay in or leave office." He stayed in, and he would have stayed in regardless.

His collecting retirement versus not being able to collect retirement while in office in is going to cost the state retirement fun $90k that it otherwise wouldn't have multiplied by the number of years he remains in office, less the savings to the state on their contributions to his retirement.

If, the present value of the sum of all the differences in payment of the smaller annuity versus the larger one is greater than the cost to the retirement system his early retirement has while he is still in office... THEN AND ONLY THEN, has he saved the state any money.

As demonstrated earlier, he would have to live quite a long time for the state to break even when you consider the time value of money.

[scott]

Algebraically:

Cost of "Retirement" Under Existing System = ([Value of Early Annuity] - [What State Would Otherwise Have Had to Contribute Annually]) * [Number of Additional Years In Office]

"Savings" of ERP Contributions = [CF1 / (1+r)^1] + [CF2/(1+r)^2] ... + [CFn/(1+r)^n]

Where:

CF = [Annuity Payment at actual retirement] - [Annuity payment at early "retirement"
r = discount rate
n = years after actual retirement recipient of annuity dies

With previously used CF, if we use a discount rate of 0%, then it would require an N of 26. If we up the discount rate to 3%, it would require an N of 50 years.

[Yonivore]

You still fail to comprehend one basic fact. There is no decision to "stay in or leave office." He stayed in, and he would have stayed in regardless.

His collecting retirement versus not being able to collect retirement while in office in is going to cost the state retirement fun $90k that it otherwise wouldn't have multiplied by the number of years he remains in office, less the savings to the state on their contributions to his retirement.

If, the present value of the sum of all the differences in payment of the smaller annuity versus the larger one is greater than the cost to the retirement system his early retirement has while he is still in office... THEN AND ONLY THEN, has he saved the state any money.

As demonstrated earlier, he would have to live quite a long time for the state to break even when you consider the time value of money.
While I understand what you're saying, his eligibility to draw from his retirement is not dependent on whether or not he leaves office and, if he did leave office, the State would be out more money than if he stayed.

Under the rules that make up the ERS, he is eligible to draw that money. I understand that you think that's wrong but, it is what it is. And, under those rules, the State is saving $9,000 per year while he remains in office and approximately 2% per year (on his annuity) for every year hereafter that he stays in office.

That he keeps the job of Governor and makes $249k is as irrelevant to the equation as would be if he left the office and took a job making $300,000 (that becomes $390,000 with his annuity) except to say, his replacement would then begin costing the State another $9,000 per year.

I doubt you read all the way through these posts anymore, because you long ago determined I had it wrong.

You're viewing this in terms of his annual salary increasing by $90,000 per year and I'm viewing it in terms of his eligibility to access an account according to their rules -- and, by the way, I'm pretty sure those rules have been in place for a very long time.

[Yonivore]

Algebraically:

Cost of "Retirement" Under Existing System = ([Value of Early Annuity] - [What State Would Otherwise Have Had to Contribute Annually]) * [Number of Additional Years In Office]

"Savings" of ERP Contributions = [CF1 / (1+r)^1] + [CF2/(1+r)^2] ... + [CFn/(1+r)^n]

Where:

CF = [Annuity Payment at actual retirement] - [Annuity payment at early "retirement"
r = discount rate
n = years after actual retirement recipient of annuity dies

With previously used CF, if we use a discount rate of 0%, then it would require an N of 26. If we up the discount rate to 3%, it would require an N of 50 years.
So, you're upset that he decided to access his retirement account at first eligibility instead of waiting until he left State employment. I get it. But, that's not the way ERS requires it.

Frankly, I think he's a bit shortsighted to freeze his annuity at 60% of his current salary -- for the remainder of his life -- instead of allowing it to continue to grow at 2% per year until he needed to begin drawing on it. I am curious about his reasoning.

Perhaps he has monetary necessities now the additional $90K will help with. He did just endure major back surgery this past June and with the affects of Obamacare, out of pocket medical costs have skyrocketed.

I recently paid $400 for a medical test that just 3 years ago, my insurance covered at 100%.

[scott]

While I understand what you're saying, his eligibility to draw from his retirement is not dependent on whether or not he leaves office and, if he did leave office, the State would be out more money than if he stayed.

I acknowledged this back on page 1.

I'm not arguing which option costs/saves the most money on the current system, I'm arguing the current system costs more money than the system that should be implemented.



