Home| News | Classifieds| Newsletter | Subscribe | Contact Us| Sitemap| Weather | Business Listings | Real Estate | Cars | Jobs Calendar| Friend | Follow | Feed |
|
|
|
Old Salt wrote on Feb 9, 2010 7:53 AM:
| > POST EVENTS TO CALENDAR |
| > POST YOUR PRESS RELEASE |
> SUBMIT YOUR ANNOUNCEMENT |
Featured BrokersPrinceton Real Estate |
|
|
|
Tough Love wrote on Feb 9, 2010 8:22 PM:
To Misticonus:
Why would you expect the supposedly "nonpartisan" Office of Legislative Services NJ to do ANYTHING that might reduce pensions of benefits .... THEY are employees of the State and participate in these SAME plans. THEY would also get less if they opined as such. I'd call that a conflict of interest, wouldn''t you ?
Private Sector taxpayers (not riding this gravy train) need to fix this via State Constitutional Amendment or via the FEDERAL court system, where the conflicted decision-makers are taken out of the picture.
On your #(2), there your correct, Local Civil Servants are as bad (in the context of excessive pensions & benefits) as State employees .
As to your #(3), If the average pension for a retired state worker is indeed under $25,000 a year, its ONLY because many of those included in the "average" retired long ago with lower salaries, and this "average" includes short career workers and part-timers.
This is a meaningless number (and you know it ... more of you diversion tactics). What's relevant are the outrageous pensions full career workers retiring TODAY will get, while those that pay their way (Private Sector Taxpayers) may never be able to retire. "