Re: Slick Rick Perry "retires" to boost pension
Let me help you by highlighting the fatally stupid assumption you keep repeating:
Quote:
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.
Re: Slick Rick Perry "retires" to boost pension
Quote:
Originally Posted by
scott
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?
Re: Slick Rick Perry "retires" to boost pension
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Yonivore
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.
Quote:
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?
Re: Slick Rick Perry "retires" to boost pension
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
Re: Slick Rick Perry "retires" to boost pension
Do you feel the same way about employer-invested 401k accounts?
Re: Slick Rick Perry "retires" to boost pension
If the match is publicly funded, as the ERP is, yes.
Where do you think the match comes from?
Re: Slick Rick Perry "retires" to boost pension
Quote:
Originally Posted by
scott
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).
Quote:
Originally Posted by
scott
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
scott
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.
Re: Slick Rick Perry "retires" to boost pension
^^^ state employee defends executive level perks. amusing.
Re: Slick Rick Perry "retires" to boost pension
truth to power: I don't care what anyone says, you're alright.
Re: Slick Rick Perry "retires" to boost pension
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Yonivore
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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.)
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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?)
Quote:
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.
Re: Slick Rick Perry "retires" to boost pension
Perry is a POS and all but this is actually nothing new.
Re: Slick Rick Perry "retires" to boost pension
I see this moved from "saves the state money" to "why do you hate me?". Progress.
Re: Slick Rick Perry "retires" to boost pension
I wonder if Rick will cash in on his losing attempt at the GOP nomination and write a book.
Re: Slick Rick Perry "retires" to boost pension
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
Re: Slick Rick Perry "retires" to boost pension
where is the high tea with her majesty forum
Re: Slick Rick Perry "retires" to boost pension
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/2011/12/2...uring-country/
Quote:
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.
Re: Slick Rick Perry "retires" to boost pension
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Nbadan
Well worth the money considering it keeps him from Governing the state of Texas.