Under the rules that make up the ERS, he is eligible to draw that money. I understand that you think that's wrong but, it is what it is. And, under those rules, the State is saving $9,000 per year while he remains in office and approximately 2% per year (on his annuity) for every year hereafter that he stays in office.

That he keeps the job of Governor and makes $249k is as irrelevant to the equation as would be if he left the office and took a job making $300,000 (that becomes $390,000 with his annuity) except to say, his replacement would then begin costing the State another $9,000 per year.

I doubt you read all the way through these posts anymore, because you long ago determined I had it wrong.

You're viewing this in terms of his annual salary increasing by $90,000 per year and I'm viewing it in terms of his eligibility to access an account according to their rules -- and, by the way, I'm pretty sure those rules have been in place for a very long time.

I'm not viewing in any of the ways you think I am - because I'm arguing all the details in this section are the problem.

I'm saying "This system should be done away with",

You're counting with "But Result A of the system is better than Result B of the system",

To which I've been responding "Both Result A and Result B of the system are worse than if the system didn't exist".

How long the system has been around, or which path within the system are taken are all irrelevant to my argument of "we shouldn't have this system"

[scott]

So, you're upset that he decided to access his retirement account at first eligibility instead of waiting until he left State employment. I get it. But, that's not the way ERS requires it.

I'm not upset about his decision to do anything. Why is this so difficult for you to understand? I'm saying we would be better off without the system. Plain and simple. End of argument.


Frankly, I think he's a bit shortsighted to freeze his annuity at 60% of his current salary -- for the remainder of his life -- instead of allowing it to continue to grow at 2% per year until he needed to begin drawing on it. I am curious about his reasoning.

Perhaps he has monetary necessities now the additional $90K will help with. He did just endure major back surgery this past June and with the affects of Obamacare, out of pocket medical costs have skyrocketed.

I recently paid $400 for a medical test that just 3 years ago, my insurance covered at 100%.

Frankly, remind me to never take financial advice from you, since the present value of his double dipping exceeds the present value of the reduction of his annuity.

But hey, if you give me $100 bucks, I'll give you $1 a year for the rest of your life. Deal?

[ElNono]

It only took 4 pages... :lol

[Yonivore]

I'm not upset about his decision to do anything. Why is this so difficult for you to understand? I'm saying we would be better off without the system. Plain and simple. End of argument.
That's not true.

If the system were like you think it should be, and he left employment at his first opportunity, the ERS would still be out the $90,000 per year for the number of years between his beginning to receive an annuity and the imaginary date, in the future, when you think he should start drawing on his ERS account. And, the State is still out the $150,000 per year for the replacement Governor + the $9,000 per year contribution.

The continued growth in his annuity, beginning on the first date of his eligibility and ending on the date he leaves office serves as an incentive for employees to remain in their positions until the annuity reaches an amount satisfactory to the employee -- not the system.

ERS is a system. It serves as a retirement account for quite a number of people. Some leave their jobs after being vested but, before being eligible to draw on their accounts. Some stay in their jobs way past the date of eligibility and then, when they finally separate, start drawing on their accounts. I know some that take home 115% of their former net take home pay because they worked to 100% eligibility and there is less taken out of their annuity than was taken out of their salary.

They are viewed as two different processes. One is compensation for a job -- compensation (for the Governor's position, anyway) that would be paid to someone, regardless. The other is a return in an investment of contributions, from an employee and an employer, that matures and is available beginning on a certain date promised early in the contract.

You're equation, a couple of posts back, called it an "early annuity." It would have only been early if he had been allowed to draw on it before he had been eligible.


Frankly, remind me to never take financial advice from you, since the present value of his double dipping exceeds the present value of the reduction of his annuity.
Okay. But, he's not double-dipping. He's being paid a wage and he's receiving an annuity for which he is entitled.


But hey, if you give me $100 bucks, I'll give you $1 a year for the rest of your life. Deal?
Are you the guy that parlayed Hillary Clinton's $1,000 investment?

[scott]

That's not true.

If the system were like you think it should be, and he left employment at his first opportunity, the ERS would still be out the $90,000 per year for the number of years between his beginning to receive an annuity and the imaginary date, in the future, when you think he should start drawing on his ERS account. And, the State is still out the $150,000 per year for the replacement Governor + the $9,000 per year contribution.

