Jackson Jambalaya

Has anyone thought about eliminating the 13th payment?

Bakers Dozen said...

Has anyone thought about eliminating the 13th payment?


Could you also eliminate inflation while you're at it?

As a state employee, I just wish someone would make a final decision as to the fate of the retirement plan. When you are hired, there isn't an option to choose something else, and if you leave, you don't get to take the employer's contribution with you. I'm just really tired of having a gun to the head of my and my family's future.

It has never been evident to me what it was buying Pat Robertson to mislead though that is exactly what she'd been doing for a decade.

Has anyone thought about running all their butts off and starting over?

Dear State Employee:

What haven't all been screaming bloody murder about fixing PERS for years to your House and Senate representatives? There are many of you but y'all do nothing to leverage your numbers. Why is that?

Sincerely,

Joe Taxpayer

Look over there...more tax cuts please..

We always have the same gaggle of yacking yodelers including KF.

823 - inflation is not connected to the 13rh check. Yes, they call it a 'cost of living' adjustment, but COL has not been at 3% a year but twice since this was done in 1999. Much less 3% COMPOUNDED! This giveaway for votes by Ronnie Musgrove and his team of idiots in the legislature has broken the system. Don't try to kid us that it is an inflation adjustment.

Representative Jeff Smith (R) Columbus posted on his Facebook page earlier this year that "if there is ever going to be a change in the retirement system" - in regard to the 13th. check. He took it down later in the day.

When PERS reaches an unsustainable level, the credit ratings of all state-issued bonds will be slashed and Jackson will be the new Detroit.

Take PERS away from those handling it now, who obviously know nothing about running investments, but know how to give all the money managers funds to manage with unnecessary management fees. Not to mention, you cannot even get an accounting of WHAT the actual investments are. You are forced to contribute to a retirement plan that doesn't even follow standard rules of transparency.

Revamp it now, or it's the end.

This is on the legislature. They have sat on their asses (Dem and Rep; Male and Female; Black and White) for years without doing a damn thing but sticking their heads in the sand. All they have done is sweeten the pot for themselves (SLURP). This discussion has been going on for 20 years or more and they have been completely informed year after year. Yet, they have done nothing while the problem has been growing right under their noses. No doubt, there has been some level of incompetence in the management of PERS, but this problem falls at the feet of the legislature (just as much as the national debt falls at the feet of Congress).

Since Robertson has retired, the politicians have decided to blame all of this on her and use the Colonel Schultz "I know nothing" line, when they know they are responsible.

Legalize pot. Tax it and use it to fund state retirement. Then let all those in prison for non violent weed offenses out. Better yet, let the prisonsers grow the weed.

Instead of 13 checks, why doesn't the state try paying only 11 checks. Try it for a few years and see how it works.

Has anyone thought that downsizing government (states largest employer) only makes this situation worse?

One of the biggest problems is that you can start a PERS job at 22, then retire at 46 or 47 and draw full benefits the rest of your life. You can't do that with a 401K.

How am I supposed to afford the legal weed without my 13th check?

October 1, 2018 at 9:16 AM = Nongermane comment

Attn 10:10 AM Are you saying hiring fewer people causing an insolvent retirement plan to pay out less money in the future makes the situation worse? You obviously are a career ward of the state with no grasp of economic reality. It is sad to know that there are some uneducated socialist in the state.

That has to be just about the dumbest comment... ever.... in the history of every.

the system is defective and must be altered before retirees are forced to accept 10 cents on the dollar.

phase it out starting now.....allow no one else to be on this plan going forward.

I said this last year. Do away with the 13th check and base your average return on 6% not 7.75%. When they convinced the legislature to pay the income or returns in a 13th check it screws up the math which is based on investment income making this work. Do you at home take the investment return out every year out of every account you have? Inflation starts eating away at your account balance. If you would put 80% of any investment return back into the fund not give it out there would not have been a problem.

