Meals tax money - 4th grade strings - Immersion - where the money goes...!!

[Anonymous]

Awesome to see so many people deride public pension plans (and by extension, private business pension plans). So great to see all those pension plans go away and we are left in a world of 401Ks and Roth IRA.

I'm sure *everyone* contributes fully to those every year and Wall Street is doing great things with our money, such as funding their bonuses and private jets and buying an app company for a $1B.

In about 20 years when the first wave of those 401K/Roth IRA workers start retiring I'm sure they will all have enough money to live out their lives and we won't see an increase in senior poverty rates. I'm sure seniors then will have the same buying power as senior now so we won't see a decrease in purchasing power and therefore economic vitality.

SMH

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It should be for all employees. Why should vested actives get an additional "benefit" when inflation is under 3%?? They're just being greedy and taking money out of the Plan so those coming behind get reduced benefits. The cola isn't designed as a benefit - it's a protection for the benefit to ensure it isn't eroded by inflation. It's no wonder that the Herritys of the world go after the teachers and FCPS as inefficient and wasteful when this is the attitude that they hear from teachers - "give us everything and don't touch my benefits, or even the overly large inflation protection you gave me..." It leaves a bad taste and those of us coming behind bear the consequences.

First of all, the retirement is placed in a trust; both the employees and the school system funded the trust -- so the retirement costs for this years retirees are not line items in the budget. What is in the budget is the cost for current employee contributions.

Second, the people drawing the retirement today are based on promises made 30 years ago. These people were promised a retirement plan, contributed to it, and are benefiting from it as the money comes out of the trust funds. The question on the retirement and the budget is on the contribution side.

I suppose you think the company I work for should be able to take the money back out of my 401K?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Thank you for posting this update, OP. Fourth grade strings does matter. If FCPS cuts it entirely, those teachers, if they have seniority, could bump MS and HS orchestra teachers and take their jobs. I'm all for seniorityrights but frankly putting a teacher, who has taught mostly elementary kids, in charge of MS and HS orchestras, could create real problems with orchestra program quality at those levels, and in time the whole orchestra program could end up jeopardized if it's weakened at the MS/HS levels. Someone's going to come on and flame away about how "We should cut all orchestra, band, art, drama and just do reading, writing and arithmetic!' and so on. Don't care. Parents with kids in orchestra, band, art and drama know what those courses do for their kids and for schools as a whole. Get vocal and let the board know that WE know there's a much larger impact to this budget than merely "cutting fourth grade strings" indicates. I think the school board either is unaware of or doesn't care about the domino effect this would create.

The bumping of teachers is an internal problem that isn't related to budget.

Our strings teacher says that the budget cut for fourth grade strings could absolutely trigger bumping as described.

[Anonymous]

It's unethical to go back on a promise, OP.

Now if you reduce pensions and other benefits for incoming personnel, without another form of compensation, then that decreases the pool of talented staff you can choose from.

I would say that what our schools suffer most from is a lack of intelligent teachers, not a lack of special programs. I'm not disagreeing with some of what you said, OP, but it's not as simple as you think. There are long-term consequences to think about in terms of quality of teaching.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why should vested actives get an additional "benefit" when inflation is under 3%??

Vested and retirees should get what was promised to them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It should be for all employees. Why should vested actives get an additional "benefit" when inflation is under 3%?? They're just being greedy and taking money out of the Plan so those coming behind get reduced benefits. The cola isn't designed as a benefit - it's a protection for the benefit to ensure it isn't eroded by inflation. It's no wonder that the Herritys of the world go after the teachers and FCPS as inefficient and wasteful when this is the attitude that they hear from teachers - "give us everything and don't touch my benefits, or even the overly large inflation protection you gave me..." It leaves a bad taste and those of us coming behind bear the consequences.

First of all, the retirement is placed in a trust; both the employees and the school system funded the trust -- so the retirement costs for this years retirees are not line items in the budget. What is in the budget is the cost for current employee contributions.

Second, the people drawing the retirement today are based on promises made 30 years ago. These people were promised a retirement plan, contributed to it, and are benefiting from it as the money comes out of the trust funds. The question on the retirement and the budget is on the contribution side.

I suppose you think the company I work for should be able to take the money back out of my 401K?

You don't need to be so reactionary. No one is saying here that the pension system should go away. The discussion is simply about raises that aren't in line with other pensions and as far as I can tell not included in the original agreement. So there's no going back on original agreements nor any taking of money that was contributed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I can't stand him. He wants to make it so that no one can retire anymore. Reducing the benefit amount upon retirement. Reducing the age to retire to the point of discouraging anyone from applying who is not right out of school is detrimental.

The retire at 55, get a pension + a social security amount has SS equal to what? retirement at 65 or 62? I don't think those persons who are in physical and hazardous positions [ie police, EMS, fire] are part of this county employee SS make-up group.

Teachers and other FCPS employees? The county employees at stuff like DTA? Is the SS make-up based on retirement at 62 , 65, 70?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can't stand him. He wants to make it so that no one can retire anymore. Reducing the benefit amount upon retirement. Reducing the age to retire to the point of discouraging anyone from applying who is not right out of school is detrimental.

The retire at 55, get a pension + a social security amount has SS equal to what? retirement at 65 or 62? I don't think those persons who are in physical and hazardous positions [ie police, EMS, fire] are part of this county employee SS make-up group.

Teachers and other FCPS employees? The county employees at stuff like DTA? Is the SS make-up based on retirement at 62 , 65, 70?

Your post is a bit incoherent. Not all employees can retire at 55 now.

[Anonymous]

There seems to be some confusion. The OP was talking about the cost of living adjustment - and specifically supported Defined Benefit plans. The benefits for retirees (and for those of us who are accruing benefits currently - the actives) are not up for change. The proposal is to change the way the cola is calculated, from a fixed rate of 3% to a CPI based rate. All the State, Federal and County plans use CPI. Only ERFC sets a fixed rate at 3%. If inflation exceeds 3% the ERFC beneficiaries will lose out. The cola is only designed to make up for what is lost to inflation and was never intended to add additional money to the benefits.

You may want to consider that a pension 'promise' is just that, a 'promise'. If it gets too expensive, the County and the taxpayers will walk away from it, and this has happened elsewhere. The plan and its assets must be carefully managed to ensure that they are sufficient to pay the promised benefits. This isn't the case at ERFC which is paying high fees and has lousy investment performance. This results in much higher costs to FCPS which has to contribute more to make up for the losses.

In 2010 FCPS paid in $35M, last year it was $75M and next year it is $95M. So it is real to say that pension promises and their cost are diverting significant funds away from other programs. In addition, the value of the 'promise' that is not funded - meaning the debt of the pension plan (and of FCPS) increased from $493M in 2014 to $830M now. That means that $337M that might have been spent on school programs will now have to be transferred to the plan.

The big concern is that taxes will have to increase to fund these pension promises and that means Fairfax will be less attractive to move to for both businesses and families. We already see that the population of Fairfax didn't increase last year while Loudoun's population increased by 2.8%. We have 18% vacancy rate in our office space. Next year we will have to find $100 for the Metro... That is why pensions are important.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Awesome to see so many people deride public pension plans (and by extension, private business pension plans). So great to see all those pension plans go away and we are left in a world of 401Ks and Roth IRA.

I'm sure *everyone* contributes fully to those every year and Wall Street is doing great things with our money, such as funding their bonuses and private jets and buying an app company for a $1B.

In about 20 years when the first wave of those 401K/Roth IRA workers start retiring I'm sure they will all have enough money to live out their lives and we won't see an increase in senior poverty rates. I'm sure seniors then will have the same buying power as senior now so we won't see a decrease in purchasing power and therefore economic vitality.

SMH

What do you see as an alternative? In a world of disruption where there is no guarantee a company is going to be there through a person's lifespan, how can pensions be set in a manner that doesn't bankrupt businesses (particularly when their market changes/declines) and doesn't leave retirees who were planning on that money high and dry? Pension funds tend to be invested in the same market that 401K/IRA plans are, often still in the hands of Wall Street. How many organizations, public and government, have gone to court to have pension benefits reduced since the recession? At least with my 401K and IRA accounts, I get to pick my investments and how much risk I want to take. It's not ideal, but I have no confidence in pension fund management/performance either.