tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7609353726565000072.post1786230014257303966..comments2023-06-14T02:29:40.319-07:00Comments on PSPRS Pension Watch: State public safety unions and PSPRS pension reform: Sending Monopoly® players to a poker game and a chess matchDrop Zonehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07195030344305212432noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7609353726565000072.post-89224121521067428312016-02-14T19:34:37.195-07:002016-02-14T19:34:37.195-07:00Thank you for your comment. The COLA amounts were...Thank you for your comment. The COLA amounts were obtained from the PSPRS annual reports. I went to the Arizona Revised Statutes, these are some of the additional conditions that affect your eligibility for a COLA right after you retire:<br /><br />1. The retired member or the survivor of a retired member was receiving benefits on or before July 31 of the two previous years.<br /><br />2. The retired member or survivor of a retired member was fifty five years of age or older on July 1 of the current year and was receiving benefits on or before July 31 of the previous year.<br /><br />Some of these conditions may apply to you. As to your second point, I do not necessarily agree with the rich getting richer, but it is unfair, especially for someone like you who recently retired. In your case, you never really benefited from the old system in which retirees with lower benefits could see some extra gains over the years as the average retirement benefit increased. Now they are going to change the system, and you will be stuck with a new COLA that will give you the lesser of the CPI or 2% on only your benefit. You retired with the expectation that you could expect to pick some financial ground over the years as the average benefit increased, but now that has been taken away. Perhaps you would have done things differently if you had known this.<br /><br />Of course, the people who are negotiating this know full well that this will be the new system and will adjust their working careers accordingly to make sure they get the most from it before they retire, while they timidly agree to cap pensionable wages on future PSPRS members. This is just another of the many injustices from this pension “reform.” Thank you again for your comment.Drop Zonehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07195030344305212432noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7609353726565000072.post-13789960581626408972016-02-14T19:29:38.964-07:002016-02-14T19:29:38.964-07:00I retired in 2011. Your figures show I should have...I retired in 2011. Your figures show I should have gotten COLAs totaling $345.52. My COLA total has been $301.52, which is a $44.00 discrepancy from your figures. What gives?<br /><br />If the future COLA % is applied directly to each individual account instead of being the average, isn't that an example of the "rich"(Chiefs) getting richer and the "poor"(firefighters) getting poorer?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01658124715942181773noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7609353726565000072.post-9275591735115292002016-02-12T11:05:10.871-07:002016-02-12T11:05:10.871-07:00"Why the mad rush for special election? Is it..."Why the mad rush for special election? Is it they do not want people to actually read it and understand it?"<br /><br />The legislation needs to pass mid February to get it on the mid May ballot. If that's not enough time to "read it and understand it" there will never be enough time. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7609353726565000072.post-91936420839819173462016-02-10T16:53:03.606-07:002016-02-10T16:53:03.606-07:00Thank you for your comment. Unfortunately, based ...Thank you for your comment. Unfortunately, based on my reading of the Fields decision, hat the Supreme Court held that the pension protection clause of the Arizona Constitution has precedence over the contracts clause since it deals specifically with pensions. This means that if they change the PBI's via the pension clause it will likely negate any argument that it unconstitutionally violates a contract.<br /><br />It is a shame that retirees had no representation on the PSPRS Board of Trustees, like retirees have on the ASRS Board. It would have made it more difficult for PSPRS to defend its lousy earnings as some kind of deliberate strategy to help PSPRS save money. PSPRS' inability to earn 9% has left retirees with no choice but to accept the new PBI change if they ever want any future COLA's.<br /><br />The saddest spectacle is when I see this plan's union proponents go to the public and media and emphasize how retirees have been getting 4% for 20 years as if this was some unnoticed crime committed by retirees, rather than a benefit that past union leaders proudly obtained for members. Current union leaders are unwilling to give up anything themselves, but they hypocritically demonize retirees as if they have been receiving some unearned benefit for decades. Thank you again for your comment.Drop Zonehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07195030344305212432noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7609353726565000072.post-7442753127535829222016-02-09T18:03:33.110-07:002016-02-09T18:03:33.110-07:00As an accidentally disabled (injured in the line ...As an accidentally disabled (injured in the line of duty) retired Mesa FireFighter I agree. They not only burdened the next generation they are also trying to assault the current retirees contractual benefits by disregarding not only the Arizona State Constitution but also the United States Constitution Article 1, Section 10. Why the mad rush for special election? Is it they do not want people to actually read it and understand it? <br />It is also very interesting that retirees as a whole have not been represented throughout this entire process. The only retirees to speak on the matter were hand selected to spew the establishments own words.<br />Not only will this cost Public Safety employees (past, present, and future) it will cost every tax payer millions of dollars in lawsuits that the State will ultimately lose. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com