For those of you on here that do not know, since July 2011 it takes 30 years to retire. If you think people stay so they can retire at 52, the state personnel board reported last year that 57% of people leave within five years and 45% of all resignations are by people under 30.

Also, for those complaining about state workers, state agencies make up 19% of PERS. Municipalities and counties also make up 19%. Public schools make up 40%. Universities (MSU and Ole Miss are largely self funded now) are 12%. Community colleges are 4% and other public entities, such as water/sewer districts are 6%.

I looked it up, 1999 is when they started with the 13th check change. Instead of saying we will increase your retirement 2% a year we will give all of you 80% of this years earnings in the fund in the form of a 13th check. There are people getting 8 and 10,000 13th checks. These are people that get a $2,400 monthly check from PERS.

Also they should average more than the 4 largest years to base your retirement. How about your total income over at least the last 10 years.

Is there really no minimum age to retire???? I’ve got 20 years with my employer. I can’t just take it the house.

One thing that people who have never paid into PERS may not know is that it isn't just a free benefit. The Dept. Of Financial Administration withholds hundreds of dollars from each state employee's paycheck. Money that employee could've invested in Deferred Compensation. Deferred Comp is the State version of 401k that they can (and many do) contribute beyond their PERS and Social Security withholding. You can't just say one day that PERS is broke you wont get your check and wont get paid back. They most likely took that money and used it to pay current retirees like a ponzi scheme.

The sad thing is we may never know what goes on when the PERS leadership takes trips to Manhattan to have meetings and play bigshot with the Wall Street investment firms who are actually managing the money. We will never know because it will never be investigated.

11:55....how do you get 10 cents on the dollar when the system is about 65% funded. Isn't that 65 cents on the dollar worst case?

10:10....that ignorant thought process was planted by democrats as a scare tactic. It should not be too hard to figure out that by decreasing the number of employees, you are decreasing the amount you ultimately have to pay out.

Having less employees makes the liability go down. It does however make the day of reckoning come sooner.

The state must migrate away from a defined benefit retirement system and move to a 403(b)-style system, Mississippi simply cant afford what is currently in place.

I'd combine all of the retirement systems, freeze new enrollments, offer a one-time buyout, and move everybody over to the new system that is not within 10 years of minimum retirement eligibility. With an employer match of fifty cents per dollar contributed up to 6%, it would cost roughly $1,100 per year, per employee, and when the person retires, the state no longer has any responsibility to them.

As a state employee I've said (to my reps as well) that being able to retire with thirty years at any age is no longer sustainable. However, I'm not sure how many people will continue to work for the state for thirty years.

I have also suggested that vacation/sick days should be limited to be used towards retirement years. Of course, this would mean agencies would have to stop giving extra time instead of raises and school districts would actually have to let teachers take their time instead of harassing them about paying for a sub.

The COLA doesn't compound until age 55. That age could slowly be raised for those not at, or close to retirement.

You could also change the four largest years, but for most state employees who haven't gotten raises in almost ten years that wouldn't matter. There are a few pockets (universities mainly) where admins get to keep or are given made up jobs so they can get to the fourth highest year. Again, that is changing because my guess is most university faculty now opt out of state retirement because they can.

I never thought I would leave at 25 years, but I am. I'm tired of not having raises that keep up with the market and I'm going to do what I've been told to do the last couple of years- leave. I have time to put in a chunk of time with a company since I fear what I was promised won't be there. Once I started looking I realized the health benefits alone would be worth the move.

Um, yeah 1:10, good luck asking a judge to approve that. Why don't we just not pay all of our bondholders while you are at it?

Yeah, I like 1:10's suggestion. That's the Republican way. Just make a bunch of financial commitments and then don't pay. Call it conservatism. There's a judge somewhere that would try to find the legislators personally liable for not fulfilling their obligations. You think we could just opt to not pay the payroll docket next month? That might save the state some money also. Just tell all the cops that they worked for free last month.