The continued growth in his annuity, beginning on the first date of his eligibility and ending on the date he leaves office serves as an incentive for employees to remain in their positions until the annuity reaches an amount satisfactory to the employee -- not the system.

ERS is a system. It serves as a retirement account for quite a number of people. Some leave their jobs after being vested but, before being eligible to draw on their accounts. Some stay in their jobs way past the date of eligibility and then, when they finally separate, start drawing on their accounts. I know some that take home 115% of their former net take home pay because they worked to 100% eligibility and there is less taken out of their annuity than was taken out of their salary.

They are viewed as two different processes. One is compensation for a job -- compensation (for the Governor's position, anyway) that would be paid to someone, regardless. The other is a return in an investment of contributions, from an employee and an employer, that matures and is available beginning on a certain date promised early in the contract.

You're equation, a couple of posts back, called it an "early annuity." It would have only been early if he had been allowed to draw on it before he had been eligible.


Okay. But, he's not double-dipping. He's being paid a wage and he's receiving an annuity for which he is entitled.


Are you the guy that parlayed Hillary Clinton's $1,000 investment?

smh... there is obviously no hope for you.

[scott]

[Yonivore Logic]Man, if every employer in America would just let them double-dip, they'd save millions![/Yonivore Logic]

[scott]

Let me help you by highlighting the fatally stupid assumption you keep repeating:


If the system were like you think it should be, and he left employment at his first opportunity, the ERS would still be out the $90,000 per year for the number of years between his beginning to receive an annuity and the imaginary date, in the future, when you think he should start drawing on his ERS account. And, the State is still out the $150,000 per year for the replacement Governor + the $9,000 per year contribution.

[Yonivore]

Let me help you by highlighting the fatally stupid assumption you keep repeating:
You're pretty hateful for someone so certain in their position.

If Rick Perry left employment on January 1, 2010, when he started drawing form his ERS retirement account, would the State/and ERS be out more or less money today?

[scott]

You're pretty hateful for someone so certain in their position.

It is hateful to point out how stupid your assumption is? Maybe you're just too sensitive.


If Rick Perry left employment on January 1, 2010, when he started drawing form his ERS retirement account, would the State/and ERS be out more or less money today?

But to answer your question, as I've already acknowledged TWICE in this thread, that situation might save the state/ERS some money.

But his staying in office and getting to collect retirement COSTS the state/ERS money compared to his staying in office and NOT getting to collect retirement. And this is the crux of the argument that continues to elude you.

You are basically assuming that he would have left office on January 1, 2010 and your argument for the status quo (which you actually have stated you don't agree with) relies upon it.

In fact, your failure to understand the argument being made is forcing you to argue against something you stated you actually agree with (not letting people double dip).

How difficult of a concept is this for you to grasp?

[scott]

I don't know how many different ways I can try to explain this in terms you can understand - or why I'm even making the effort.

The argument I've been having since page 1 is over what costs the state (including the ERP) more:

1) Rick Perry staying in office and also collecting retirement funds
2) Rick Perry staying in office and not collecting retirement funds

[Yonivore]

Do you feel the same way about employer-invested 401k accounts?

[scott]

If the match is publicly funded, as the ERP is, yes.

Where do you think the match comes from?

[Yonivore]

It is hateful to point out how stupid your assumption is? Maybe you're just too sensitive.
Nah, otherwise, I would have probably resorted to similar invective.

I think the difference is you see the ERS Account as State money when I see it as an account into which both the State and Employee contributed (just like an employer-invested 401K) and to which the employee is entitled based on meeting eligibility requirements that have nothing to do with whether or not the employee is still working (just like an employer-invested 401K).


But to answer your question, as I've already acknowledged TWICE in this thread, that situation might save the state/ERS some money.

But his staying in office and getting to collect retirement COSTS the state/ERS money compared to his staying in office and NOT getting to collect retirement. And this is the crux of the argument that continues to elude you.
It doesn't elude me. It's just that the ERS calculation of what his annuity will be is not determined by nor contingent upon his staying or leaving employment. Just like drawing from almost every other Retirement account, it is based on age and the added requirement of length of service.


You are basically assuming that he would have left office on January 1, 2010 and your argument for the status quo (which you actually have stated you don't agree with) relies upon it.

In fact, your failure to understand the argument being made is forcing you to argue against something you stated you actually agree with (not letting people double dip).

