Cranbury Forum | Bulletin | Info Sharing
[Click here to bookmark this page: http://cranbury.info]
▪
Cranbury School
▪
Cranbury Township
▪
Cranbury Library
▪
Cranbury.org
▪
Cranburyhistory.org
(Press Ctrl and = keys to increase font size)
Search
Register (optional)
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
[http://cranbury.info]
->
News | Events
Post a reply
Username
Subject
Message body
Emoticons
Font colour:
Default
Dark Red
Red
Orange
Brown
Yellow
Green
Olive
Cyan
Blue
Dark Blue
Indigo
Violet
White
Black
Font size:
Tiny
Small
Normal
Large
Huge
Close Tags
[quote="Guest"][quote="Guest 2"]No problem? Look now, our pension benefits are under attack. The members are going to have to "pay" to fix it, even though they have contributed 5% to 8.5% of their salary every year. This contribution is mandatory --- not like a 401k which is voluntary. Yes the benefit needs to be paid at the end, but it is a sin how the state of NJ has dodged their obligation for years and now expects the state employees to pay up. We pay taxes too. This would be considered criminal in the private sector.[/quote] The members are not going to pay to fix it unless you are talking through increased taxes and fees that everyone will share in. If you pay 5.5% or 8.5% you get a guaranteed pension. If you choose not to pay in a 401K you get zip. If you contribute 5.5% or 8.5% you are unlikely to retire with the same benefit as a municipal employee who is getting a DB plan. Yes it is a sin how the state raided the pension plan, but the employees are not making this all up on their own as you make it out to be.[/quote]
Options
HTML is
ON
BBCode
is
ON
Smilies are
ON
Disable HTML in this post
Disable BBCode in this post
Disable Smilies in this post
All times are GMT - 4 Hours
Jump to:
Select a forum
Topics
----------------
News | Events
School | Parenting
Blogs by Cranbury Residents
Shopping | Good Deals | Price Talk
Home Sweet Home
House For Sale
Home Sales Pricing Records
Financial | Stocks | Mutual Funds
Cool Bytes & Bits
Garage Sale | ForSale Ads | Things to Trade
Tech Related (PC, Internet, HDTV, etc.)
Interesing and Fun Stuff to Share
What's Your Favorite?
Interests | Hobbies
Cranbury History
Radom Thoughts | Sports | Kitchen Sink
Amazon Deals
Local Business Info
----------------
Local Business Ads (FREE)
Support
----------------
Daily Sponsored Message & Amazon Ads
About Us | Your Privacy | Suggestion | Sponsored
Test Area (Practice your posting skills here)
Topic review
Author
Message
Guest
Posted: Mon, Feb 22 2010, 10:27 am EST
Post subject: Re: Is the Cranbury Township Employee Pension Fund Under Funded?
Guest wrote:
Guest wrote:
He did not claim it would flow to property tax reduction. In fact it is the opposite. He is using local property taxes to balance the states budget. The result will raise next years property taxes around the state.
First, can you cite your source from this? A place where Christie is quoted as saying this?
Second, even if that were true, it still doesn't change the fact that Cranbury doesn't receive any state money to fund our schools so we still will be unaffected at worst by this move.
First the statement was Christie, "did NOT claim it would flow to property tax reduction". MY source is his speech. Your job to counter that statement would be to find a place where Christie did say this would lower property taxes. Good luck with that. He did not make that statement because he knows is doesn't.
Second, Cranbury does recieve funds from the state and federal government.
Third and this is most puzzling to me. Corslime came up with this property tax raising proposal in the lame duck session. Christie merely adopted it. Two things I don't understand. This is a perfect end to the Corslime administration shifting the tax burden to municipalities, but why would Christie who advocates lower property taxes adopt it? Second why would people be against the tax shift when proposed by Corslime be for it when adopted by Christie? It is the same cheap trick.
Guest
Posted: Mon, Feb 22 2010, 7:45 am EST
Post subject: Re: Is the Cranbury Township Employee Pension Fund Under Funded?
Guest wrote:
He did not claim it would flow to property tax reduction. In fact it is the opposite. He is using local property taxes to balance the states budget. The result will raise next years property taxes around the state.
First, can you cite your source from this? A place where Christie is quoted as saying this?
Second, even if that were true, it still doesn't change the fact that Cranbury doesn't receive any state money to fund our schools so we still will be unaffected at worst by this move.
Guest
Posted: Mon, Feb 22 2010, 7:43 am EST
Post subject: Re: Is the Cranbury Township Employee Pension Fund Under Funded?
