Rapier108 said:

---

Rossticus said:

---

If it holds in court , I wouldn't be shocked to see other states follow suit. Hell, I wouldn't be shocked to see the federal government do it at some point under Dem control.

---

They almost tried it under Obama.

One of his advisors was pushing for the seizure of all 401Ks and IRAs, but even Obama knew doing that would mean the shooting starts so he scuttled that idea.

They will try it again one day.

---

This is one of the reasons for the big push to disarm the populace from the left. Once people have nothing to lose, things could get ugly very quickly and the smart lefties know that.

Strange occurrence for a pension. So the gov't had funded the pension to 160%? Why were they overfunding the pension? It has been over funded for 25 years (no new contributions for 25 years). Looks like it was a slush fund already. I assume someone's friend was running the fund. See no issue with this, if they keep it 100% funded. It not like the pensioners were going to get more if it was funded over 100%. Plus Gov't employees should not have a pension, move it to a 401k.

If for one support people getting what they vote for.

If it is that much overfunded it is actually financially irresponsible to just leave all that money sitting there. Financially the most responsible thing to do is make sure the pension is funded right at 100%, that way you don't have extra $$ locked up for no reason. That being said, I am sure they will somehow mess this up and somehow destabilize the pension AND waste the money they took.

The surprising thing its massively over funded. Almost all are severely under funded.

The pension was funded via investments. Money wasn't just "sitting there".

Whomever was managing the account was doing a fantastic job of keeping the account solvent.

As already stated, lowering the balance to 100% funded will harm the continued solvency of the account because there are now fewer funds that can be invested.

10% ROI on $1600 > 10% ROI on $1000

I got a buddy in Spokane who is a fire station chief in Coeur D'alene in Idaho. Bet hes glad hes in Idaho


Question- did this taking include other civil services pensions or just the ones more unlikely to vote for democrats?

I'm going to ask a couple dumb questions.

1) are there currently any loss of benefits to retirees?

2) Are there rules in place in pensions that if they get over a certain amount, say 200% funded, that the excess can be removed? Or if the pension is overfunded does all the money have to stay trapped there?

Seems like if the pension was too far overfunded then it would create this huge pot of money that is doing nothing but growing with no explicit purpose. That also seems ripe for corruption (think Teamsters). And if the government is providing most of the money into the fund, shouldn't the investor have some say in excess funds? Seems to me there has to be some upper limit to it.

I believe the government should honor their promises but I am also nervous about government controlling such large piles of money. With that kind of money, politicians could use that pot of money to steer the market. A capitalist idea but when it's in the hands of the government turns into market control.

I'm not sure whose contributions you think they are stealing. According to your own OP it hasn't required contributions in 25 years. This growth is obviously due to investment returns or someone seriously overestimating how much they would be paying out. It is projected to keep growing exponentially, how big should they let it get? 500% over? 800%? Again, speaking from a purely financial standpoint it is irresponsible to leave it where it is. This is similar to a family having an emergency fund 2x as big as they really need. It may feel good but it isn't a good financial plan.

Rapier108 said:

---

Rossticus said:

---

If it holds in court , I wouldn't be shocked to see other states follow suit. Hell, I wouldn't be shocked to see the federal government do it at some point under Dem control.

---

They almost tried it under Obama.

One of his advisors was pushing for the seizure of all 401Ks and IRAs, but even Obama knew doing that would mean the shooting starts so he scuttled that idea.

They will try it again one day.

---

And the shooting will start anew. Stealing $millions will get you shot and deservedly so. You might as well walk into their home and take that too. This is what communism does. and all of them should be treated as a real enemy and a real threat.

EFR said:

---

I'm not sure whose contributions you think they are stealing. According to your own OP it hasn't required contributions in 25 years. This growth is obviously due to investment returns or someone seriously overestimating how much they would be paying out. It is projected to keep growing exponentially, how big should they let it get? 500% over? 800%? Again, speaking from a purely financial standpoint it is irresponsible to leave it where it is. This is similar to a family having an emergency fund 2x as big as they really need. It may feel good but it isn't a good financial plan.

---

Good financial plan for whom? The state doesn't have a dog in that fight, absent this theft.

You should really look into the plan. The state was the largest contributor, so I would say they have a dog in the fight. Lets also remember this plan only covers those hired before 1977 so it isn't gaining new members/liabilities, that number is actually going down. They are not lowering the benefits (actually raising them). There is literally no reason to let that fund keep growing. As an attorney you should realize that the pensioners are entitled to the promised benefit, nothing more nothing less.

There is never enough money to feed the beast .

aggiehawg said:

---

AlexNguyen said:

---

It will be interested how the politicians explain this away. I imagine they will try to create some type of conflict with private sector workers who don't have a public pension fund and might be more than OK with giving the government workers one in the pants.