10:45 (the one wearing the dunce cap)sez: "One of the biggest problems is that you can start a PERS job at 22, then retire at 46 or 47 and draw full benefits the rest of your life. You can't do that with a 401K."

Actually, genius, you can do that with a 401(k) any time you think your britches are big enough.

You would be better informed if you go on-line and read the PERS handbook.

You Melon-Heads who think PERS consists of only people leaning on shovels and sleeping atop a road grader are wallowing in ignorance. Do you not know the system also includes your childrens' underpaid teachers, your police department, your chancery clerk, the psychologists treating your mentally ill aunt, the nurses at the health department, the firemen you see on their knees trying to get a breath of fresh air, the women putting up with your rude ass when you buy a new tag for your 4WD dually, and the 86 year old spinster who retired on $360 a month after 43 years putting up with urchins throwing spitballs behind her back in the classrooms?

12:41 - yes. The employee does pay some into PERS. Just like all private sector employees pay into both Social Security and into their employees 401k Plan, if they happen to be working for an employee that has one.

But the employee input into the plan is barely half of what the state (or city, county, or school board - i.e. the taxpayers that are not on the government payroll) pays into PERS.

More importantly, the plan by the PERS Board - those individuals all of whom are beneficiaries of PERS - is for the employer to pick up all this NEW payment into the plan. They are not proposing to increase the employee contribution.

Don't cry for me Argentina, or any other state employee, about your having to "contribute" to your retirement. The setup of this plan are far more lucrative than any private sector plan - The High Four rule; retire and contract options; put your time in as a lawyer to a school board for 20 years, then get given a job with the state (check the AG's office for example) to get your high four. No private plan has such benefits, much less the so-called COL crap.

To 2.11 and 2.13,

I am not 1.10, but here to defend (somewhat) their point:

2.13 is obviously a participant in PERS judging from the vitriolic response. 1.10 is not suggesting that EEs not get paid. Rather, they are suggesting that as a compromise and in the interest of getting the maximum realistic amount from PERS, there be a settlement that offers some fair amount from PERS and then restructures the entire retirement program for state/local EEs. The issue that you and so many others have is that you are deluded into believing that PERS is somehow some sort of sacred, inviolable blood-bond between you and the State. Sorry - you are an unsecured creditor of an ever-increasingly financially unstable governmental entity. Perhaps you should consider taking what you can now before things get worse - as PERS has proven that they will year after year after year...

1.10 suggested that the state "offer a one-time buyout." This would be an offer that EEs could take or refuse. If they took the buy-out, it would be a willful concession on their part. I am certain that the monies could be rolled into another tax-deferred program (403b or IRA), so there would be no tax implications. It is not at all the same as "not paying bondholders" as 2.11 so naively insinuates. Companies and governmental entities refinance bonds all the time by offering to repurchase at a stated amount (many times below the face value of the bond) - bondholders can agree to the deal or not. Same with 1.10's PERS proposal.

The real problem with 1.10's proposal is math: If PERS is only roughly 60% funded, then offering a one-time buy-out would probably not be very compelling to most PERS participants, as they would be looking at 60 cents on the dollar at best. For those nearing retirement, this would be a non-starter.

PERS is a dumpster fire, and it's going to spread to the garage and then the house.

OK den 2:11 and 2:13, just keep doing what's always been done and expect a different result and then let me know how that works out for ya. Systems like PERS are a thing of the past, and as usual, Mississippi will fail to evolve, until its too late, then it will cost too much to fix...

2:13, sounds more like DemocRATS, but instead of following through they just blame others.

No politician ever got elected promising to fix PERS or eliminate the 13th check. Instead the cowards just kick the can down the road and pretend the problem doesn't exist.

2:47, I'm always confused by what the 60% figure actually means.

..does it mean that if 100% of all retirement eligible employees retire at once, and 100% of other vested employees resign on the same day there would only be 60% of what's needed to meet the original obligation?

