The funding gap for U.S. state public employees: $1.38 trillion.

[dkf]

By Lisa Lambert and Hilary Russ

http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSBRE85H1OQ20120619?irpc=932

(Reuters) - The funding gap for U.S. state public employee retirement benefits climbed by $120 billion to $1.38 trillion in fiscal 2010, according to a report released on Monday.

The report comes at a time when many voters and politicians already claim that compensation for public employees is bloated.

The Pew Center on the States said that public pension systems in 34 states were funded at less than the 80 percent level that is considered the threshold for a healthy pension. That's in stark contrast to 2000, when more than half of the states' pension plans were 100 percent funded.

"The larger (the shortfalls) are, the higher the cost for taxpayers today and for many years to come," said David Draine, a Pew senior researcher, who compared many states to credit card holders who hadn't paid their bills in full but kept racking up charges.

[CreekDog]

2. another day, another one (or two) of these posts

have you turned any of us into conservatives yet?

[dkf]

3. Shouldn't people know the amounts?

[Zalatix]

4. Yes, but what next?

[dkf]

5. Has to be addressed state by state.

My own state skimmed off returns above 8% for years which is shameful. But what do you cut to fund pensions properly? Or do they raise taxes? Personally I would have to look at all the options for each state if I wanted to make a decision.

[pintobean]

6. Another day, more personal attacks.

[pintobean]

15. Roon's imaginary picket line crossings?

Yeah, you, Blondeatlast and I ripped him a new one on several occasions. Then, for some reason, you decided that you didn't like me. You've been giving me shit and fabricating things about me ever since.
You fancy yourself a troll hunter and run around the board giving shit to long time DUers when you disagree with them. Guys like you amuse me. There's a system in place to make your accusations. That's not good enough for you - you feel the need to publicly insult people. I'll call you on it every time I see it.

[CreekDog]

17. you came here to post against me, not the other way around

and you're lecturing me about not liking you?

i haven't posted to you, to your threads, to your posts in ages and even this one, only after you decided to go after me.

and you want me to keep my complaints quiet, while you have clearly only come to this thread to give me a hard time?

obvious is obvious.

[pintobean]

18. I knew you posted your usual crap

in this thread before I opened it?

oblivious is oblivious

Like I said, I'll call you on it every time I see it. I don't go looking for it.

[pintobean]

22. Links? It didn't happen anything near

what you claim. Prove it - link to this bs. You never do, you just make false claims and expect people to believe you. More and more people are getting wise to your game.

[pintobean]

24. Yeah, you can't.

I've proved you wrong before, even in the threads you're referring to.
So just lay on some more bs.

[CreekDog]

26. Just realized something, you posted 5 times here and nothing about the OP

you don't seem to be interested in the OP.

not the topic, not the discussion.

just me.

so i'm not playing with you and i'm going to delete my exchange with you.

i won't formally ignore you, because i need to be aware of what you're saying, but as a practical matter, i will mostly continue to ignore you, except now i think i will ignore you even when you engage me.

have a nice life. when you get interested in politics again, we should chat.

[pintobean]

27. Admitting failure.

[CreekDog]

28. no but you'll say anything

still no interest in the topic at hand huh?

[pintobean]

29. That didn't last long

[CreekDog]

31. i didn't promise not to respond to you ever

are you kidding?

if you're going to harass me, i'll respond however i want and if i want.

[liberal N proud]

7. And a small increase in the taxes the 1% pay would more than cover this gap

But the republicans are damned to crush the middle class to protect a few dollars for their wealthy owners.

[dkf]

8. Are you thinking the Federal Govt should cover the State shortfalls?

Heck why don't they just print it then.

[liberal N proud]

9. The tax cuts for the wealthy is not just a federal problem

The states have done the same thing creating these deficits.

[girl gone mad]

16. Yes, the Federal Government should cover the shortfalls.

And, yes, they should "print it" if necessary (beats "borrowing", don't you think?).

A Federal revenue sharing program was standard until Reagan killed it in 1987.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revenue_sharing

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,962610,00.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/08/opinion/krugman-reagan-was-a-keynesian.html

Many states were running surpluses then and Reagan thought he needed the money to cover his massive military spending. Now that the states are back in deficits and our country is deleveraging from excess private debts (making tax hikes counter-productive), it's time to reinstate this program.

[CreekDog]

21. Yes, the former was recommended by many prominent economists

In fact, many economists, yes, respected ones, have recommended stimulative monetary policies like the latter you mentioned as well.

Investors were even hoping for it, as the markets are showing today through their disappointment that it didn't happen.

I realize you do bookkeeping, but don't you understand that the primary role of running a nation is the care of its people and not some line on a ledger sheet?

The funny thing is, countries that take care of their people and spend as needed, seem to have good economies.

Meanwhile, ours suffers, in part, because people are so fearful that losing a job will result in homelessness, lack of health care, disaster for their children, etc. It's a wonder anyone spends anything since this country doesn't have a proper safety net --other countries with less put us to SHAME for what they provide to their people (to each other).

And you want what little we have reduced and cut. Because of a stupid balance sheet.

It's all about money, isn't it? People may die, people may suffer, but by god, our currency and our budget will be in balance.

and the condition of our people will show that the balance sheet was what we cared about.

amoral.

[alc]

10. $1.38 trillion is more than a small increase for the 1%

States would need to double (or triple, or 5x) their rates. Most are in the single-digit rate (e.g. mine is around 5%).

If the feds increase the rate by 5%, it's about a 15% increase. But if my state raises it by 5% it's a doubling. And, if only some states do it, there are many options for the 1% to avoid those states. They won't all do it, but enough that the doubling of rates won't be as effective as they planned.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

11. Probably not.

Top 1 percent: How much do they earn?
By Kay Bell • Bankrate.com

So just how much do you have to earn to be part of the elite 1 percent?

That depends on whose figures you use.

Based on 2009 tax year filing data, the Internal Revenue Service says an adjusted gross income, or AGI, of $343,927 or more will put you in the top 1 percent of taxpayers.

--clip--

The income thresholds are for the amount of AGI on a return, not per taxpayer.

That means a single filer who made $343,927 or more in 2009 is in the top 1 percentile. A married couple with two kids and combined earnings of $343,927 or more also was among the top earners in the country. The 2009 figures are the latest the IRS has tallied. Filing of returns for tax year 2010 didn't officially close until Oct. 17.

The 1.4 million Americans in the IRS' top taxpayer category in 2009 reported nearly 17 percent of all the country's taxable income. From those filers, the IRS collected $318 billion or almost 37 percent of all the individual taxes paid in 2009.

Read more: Top 1 Percent: How Much Do They Earn? | Bankrate.com http://www.bankrate.com/finance/taxes/top-1-percent-earn.aspx#ixzz1yR32LbcL

$350,000 x 1.4 million is only $490 billion

[badtoworse]

19. Don't confuse the issue with facts

It's more fun to believe that the 1% can pay for everything

[Lasher]

12. Debunking the myth of the over-compensated public employee

On average, full-time state and local employees are undercompensated by 3.7%, in comparison to otherwise similar private-sector workers. The public employee compensation penalty is smaller for local government employees (1.8%) than state government workers (7.6%).

http://www.epi.org/publication/debunking_the_myth_of_the_overcompensated_public_employee/

[HiPointDem]

14. interesting. an article talks about a funding gap & puts up a big number but doesn't tell the

readers what the actuary window they're talking about is.

iow, this funding gap is over how many years? 75? 175? infinity?

they use the same sleight of hand to propagandize against social security.