---

It is Washington state. The populace hates cops and firefighters anyway.

---

They don't have to as long as the voters keep them in power!

Voters get the type of government they/we deserve.

We will get the type of destructive national government we deserve in November, unless Republicans turn out in-mass to keep the democommiecrats out of Congressional Control.

EFR said:

---

You should really look into the plan. The state was the largest contributor, so I would say they have a dog in the fight. Lets also remember this plan only covers those hired before 1977 so it isn't gaining new members/liabilities, that number is actually going down. They are not lowering the benefits (actually raising them). There is literally no reason to let that fund keep growing. As an attorney you should realize that the pensioners are entitled to the promised benefit, nothing more nothing less.

---

Of course the state was the largest contributor. It's a public pension. They contributed because they made promises to employees.

Funding levels can vary depending on investments too. There are assumptions in those funding levels (mortality, investment return, etc). 100% can become 95% can become 90% if they're wrong on those. It makes sense to take advantage of the high funding level, and they could buy a group annuity from an insurer and make those assumptions the insurance companies problem.

It would make much more political and financial sense to use those excess funds to fortify other state pensions, perhaps for the other firefighter cohorts instead of just general government spending.

EFR said:

---

If it is that much overfunded it is actually financially irresponsible to just leave all that money sitting there. Financially the most responsible thing to do is make sure the pension is funded right at 100%, that way you don't have extra $$ locked up for no reason. That being said, I am sure they will somehow mess this up and somehow destabilize the pension AND waste the money they took.

---

I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess you weren't a finance major.

Logos Stick said:

---

That surplus money is gone.

Pension money spent is pension money not earning interest/dividends/cap gains in an investment account to pay future pension payments. That can never be made up.

They are ****ed.

---

Kind of like the social security program, huh?

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

AlexNguyen said:

---

It will be interested how the politicians explain this away. I imagine they will try to create some type of conflict with private sector workers who don't have a public pension fund and might be more than OK with giving the government workers one in the pants.

---

The democrat party is immoral. They have no ethical bounds. They took the money because they want to spend it. Some would call it theft, but there is nothing wrong with theft to democrats, as long as it advance their cause.

---

Make no mistake about it - this is not limited to the democrat party. The R's spend money like drunken sailors just like the d's do.

Why shouldn't they? There are no repercussions to them for doing so after all. They get their pensions and separate health care system for life.

HDeathstar said:

---

Strange occurrence for a pension. So the gov't had funded the pension to 160%? Why were they overfunding the pension? It has been over funded for 25 years (no new contributions for 25 years). Looks like it was a slush fund already. I assume someone's friend was running the fund. See no issue with this, if they keep it 100% funded. It not like the pensioners were going to get more if it was funded over 100%. Plus Gov't employees should not have a pension, move it to a 401k.

---

EFR said:

---

If it is that much overfunded it is actually financially irresponsible to just leave all that money sitting there. Financially the most responsible thing to do is make sure the pension is funded right at 100%, that way you don't have extra $$ locked up for no reason. That being said, I am sure they will somehow mess this up and somehow destabilize the pension AND waste the money they took.

---

EFR said:

---

I'm not sure whose contributions you think they are stealing. According to your own OP it hasn't required contributions in 25 years. This growth is obviously due to investment returns or someone seriously overestimating how much they would be paying out. It is projected to keep growing exponentially, how big should they let it get? 500% over? 800%? Again, speaking from a purely financial standpoint it is irresponsible to leave it where it is. This is similar to a family having an emergency fund 2x as big as they really need. It may feel good but it isn't a good financial plan.

---

This is a stupid analogy.

I guess you could make it not as stupid if you threw in the idea that if a family had 2x the emergency fund they needed that it was perfectly fine for Joe Blow halfway across the state to come in and take money out of that emergency fund and arbitrarily lower it to what that person thinks it should be.

Given the fact that pensions are always - always - tied to the markets, and that the markets go up and they go down, the idea that it isn't a good financial plan to have a very well funded pension is on a level of idiocy I can't imagine. You are literally advocating for a pension fund to be on the redline, which is akin to advocating that a family live paycheck to paycheck because any money not being spent is somehow a bad financial decision.

EFR said:

---

If it is that much overfunded it is actually financially irresponsible to just leave all that money sitting there. Financially the most responsible thing to do is make sure the pension is funded right at 100%, that way you don't have extra $$ locked up for no reason. That being said, I am sure they will somehow mess this up and somehow destabilize the pension AND waste the money they took.

---

You don't understand how pensions are funded, or secured and what a reduction to 100% could do.

Idk anything about their specific arrangements, but I had to sit through an exhausting seminar for one a while ago.

It is funded through investment earnings, & employer/employee contributions generated from tax revenue.

