Editor,
In response to the Oct. 31 letter on pensions: While I agree that the matter of upcoming pension liabilities is not being properly addressed or managed at the state or local level, there are a few misleading points which deserve correction.
Editor,
In response to the Oct. 31 letter on pensions: While I agree that the matter of upcoming pension liabilities is not being properly addressed or managed at the state or local level, there are a few misleading points which deserve correction.
In his letter, Mr. Elliott states that there are nearly 600 people in the UC system alone making almost 500K. However, the UC system is massive — more than 190K employees, including some of the world’s best surgeons at UCSF and UC Davis. These employees represents only 0.3 percent of employees, a proportion I can only assume is much higher for corporations.
It is wrong to suggest that the number of high salaries necessarily means mismanagement or evidence of future liabilities. At this time, what a UC employee makes has no real bearing on their impact on the pension system. For example, an individual hired in 1985 who retires with a salary of 250K can be presumed to bring in the same amount each year in retirement. However, a member of upper management hired in 2014 at 600K will max out with a pension of slightly more than 100K — presuming he or she keeps at the job for 27 more years.
Addressing this issue by denouncing what state workers have been promised is not productive. Why not focus on the true problem — the fact the fiduciaries at CalPERS, who balanced the books based on an annual return of 7.75 percent after fees throughout the recession, have over-promised and under-delivered for years?
Kara Cox
San Mateo
Please purchase a Premium Subscription to continue reading.
To continue, please log in, or sign up for a new account.
We offer one free story view per month. If you register for an account, you will get two additional story views. After those three total views, we ask that you support us with a subscription.
A subscription to our digital content is so much more than just access to our valuable content. It means you’re helping to support a local community institution that has, from its very start, supported the betterment of our society. Thank you very much!
Only subscribers can view and post comments on articles.
Already a subscriber? Login Here
Sorry, an error occurred.
Already Subscribed!
Cancel anytime
Thank you .
Your account has been registered, and you are now logged in.
Check your email for details.
Submitting this form below will send a message to your email with a link to change your password.
An email message containing instructions on how to reset your password has been sent to the email address listed on your account.
No promotional rates found.
Secure & Encrypted
Thank you.
Your gift purchase was successful! Your purchase was successful, and you are now logged in.
| Rate: | |
| Begins: | |
| Transaction ID: |
A receipt was sent to your email.
(2) comments
In the real world, running deficits is equivalent to mismanagement Kara. I know that doesn't make sense for public employees who have the taxpayer to step in whenever things get out of hand. Like they are right now. In the world I am from, when you run deficits consistently like our government, you usually go out of existence.
The 27 year comment is also misleading as they could work for an agency or a combination of agencies for 27 years, have an executive position for one year and receive the higher pension. One could also work in management early in their career and then take a lower position, and still receive service credit for the higher pension. The CAFR was posted for the 11/20 meeting and it shows pension liability increased by $29.198 million, so San Mateo City pension obligations are now $197.8 million. Our Safey plan is only 62.3% funded, how are we supposed to attract Police and Fire personnel? There are 521 active employees who are not only paying for themselves, but 1,318 inactive employees who are no longer with the City, but are still accruing service cost (819 inactives receiving pension and 419 who are entitled to but not yet pension benefits).
Welcome to the discussion.
Log In
Keep the discussion civilized. Absolutely NO personal attacks or insults directed toward writers, nor others who make comments.
Keep it clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
Don't threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Anyone violating these rules will be issued a warning. After the warning, comment privileges can be revoked.