October 1, at 10:50:

The goddamn Germans got nothin' to do with it!


Can't believe not one of you smacked this softball out the park.

Good question 4:00

The 60% figure means that there is enough money on hand to pay 60% of all of the current liabilities of the plan, including retirees and all current employees, if the investments make 7.75% per year and all of the other components of the funding model are met. The 60% figure DOES NOT include future contributions from employees and the employer. This may sound like a weird way to measure a plan but that's the way it's done in the pension industry.

Dear Wailing Argentinian: I looked back over the posts and nowhere did I see anybody bemoaning the fact that participants have to contribute to their retirement. More importantly (as you like to say), I'm lost as to why that's the core of your otherwise vapid post.

"Bakers Dozen said... Has anyone thought about eliminating the 13th payment?"

Baker's Dozen is two cream filled shy of twelve. Once again we watch these people crawl out of the woodwork who actually believe the so-called 13th check is simply an extra free check.

While the amount of it, as the math and current and recent financial conditions reveal, is out of whack and has been for a number of years, it's nothing more than a cost of living raise, ill conceived as it may be. And what confuses the slow thinkers among the group is the fact that the recipients can choose to either have the COLA (albeit ill-conceived) rolled into their ongoing monthly retirement check (just as the occasional SS COLAs are) OR they can take it at one whack in a one time payment on December 15th in a separate check.

Everyone seems to be in agreement that the COLA plan didn't hold the water originally thought, when it was designed and implemented years ago....and that it needs retooling. But, it's damned near idiotic for these knuckle-headed wannabe math majors to suggest a retirement plan should have zero cost of living adjustment. Some do, some don't. But it ain't no damned free, extra, gimme, gubment check.

By the way, most of us retirees struggled to buy Christmas presents for 25-30 years and now use that check for that purpose.

Hey 4:18, using democrat logic...PROVE that the Germans DON’T have anything to do with it!

State retirees have gotten a 3% raise every year since 2010.

State employees have gotten one or two raises at best since 2010, and less than 3%, but their PERS contribution rate went up at least once and their health benefits were adjusted down.


You clearly have the current retirees riding on the backs of current workers and taxpayers. And the "fix" will also fall on the backs of these same workers and the taxpayers, because the baby boomers riding this wave will have died off.


Is there a legislator alive with the gonads to institute reform that includes fixing the raping of the system by current retirees?

My husband gets a pension that his mother chose for him to continue after her death but by no means does he get $2,400. a month! Yes he gets a thirteenth check and sometimes that amount is able to pay off bills incurred within that year. I suppose those who are leaving these comments are people who have never worked in the school system! They have earned that amount and more putting up with your brats of children that they are no longer able to control or reprimand because you send perfect little angels to school everyday!! NOT! A teacher now a day earns every penny and more!! Lay off the cuts and the 13th check and actually pay them what they are worth! Why do you think teachers a so short numbered! Dumb asses!!

Writing in all caps is a good way to make sure a comment won't get approved.

AMEN to 4:59!

I’m not covered under the state plan nor am I a pension actuary but I do know, other tan the federal government the vast majority of pension plans do not have a COLA. 3% per year is high although it could be considered an enticement for those covered especially classroom teachers to stay and wait for the payout. A friend and his wife both taught for 40 years and probably never made over $45,000 each. They have been retired 15 years. He told me they never dreamed their retirement would be so large. I’m not saying they go to Europe every year but they are living very well and unlike me don’t have too worry about what percent I have in bonds vs equities.
Problem is how long can the entities participating in the plan continue to increase contributions to keep it afloat.

Can you PLEASE do proper calculations for CAGR, compound annual growth rate!?

"Hmmmm.... so PERS investment's suffered one horrible year, three break-even years, and then five years of double-digit returns. What is the annual rate of return since 2009? 12.27% - more than four points higher than the assumed rate of return of 7.75%."