If the market takes a dive, asset values decrease, tax revenue decreases etc. The pension is hit on multiple fronts.

They use something I'm not that familiar with called 'actuarial smoothing' to spread losses out over a few years, but I don't know much about that, and don't care to research it.

If you fund at 100%, or precisely what is needed, there is zero buffer. That is a terrible idea.

Furthermore setting this as a precedent is a terrible idea, and can pave the way for even more nefarious actions.

W said:

---

retired firefighters and police officers are probably not a voting block for democrats in Washington state

thus they were a ripe target

---

How long before they push through a bill that denies any retirement benefits to retired police officers and firefighters that move out of state?

I agree. But this is Washington and republicans don't exist there. Democrats stole this money.

Texasclipper said:

---

Rapier108 said:

---

Rossticus said:

---

If it holds in court , I wouldn't be shocked to see other states follow suit. Hell, I wouldn't be shocked to see the federal government do it at some point under Dem control.

---

They almost tried it under Obama.

One of his advisors was pushing for the seizure of all 401Ks and IRAs, but even Obama knew doing that would mean the shooting starts so he scuttled that idea.

They will try it again one day.

---

This is one of the reasons for the big push to disarm the populace from the left. Once people have nothing to lose, things could get ugly very quickly and the smart lefties know that.

---

• They have the guns and therefore we are for peace and for reformation through the ballot. When we have the guns then it will be through the bullet.
Saul Alinsky

Many of the Democratic Party leadership are adherents to the teachings of Saul Alinsky

EFR said:

---

You should really look into the plan. The state was the largest contributor, so I would say they have a dog in the fight. Lets also remember this plan only covers those hired before 1977 so it isn't gaining new members/liabilities, that number is actually going down. They are not lowering the benefits (actually raising them). There is literally no reason to let that fund keep growing. As an attorney you should realize that the pensioners are entitled to the promised benefit, nothing more nothing less.

---

The ethical thing at this point may be reduce contributions?
State over funded because of a bad decision, not the retirees responsibility.

Defending the indefensible. This is not a slippery slope situation. This is confiscation.

Members haven't had to contribute to the plan in over 15 years.

What level do you think a pension should be funded at? 200%? 500%? Seriously do a bit on reading on that pension in particular. It has vastly more money than it will ever need. Even with the movement of money they are going to be funded over 100% AND giving the retirees a raise. Nobody has had contribute to it in over 15 years and it keeps growing. Its liabilities go down annually because it is closed and most of the members are getting pretty old. It just doesn't need the amount of money it has. I don't think the state will spend the money wisely, but the OP is rage bait.

Vastly more money than it will ever need, yet even under the current funding analysis, 5% of the 2000 economic scenarios run by the state actuary have the plan requiring additional contributions by 2045.

After the bill is passed, that likelihood goes up to 40%. And that is based only on asset return assumptions. Demographics (pensioners living longer than anticipated) and inflation (the benefits are fully indexed) are ignored in that analysis, so the likelihood of a needed contribution from the state is even higher than that.

Oh, and another recent bill changed the asset rate of return assumed in the analysis from 7 to 7.25%. Given the liability duration is probably 8-10 years, that created a quick $120-150million of surplus, just from that single assumption change.

To pretend that this isn't concerning, particularly when the plan is to just patch the state budget, is absurd.

In 2045 the youngest member would be 86 yrs old. At that point it will be paying out almost nothing monthly, of course if demographics hadn't been ignored like you said they would have noted this. Also I don't know that using scenarios from 26 yrs ago is relevant.

HDeathstar said:

---

Strange occurrence for a pension. So the gov't had funded the pension to 160%? Why were they overfunding the pension? It has been over funded for 25 years (no new contributions for 25 years). Looks like it was a slush fund already. I assume someone's friend was running the fund. See no issue with this, if they keep it 100% funded. It not like the pensioners were going to get more if it was funded over 100%. Plus Gov't employees should not have a pension, move it to a 401k.

---

This.

Now the bad part will be that the state of WA will use it for really obnoxious toxic stuff no doubt...or fund a bunch of NGO's that then fund a bunch of politicians in future elections.

EFR said:

---

In 2045 the youngest member would be 86 yrs old. At that point it will be paying out almost nothing monthly, of course if demographics hadn't been ignored like you said they would have noted this. Also I don't know that using scenarios from 26 yrs ago is relevant.

---

They'll still have $0.8B of liabilities in 2045.

The demographics are accounted for, what I mean by "not including demographics" is that when they did the sensitivity analysis, they did not account for the fact that the mortality might be lower than anticipated/used in their analysis.

And the scenarios aren't from the year 2000. They ran 2000 economic scenarios, and in 40% of them, the plan needs contributions by 2045 (when they're still paying $180million per year in benefits).