How difficult of a concept is this for you to grasp?
I didn't say I didn't grasp it but, your whole argument is pinned on the binary of being in the position vs. not being in the position -- which isn't a variable in determining how much annuity to which he's entitled.

If the Governor were 70 1/2 years old, he'd be required to take an RMD (Required Minimum Distribution [I think that's what it called]) from most, if not all his retirement accounts...even if he kept working. Is that fair?

My bottom line is retirement accounts are not salaries and they work under different rules. That you and I (to a lesser extent) think drawing from those accounts is something associated with leaving employment is -- I think -- no longer operative in a world where the government controls our investments.

Let me get paid a full and fair wage, pay my taxes every April 15, and invest in my own retirement -- and, you have a point. But, there is a blizzard of regulatory interference on when and how we decide to transition from working to not working -- if there is a mechanism for allowing me to draw retirement while continuing to work (whether it be with the same or a different employer), I don't see the problem.

This isn't something that is only available to elected officials (although, for reasons that require a whole different thread, a separation for the employee class is required). This isn't something that was just created in the past 2 years to benefit this elected official; it's existed for decades and, the Texas ERS is one of the more solvent retirement systems in the country. That tells me this is calculated into their investment and funding strategy.

Look, we can agree to disagree but, I'm not going to call you names over either my frustration in not being able to adequately convey my idea or in your inability to understand my position -- which I readily admit could be a result of my inability to argue it.

[Winehole23]

^^^ state employee defends executive level perks. amusing.

[Winehole23]

truth to power: I don't care what anyone says, you're alright.

[scott]

I think the difference is you see the ERS Account as State money when I see it as an account into which both the State and Employee contributed (just like an employer-invested 401K) and to which the employee is entitled based on meeting eligibility requirements that have nothing to do with whether or not the employee is still working (just like an employer-invested 401K).

There is one notable difference between his ERS account and an employer-invested 401K. The ERS account is essentially a pention, and *not* driven by the sum of the collective contributions and their compounded growth rates over time. The retiree's annuity is based upon a % of their Top 3 annual salaries.

This becomes an important distinction later in this post.


It doesn't elude me. It's just that the ERS calculation of what his annuity will be is not determined by nor contingent upon his staying or leaving employment. Just like drawing from almost every other Retirement account, it is based on age and the added requirement of length of service.

Again, there is an important distinction between "retirement account" and "pension". This system is effectively a pension, not a 401K, IRA or any similar retirement account.



I didn't say I didn't grasp it but, your whole argument is pinned on the binary of being in the position vs. not being in the position -- which isn't a variable in determining how much annuity to which he's entitled.

My argument is not based on the binary of being in office or not - its based on the singularity of being in office, which he is. It is a flawed argument to argue [Status Quo System & he is in office] v. [Remove Status Quo System & he leaves office]. The property argument is to hold being in office (or not) constant while comparing the Status Quo versus removing the Status Quo. You keep trying to blur the lines between the two.


If the Governor were 70 1/2 years old, he'd be required to take an RMD (Required Minimum Distribution [I think that's what it called]) from most, if not all his retirement accounts...even if he kept working. Is that fair?

I'm not really concerned with what is fair - I'm concerned with what the economic incentives created are. Retirement plans, whether they be pensions or investment accounts, create the incentive to leave the workforce because you no longer need to work to generate income (for most people, if their job told them they'd pay them the same salary for the rest of their lives to retire - they would).

Double-dipping, on the other hand, offsets that incentive and in fact completely contradicts it. When you have the option of double-dipping, you create the financial incentive for people who otherwise would retire to KEEP working.

Reasons for wanting to have this incentive may vary, as may the reasons for being against such an incentive. Right now I can tell you that I'm against the incentive for people to work when they otherwise might have retired because of we have an oversupply of labor in this country, and our Baby Boomer population is a big part of the reason why (among other reasons, including those on the demand-side of the equation).

So, on December 18, 2011 - I am against Required Minimum Distributions.


My bottom line is retirement accounts are not salaries and they work under different rules. That you and I (to a lesser extent) think drawing from those accounts is something associated with leaving employment is -- I think -- no longer operative in a world where the government controls our investments.


Let me get paid a full and fair wage, pay my taxes every April 15, and invest in my own retirement -- and, you have a point. [/quote]

You'd find me to be among the staunchest of supporters for privatizing retirement programs, including Social Security.

