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.
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.