Jackson Jambalaya

Neither PERS board or legislature have promoted any meaningful or practical change to impact the retirement payout obligation. Immediately the age & years of service should be changed to coincide with social security including penalty for early retirement at 62 vs 66-67. Retirement calculation should be adjusted to 6-8 highest years. The COLA should be adjusted downward and the participation for eligibility should be changed from 4-years to 10- years. Employees contributions should be increased & legislature should pay any employer increases until the PERS funding is back to an attainable level for longterm solvency.

Crawford gets this one right. Legislators are in a political pickle. Either make PERS participants irate, and there are hundreds of thousands of them and they vote, or anger local mayors and supervisors who have a ton of local political influence. There’s nowhere to hide this time.

Will the last on in the room……

So the legislature was wrong and shouldn’t have brought up the issue ? I get that retirees want to keep their gravy train going but why is the legislature wrong for trying to have a conversation and fix things for the long term? The legislature is responsible for benefits and the 13th check and have they have not made any negative moves with either , so what would they now ? Also the legislators who came up with these increases in the 90’s who are catching the blame have mostly all passed on .

The legislature made the changes in the 90s that created part of the problem (against the advice of the PERS Board) then refused to increase the funding for the increases they caused (when advised to do so by the PERS Board) and now, somehow the PERS Board is the problem.

They tell everyone the PERS board is a bunch of yokels who aren't qualified (sounds like the Legislature to me) to manage the system. Even though there are CPA's and Attorney's on the board, and professional advisors are hired.

I think we can see who the real problem is.

Current legislators are not trying to fix anything by doing this, simply stalling for time until they are long gone, then it’s someone else’s problem.
In recent years Tater and Delbert have bragged about how many state jobs they have cut, but those reductions have also resulted in a reduction in funding for PERS. Granted that amount would not be a big difference but it is a loss.
Ok, pass the bill but also allocate funds equal to the amount PERS is asking for from local government. Then get serious over the coming months working to come up with a long term plan. Any changes will be unpopular so along with changes eliminate SLRP to show they are willing to share the pain that may come.
My guess is nothing will be done, kick the can down the road and as I said, let it be someone else’s problem. At election time we should demand from candidates that they are willing to make the decisions that are necessary instead of doing nothing with the hope of continuing to be elected.

1:22. 1:01
What consideration are you giving to Mississippi’s non-pers taxpayers who fund 2/3rds of this mess !?

... or anger local mayors and supervisors who have a ton of local political influence.

Garbage.

All local politicos want is to duck having to vote for higher taxes to pay for PERS while at the same time looking the other way while current revenues under their purview are squandered funding non-basics.

12:36, the legislature is not doing anything to fix anything. They are delaying funding PERS without reducing benefits. That’s the opposite of fixing anything. They are just groveling to mayors and supervisors. And making the situation worse.

Increase funding or decrease benefits. The rest is just smoke and mirrors.

Retirement benefits are part of the employment contract between the state and the employees. It is basically deferred compensation. The state likes deferred compensation as opposed to salary increases because you don’t have to pay for it now, just put it on a credit card. State employees, other than teachers, receive much lower pay than their private sector counterparts. Now the bills are coming due and the state wants to default on their contractual obligations.

Go look at the state personnel board advertisements for state employee hires. The salaries are pitiful. Employed stay because of PERS.

@4:00 pm. Amen. I worked 32 years as a state employee with over half of those involving weekend work to feed my family. When the state legislature stops giving multi-million dollar packages to multi-billion dollar corporations to build here then I’ll empathize with any perceived financial predicament. And here’s another tidbit I haven’t heard mentioned: as any actuary will tell you, people die. Lots of retirees are really old.

3:40 is partially correct. The third alternative is to convert all of the money into individual 401K accounts as is done in the private sector, with government employers and employees still contributing as they do now. They can also allow the members to simply cash out and invest their money as they so desire.

Isn't this a workable solution that is fair to the employees?

I think the solution is to keep the current vested employees on the plan and change new employees over to a 401k or 403b type plan. The cost of doing this is the delta of increased wages and keeping PERS funded until the last vested retiree dies but it at least stops the bleeding. The smart play is to also offer PERS buyouts to existing vested employees. Offer someone with 10 or 15 years that is still a decade plus from retirement a decent number and chances are they take the buyout.

I quit reading as soon as his most nonsensical comment was written. The Board does not and has never had the authority to adjust the employees' contribution. That action rests solely with the legislature.

I'd guess 90% of you yahoos know nothing about the system, how it works, how it's funded, what the retirement options are or who controls what. Like most of the legislators, you believe what you hear or what some uninformed (other) yahoo tells you.

1:01. Reducing the number of state employees might hasten a liquidity shortage event, but
It reduces the long term shortfall given that we are not fully funding the retirement plan.

"Increase funding or decrease benefits. The rest is just smoke and mirrors."

You're either squinting into a smokey mirror or you're in a fog.