You'd also find me to be among the staunchest of supporters for systems that create the right economic incentives. This isn't one of those systems, and that is part of the reason I'm against it (the other part being that it was put in place by Elected Officials for Elected Officials - it's no different than if Congress voted to make their salaries tax free.)


But, there is a blizzard of regulatory interference on when and how we decide to transition from working to not working -- if there is a mechanism for allowing me to draw retirement while continuing to work (whether it be with the same or a different employer), I don't see the problem.

This is where the distinction between a 401K (or similar accounts) and a pension come into play. I support anyone's right to withdraw from a 401K at anytime, I'd even support eliminating the early withdrawal penalty (so that an early withdrawal would get you the value of your 401K, less your tax liability). A 401K has an account value, and if you draw from it today, you are making the tradeoff between its present value and its future value at the rate of return you would have otherwise achieved.

A pension, on the other hand, does have the same valuation method. It is merely a % of some calculation of your income (most employers choose a Top 3), with that % being based on your years of service + age. But, those %s are static and do not have any relationship to real rates of return, so there are arbitrage situations where the maximum net present value of your pension payments is NOT by waiting until you are eligible for 100%. When you couple this with double-dipping, you are separating the "retirement" decision away from the decision to continue working or not, which has negative financial impacts compared to NOT separating that decision.


This isn't something that is only available to elected officials (although, for reasons that require a whole different thread, a separation for the employee class is required).

But it is. Other employees are required to separate from employment within 30 days. Granted, they may then work their way around the system by working as a consultant for the employer they "retired" from (whereas an elected official can't - because we can't have "Consulting Governor), and I'll argue against that form of double-dipping too.


This isn't something that was just created in the past 2 years to benefit this elected official; it's existed for decades and, the Texas ERS is one of the more solvent retirement systems in the country. That tells me this is calculated into their investment and funding strategy.

No one ever claimed it was new, just that it was wrong. And the fact that it is solvent may just be an indication that we taxpayers are doing a fantastic job of funding the program (again, where do you think the state's contribution is coming from?)


Look, we can agree to disagree but, I'm not going to call you names over either my frustration in not being able to adequately convey my idea or in your inability to understand my position -- which I readily admit could be a result of my inability to argue it.

Feel free to call me names. When you deliberately act like a dunce, I'm going to call you out for it. This is the SpursTalk Politics Forum, not High Tea with Her Majesty.

[Bill_Brasky]

Perry is a POS and all but this is actually nothing new.

[ElNono]

I see this moved from "saves the state money" to "why do you hate me?". Progress.

[JoeChalupa]

I wonder if Rick will cash in on his losing attempt at the GOP nomination and write a book.

[cheguevara]

Perry in Iowa: Improving U.S. economy is “very Biblically based”

After completing military service in 1977, Perry said he returned home to his old room and spent a lot of time alone.

“I wasn’t happy. It was a really dark and dismal time in my life. I would go down to the river, just me and my little dog, and having some conversations, asking God, “What is it that you want me to do?” Perry said.

:lmao :lmao :lmao

[Blake]

where is the high tea with her majesty forum

[Nbadan]

Perry is double dipping his state salary and still sending Texas taxpayers his Presidential campaign bill....

Perry bills Texas taxpayers over $1 million while touring country

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/12/27/perry-bills-texas-taxpayers-over-1-million-while-touring-country/


Running for president can be expensive. Thankfully, the taxpayers are here to foot the bill.

Okay, that’s not exactly true, especially for private citizens hoping to land a new job in public office. But it does seem to be at least partially true for Texas Gov. Rick Perry (R), who billed taxpayers over $1 million in the last months of 2011 for travel, lodging, food and security costs accrued during his out-of-state campaign trips, according to an examination of financial disclosures published by The Texas Tribune.

The Tribune also noted that the Texas Department of Public Safety has spent more on Perry’s travels from Sept. to Dec. of 2011 than it did during all the other months of 2011 combined.

In total, Perry spent over $1.4 million for security, travel, dining and lodging during that time, all on the taxpayers’ dime. Nearly $400,000 of that was for security alone.

[scott]

Perry is double dipping his state salary and still sending Texas taxpayers his Presidential campaign bill....

Perry bills Texas taxpayers over $1 million while touring country

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/12/27/perry-bills-texas-taxpayers-over-1-million-while-touring-country/

Well worth the money considering it keeps him from Governing the state of Texas.