Slick Rick Perry "retires" to boost pension

[JoeChalupa]

http://www.texastribune.org/texas-po...t-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-po...t-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...RS_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.