Benefits are contractual. You do understand the legal implications of a contract? Altering a contract would involve legislative action. And more legislative action to decide how to fight multiple lawsuits by hiring multiple contract lawyers.

On the other hand, funding of The Plan is arbitrary and discretionary with whoever has that authority effective this coming July 1. If the bill passes, the legislature will have that authority and control over funding, along with the responsibility and...accountability.

Funding is not contractual.

I don't know what 7:02 is trying to say, in layman's terms, but reducing state employees at the appointed agency head's discretion is going to kick a big knot in the side of contributions, thus funding. That's part of what has us in the "situation".

And help me know how a sizeable number of 'workforce reduction victims' would reduce the long-term shortfall, if all those contributors to the funding formula, are gone.

I wanted to continue the discussion until I read this next quote and I had no idea what the hell you're saying.

"It reduces the long term shortfall given that we are not fully funding the retirement plan."

"I get that retirees want to keep their gravy train going but why is the legislature wrong for trying to have a conversation and fix things for the long term?"

Gravy Train? Is your 401k or your pension plan a 'gravy train'. You're either lying, misinformed or you just misunderstood. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

Conversation? What conversation? The House quickly greased the wheels of this proposed bill, let it out of committee and to a floor vote in record time. There was no discussion and certainly no 'conversation'.

There was no conversation with the PERS Board, none with the public, none with the media, none with the Senate unless it was via email, telephone or code.

The only possible conversations were between House members and upset county and municipal officials who were being promised the 2% would be killed.

The Governor was strangely silent and still has been, saying nothing publicly. Same with the Lt. Governor.

It was totally accidental that it got out just as it was being rushed over to the Senate.

2:57 exactly my point. Local leaders are irate at the prospect of raising taxes or cutting services and their collective voice is what led the legislature to kill the increase of the employer contribution. If you don’t think the MML is a powerful voice in Jackson, then why did the legislature even take this up?

"Increase funding or decrease benefits. The rest is just smoke and mirrors."

This exactly. A defined benefit is designed to be perpetual. A change can be made to benefits for future employees and vested employees and over time this will make big differences in the calculations. Switching the high-ten, adjusting the COLA and implementing a minimum retirement age will do wonders for the system even if current vested benefits are untouched. You just have to give it time to work its way through the system. And that’s a lot easier than coming up with billions today.

Switching to a defined contribution plan works too but likely can’t be done except for new and invested employees. You can’t eliminate the $25 billion debt with the stroke of a pen. Switching new employees to a defined benefit plan means the plan is o longer perpetual and the clock on the day of reckoning starts ticking.

I do like the comment about voluntary buyouts. Sadly some uneducated folks would take the cash now without knowing how to do the math.

As they cut PINS the legislature should have continued to fund the PERS portion of the positions. It would have left the retirement system in a much better place. Now a large infusion of money is the only way to save PERS. Of course changing retirement benefits for new employees would also help.

"Switching new employees to a defined benefit plan means the plan is o longer perpetual and the clock on the day of reckoning starts ticking."

What do you mean by 'switching new employees to a defined benefit plan'? New employees, old employees, all employees ARE ON a defined benefit plan, as are retirees.

"Offer someone with 10 or 15 years that is still a decade plus from retirement a decent number and chances are they take the buyout.
April 14, 2024 at 6:32 PM"

Let's hear your math-formula for calculating a 'decent number', including a reference to the amount being taxed at 24%.

Your suggestion would break the bank.

I was a county employee for 6.75 yrs. Only reason I took that job was so I could get offa work every day at the same time to be home with my kids while they were teenagers. After that I went back to work propper. I choose the "Reduced Lifetime Benefit" option when I started drawing. That 6.75 yrs got me a $180 month retirement. As far as I could tell the retirement people were getting only perpetuated the poverty they had to live in all the yrs they were county employees with the low pay they received...this problem is simple economics, SOMEBODY SOMEWHERE is gonna have to take a Bite from a Big Poop Sandwich to straighten this out. Taxpayers are gonna foot the bill, may as well get it over with...

@8:43 A 3 billion dollar surplus would allow the state to pay 20,000 employees $150,000 each. It's cheaper than having to pay them something like 30k for 30 years if they retire at 54 and live to 85.

8:38 I think you know that is a typo. Switching to defined contribution plans for new employees……

Is there any concern from the MML about your property tax increase with the elimination of the personal income tax in the state?

No, probably not as this is being sold to you the taxpayer, which is anyone who actually works for a living in the state as "Economic Development."

But do not worry as the personal income tax will be phased out over time, so you will not notice the subtle increase in property taxes, grocery taxes, etc....or the increase in your mortgage insurance.

If you are really concerned with an increase in local taxes, you may want to study up a bit on this matter.

Now, go back to following the carrot they have dangled in front of you.

It's something you don't realize in your youth. Once you get older, and wiser, you realize just how incompetent and self serving most public officials are. Most could barely make it in the private sector assuming they had any public work life at all. So it is no surprise that they get little to nothing done and avoid controversial issues. What is surprising is that they walk around like peacocks claiming to make everyone's life better.