Jacksonville mayor, pension funds reach deal that will save $700 million
http://jacksonville.com/opinion/blog/403455/mike-marino/2011-05-10/jacksonville-mayor-pension-funds-reach-deal-will-save-700 (http://jacksonville.com/opinion/blog/403455/mike-marino/2011-05-10/jacksonville-mayor-pension-funds-reach-deal-will-save-700)
QuoteSubmitted by Mike Marino on May 10, 2011 - 10:20am PolitiJax
(http://jacksonville.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/avatar_thumbnail/pictures/picture-831282415108.jpg)The Times-Union's Timothy Gibbons reports that Mayor John Peyton will announce an agreement this morning with the Police and Fire Pension Fund that will save the city $700 million over 35 years.
New police and fire employees will now be required to work for 25 years instead of the current 20, and the amount of retirement pay will be based on the last five years worked rather than the current last two. The cost of living adjustment doesn't begin for two years.
The agreement has to be approved by the board of the fund and by the City Council.
For more, check back with Jacksonville.com and read Wednesday's Times-Union.
This could be a spot of good news.
How long before the Tea Party demands that it wasn't enough.
This is the Jacksonville news headline of the past 6 months. Huge accomplishment
Credit to the mayor - he stuck with it. Salutes also to all the behind the scenes firefighters, police and negotiators.
Quote from: Jumpinjack on May 10, 2011, 06:33:38 PM
Credit to the mayor - he stuck with it. Salutes also to all the behind the scenes firefighters, police and negotiators.
only if the unions agree...remember the leaders agreed to a plan months ago...the rank and file voted it down.
So you don't believe the tax payers should pay for Police and Fire services?
Who is the burden being shifted from? Did we have someone else paying to protect families, homes and businesses before?
When you said the "the burden will continue to be shifted to future tax payers".
Quote from: sanmarcomatt on May 20, 2011, 09:41:47 AM
How long before the Tea Party demands that it wasn't enough.
Hopefully, not long as it is extremely likely it won't even be remotely close to being "enough". Don't worry though, I expect the government playbook will play out perfectly and the burden will continue to be shifted to future tax payers.
Actually it looks like the 'burden' will be 'shifted' onto the police and firefighters. They have to be in the system longer, and therefore pay into the system longer, thus increasing their contributions and expanding the pool.
If anything, I think it shifts it
away from future tax payers.
It seems like your right Dr. K. I am certainly not in a position to say if they have made a great compromise or not but it seems significant to me.
Quote from: sanmarcomatt on May 20, 2011, 10:09:23 AM
sorry, my response was to " So you don't believe the tax payers should pay for Police and Fire services?". I have no clue where you got that from my post.
As for the "where the burden is being shifted from"....I would appreciate it if you would take a moment to see if you can figure that one out for yourself. I will give you two hints:
stick with tax payers and concentrate on what might be different than future. Clearly it was my fault for not including a "shifting from" line in my post. I also did not use words like "unfairly" or "excessive share". I apologize for not being clear.
That doesn't change the fact that even your clarified point doesn't make sense.
For 200 years we've always paid for police and firemen, and we've always given them a retirement.
What's so different now, all of a sudden? How is anything "shifted"? It's the same thing we've always paid for.
If the future taxpayers decide they don't want police and firemen, then by all means that's their business, and they're free to eliminate those expenditures once I'm dead and gone. Until then, I'd like an orderly society, and tend to appreciate my house not burning down around me. Sorry if that is considered wasteful taxpayer spending.
Well lets try to find some common ground. In your opinion how much should we take from the police and fire fighters to make future tax payers get good value for their money?
Well, since police and firefighters have to be on the job 25% longer, and thus contribute at least that much more (percentage-wise in terms of actual dollars) in the future than they do now, I would think that would at least go a long way in addressing the funding mechanism problem.
Yes, healthcare costs will continue to go up. But so will tenure and dollar contributions. Will they offset each other? Probably not. But I certainly didn't read "there are no concerns over future funding" into that.
It might not solve all problems, but it's looking a damn sight better post-reform than pre-reform. If nothing else than strictly based in dollar contribution. Surely you can see that.
So what's the number you want to see taken away from our fire fighters and police that makes it all good for the future tax payers?