Some quick back of the envelope math says that the CAGR during the years shown is BELOW 7%. In short, get your shit together.

To 4:51 Oct 1. The comment was addressed to the individual at 12:41 who made the statement that PERS was not a free benefit but that DFA took hundreds of dollars out of his/her check every month.
Probably should have referenced the comment since there were evidently several comments in between.

@4:59, the 13th check is "claimed" to be a COLA, but the fact is that it is nothing but a giveaway designed originally to buy the votes of pensioners and titled as a COLA.

Three percent annually guaranteed is not related to the cost of living increase. Compare your PERS COLA to the Social Security COLA for each year since this sham was created in 1999.

And the so called COLA is compounded - which totally screws the concept of it being related to the actual cost of living.

No question that it could be rolled into the other 12 checks, which financially would be a better move for beneficiaries, so the bitching about the 13th check is misplaced. But the fact that many beneficiaries get their so called cost of living checks that amount to tens of thousands of dollars is pure bulls××t. Some even approach six figures.

Keep telling us it is cost of living - but don't try to defend the 3% automatic, much less the compounding factor.

I would like to remind all of those calling for the elimination of the 13th check of the Attorney General’s opinion that states “...employees acquire contractual rights at the time the employees join PERS, and that such rights may not be impaired. Existing employee and retiree benefits may not be reduced without a matching increase in benefits elsewhere.”

A link to the opinion may be found here:

http://www.pers.ms.gov/Content/Supplemental/PERS_State%20of%20the%20Plan_Appendices.pdf

Dear Wailing: The question remains....Why are you insulting someone for setting you straight and telling you that his retirement plan is not free, but that he contributes to it? That fact should not call you to tears for Argentina, should it?

It seems rather appropriate, with everything escalating in price, and no raises being given in years, that employees would not be called upon to contribute more and more each year. Wages for people in most of these jobs are already out of wack with surrounding states. Why do you think so many teachers and public servants retire as quickly as they can and then seek employment across state lines? I'm sure you know that nobody gets rich working in a PERS covered job.

I'm sure you'll find a way to defeat my post...so, I'll stand by and wait.

10:04; Please explain this comment: "No question that it could be rolled into the other 12 checks, which financially would be a better move for beneficiaries."

How are you able to sit over there at your desk and determine what's in the financial best interest of thousands of individual retirees? Your suggestion may, in fact, be disastrous for those who use the December 15 check for Grandchildren's Christmas gifts.

By the way, the only people who continually yap and bitch about this check are, like you, over there somewhere on the sidelines pissed off about a pissant retirement program which floats people who were underpaid for thirty to forty five years.

11:05 what I’m saying is the fewer employees the state have, the larger the deficit is going to grow.

Yes, the COLA _must_ be compounded as well. It's simple math, which many seem to lack on this thread, high school level math at that.

Again 4:09, explain your flawed math. Its exactly the opposite.

1:08 "... the only people who continually yap and bitch about this check are, like you, over there somewhere on the sidelines pissed off about a pissant retirement program which floats people who were underpaid for thirty to forty five years."


Yep, but the 92% of non-government workers, who work hard and are also underpaid for 40+ years, see this as a unfair rape of their paying for PERS.

According to a national group called “Truth in Accounting”, Mississippi’s financial problems stem mostly from unfunded retirement obligations that have accumulated over many years. Of the $16 billion in retirement benefits promised, the state has not funded $5.8 billion in pension and $784.8 million in retiree health care benefits,” the report notes. Further, the state continues to “hide” $596.4 million of its retiree health care debt by simply not reporting it. “Mississippi’s financial condition is not only alarming but also misleading as government officials have failed to disclose significant amounts of retirement debt on the state’s balance sheet,” the report continues. “Residents and taxpayers have been presented with an unreliable and inaccurate accounting of the state government’s finances.” See https://www.truthinaccounting.org/news/detail/new-financial-state-of-the-states-2018