Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Dallas59

And retirement at 55 with bigtime health benefits.


11 posted on 12/22/2005 6:42:05 AM PST by sarasota
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies ]


To: sarasota

keep in mind that they want to lower retirement age to 50


13 posted on 12/22/2005 6:46:26 AM PST by soccer_maniac (www.polipundit.com -- Elections and politics with a Conservative bent.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies ]

To: sarasota; Southack
And retirement at 55 with bigtime health benefits.

This is going to become a big problem for many public entities, not the least of which is those in New York.

Starting in 2006, GASB (Government Accounting Standards Board) 45 will require that OPEB's (Other Post Employment Benefits) such as retiree health care MUST shown as an accrued liability on the budget, similar to pension benefits. Rather than using pay-as-you-go for retiree benefits (which does not show the "true" cost of health care for employees), GASB 45 requires public entities to estimate the future value of such benefits for its retirees and then calculate an actuarially derived yearly expense to be shown on the budget.

The implications of this is huge. I'm on a local school Board and all Board Members only know is how much we pay per year for health care. The figure cited includes all current AND retired employees. But GASB 45 will change that because the actuarily derived yearly expense will end up going against the bottom line - and may cause school district entities to increase the tax levy to fund this liability.

For the school district I serve on the Board, teachers and administrators can accrue sick time, and then convert that sick time to health care upon retirement - and that is way many school districts handle retiree health care. So going back to our school district, a teacher or administrator can concert anywhere from 17-25 days of accrued sick time to one year of paid health care for themself upon retirement.

GASB 45 does not require entities (such as a New York City's MTA) to FUND the liability, but in reality, emtities will have to fund this liability in some fashion. I believe this will end up forcing many small public entities to consolidate - taxpayers are at their limit in these parts of what they can afford to pay for taxes.

I believe that offering health care upon retirement without some provisions to control cost is one of the worst benefits that can be paid to employees. It is a guaranteed benefit that has a variable cost. In 10 years, I predict you will see many school districts having to consolidate due to the inability of smaller districts in rural areas to increase the tax levy enough to cover the rising costs of health care.

Southack, sending to you, as I consider you well versed in things economic and fiscal on FR.

18 posted on 12/22/2005 7:00:10 AM PST by Fury
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies ]

To: sarasota

19 posted on 12/22/2005 7:02:28 AM PST by soccer_maniac (www.polipundit.com -- Elections and politics with a Conservative bent.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson