Quote:
Originally Posted by bunt_q
Umm, yes, actually. PERA, at least, is only about 60% funded. (I remember because some national report came out saying it was 50-something-percent funded, and PERA's response was, "No, you're wrong, we're at about 60%." As if that somehow was better. Not sure about Denver-city, but I doubt it's much better (I think DPS was at ~80% before they transitioned). But in any case, the state pensions fund is still supposed to run dry in the next 10 years. (Which will put public employees in the same position as the rest of us poor saps in the private sector, so I am not losing any sleep over it.)
|
You are partially correct. In 2009, the DPS which used to be funded through the city of Denver, was rolled into PERA, via SENATE BILL 09-0282. The fund was upside down in the sense of not being fully funded then.
This relieved the City of Denver of the funding responsibility and put that shortfall on all Colorado State Employees (actually all who contribute to state taxes).
There is an important difference between where private sector employees like you and I are, and, state (and city) employees are. Our pensions- if we have any- are not protected by law at tax payer expense to a large extent. Rather, unlike PERA employees whose pension funding gaps are a state level liability, our pension funds are a company responsibility, with some federal protection of our monthly payments, once we begin to receive them.
This type of issue is what the Detroit quandary is all about, where benefit recipients appear to be protected from benefit reduction by state law.
And PERA, as you surmise, is becoming a real stinker!
From a financial standpoint, Denver moved brilliantly in 2009. From a citizen standpoint, as a tax payer outside the City and County of Denver, I have now assumed a share of a liability that I was not responsible for prior to that date.