In addition, Kentucky teachers have worked under the assumption of getting a pension because the state never extended social security to them. They worked with lower wages and no future social security with the promise of pension would be there for them, sometimes as their only retirement income. How can you go back and threaten this pension when teachers took these low paying jobs under that assumption?
https://www.bondbuyer.com/news/bevin-citing-pension-pressure...
https://www.courier-journal.com/story/news/education/2018/03...
I only mentioned teachers because of their response, which is largely irrational. No ones benefits are being taken, the state is just ending a program that is unsustainable.
The private sector did this decades ago.
What happens if the state government goes bankrupt? That is not outside the realm of possibility with the current crisis.
That bill is essentially a reduction in compensation for future employees, isn't it? You might not agree with their priorities, but there's nothing irrational about teachers objecting to that.
> The NEA/KEA especially has vehemently disagreed with any proposed reform.
Did any of the proposals include just raising taxes to fix the pension fund? Mathematically, it's not like there is really a wide array of options if you're going to honor the constitutional "inviolability" of that contract (which I'm sure the teachers want KY to do) and actually keep the pension going.
I mean if your lifeboat is sinking why would you insist on cramming more people on? Axing pension benefits for future employees is much preferable to what would happen to current ones if the state goes bankrupt.
I assume the teachers understood that those are not the only two options.
Some oversimplified calculation: $15,000 over 30 years would be $500/year, equivalent to a 20% tax increase.
Increased taxation cannot resolve the crisis alone.
But, the larger point is that there has not yet been any reform of the current situation
Kentucky also gives favorable tax treatment to retirement and pension income, so if you wanted to reduce a percived moral hazard of who pays and who benefits, KY could simultaneously reduce the preference given to lower the required rate changes further.
Increased taxes can solve the situation fairly trivially, and still leave KY in the middle of the pack for total tax burden.
None of the numbers you mentioned support that conclusion at all.
This is why people are anti-union. It's unbelievably short-sighted.
Now you want to hold the Union accountable?
Our current governor is the first to attempt to do anything about it in decades, and is being blasted by unions, the press, and the public for it. He’s most likely destroyed any chance of re-election by pushing hard for reform. He also hasn’t done a great job of building consensus, to be fair.
The NEA/KEA especially has vehemently disagreed with any proposed reform. Teachers have walked out today in protest of a bill that did not affect any current state employees.
It boggles my mind that people respond to this topic so irrationally. It’s like a patient arguing with their doctor over a diagnosis of cancer.
[0] - https://www.courier-journal.com/story/news/politics/2017/08/...