Slick Rick Perry "retires" to boost pension

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yonivore

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.

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yonivore

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by scott

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by scott

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by scott

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

---

Except you're mistaken.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yonivore

Except you're mistaken.

---

Wrong again, idiot.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by scott

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by scott

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by scott

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by scott

Wrong again, idiot.

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by scott

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by scott

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by scott

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElNono

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElNono

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.

:lol

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

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yonivore

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...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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?

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nbadan

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nbadan

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nbadan

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yonivore

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...

Quote:

---

$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...