Guest wrote:
He did not claim it would flow to property tax reduction. In fact it is the opposite. He is using local property taxes to balance the states budget. The result will raise next years property taxes around the state.
Maybe the cities where state aid is a major part of their budget should be raising their taxes so towns like Cranbury are not subsidizing them. I am concerned about Cranbury, not if Trenton, Camden, Newark or even West Windsor raise their local property taxes.
So far...
Posted: Mon, Feb 22 2010, 7:13 am EST
Post subject: Re: Is the Cranbury Township Employee Pension Fund Under Funded?
It will be easy to critize every tactic Christie uses to plug the massive hole he inherited. Some of these tactics are going to hurt, but I like the overall strategy so far. In the big picture, towns like Cranbury that receive almost nothing from the state will feel less pain from this tactic than towns that rely heavily on subsidies from the state.
Guest
Posted: Mon, Feb 22 2010, 6:20 am EST
Post subject: Re: Is the Cranbury Township Employee Pension Fund Under Funded?
He did not claim it would flow to property tax reduction. In fact it is the opposite. He is using local property taxes to balance the states budget. The result will raise next years property taxes around the state.
Guest
Posted: Sun, Feb 21 2010, 10:26 pm EST
Post subject: Re: Is the Cranbury Township Employee Pension Fund Under Funded?
Guest wrote:
He is cutting current payments to Cranbury.
Cranbury receives virtually nothing from the State. It varies year-to-year so sometimes it is literally zero and sometimes a few percent. But overall Cranbury tax payers are assessed far more for eductaion from the state than it receives so if this truly flows toward protery tax reduction as claimed it would benefit us.
Guest
Posted: Sun, Feb 21 2010, 6:13 pm EST
Post subject: Re: Is the Cranbury Township Employee Pension Fund Under Funded?
Honestly, I am more concerned over the BOE not making cuts on non-essentials. Their budget has 48% going to wages and benefits which is huge on an 18.68 million dollar budget.
We cannot in this economy afford an increase of 5.5 cents again. My worry is that the BOE will say the town is not increasing so we can.
http://portal.cranburyschool.org/boe/Budget%20Info/Budget%20Newsletter%202009.pdf
Guest
Posted: Sun, Feb 21 2010, 5:13 pm EST
Post subject: Re: Is the Cranbury Township Employee Pension Fund Under Funded?
He is cutting current payments to Cranbury.
Guest
Posted: Sun, Feb 21 2010, 2:46 pm EST
Post subject: Re: Is the Cranbury Township Employee Pension Fund Under Funded?
Guest wrote:
Guest wrote:
I like the Bill Baroni quote in the clip -- we're going to miss him representing us. He was the first person I ever voted Republican for.
But his point illustrates exactly why the school consolidation movement in NJ is a sham, and why Corzine was so inept or corrupt (take your pick). He claimed he wanted to save our tax dollars and be more efficient with school funding. Yet the facts show consolidating the schools would do exactly the opposite of that. The largest districts spend the most per student and require the most subsidy from the rest of us and still do a terrible job. By comparison, Cranbury receives effectively zero state aid, so Cranbury residents give far more to the state for education than we receive back -- we are the ones subsidizing the larger districts, yet completely fund our local blue ribbon school. And one of the reasons is undoubtedly because the unions have more strength in the larger districts and flood the district with make-work over-paid jobs, to Baroni's point about the Newark districts having hundreds of six figure administrators (not teachers, but administrators). School consolidation is a lie, plain and simple. And politicial who promoted it in NJ as an answer to property tax reduction was a liar.
What little state aid Cranbury receives has just been halted by the governor to help make up the current deficit. Does anyone have a problem with this?
That is not correct. He is cutting state aid and he's also saying districts need to use their surplus which should happen since a school board cannot bond.
Here is his plans on cutting aid.
http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2010/02/gov_chris_christie_plans_to_cu.html
To answer the question specifically. Cranbury is self sufficient. We do not rely on state aid. So if he is saying he's going to save the state tax dollars by cutting state aid for schools then I am fine with it. It will force towns who do rely on state aid as primary funding to truly review their spending habits. Considering the under performing schools in some of the largest state aid districts I don't think those boards are working that hard on expense control or getting a return on our tax dollars.
Guest
Posted: Sun, Feb 21 2010, 1:30 pm EST
Post subject: Re: Is the Cranbury Township Employee Pension Fund Under Funded?
Guest wrote:
I like the Bill Baroni quote in the clip -- we're going to miss him representing us. He was the first person I ever voted Republican for.
But his point illustrates exactly why the school consolidation movement in NJ is a sham, and why Corzine was so inept or corrupt (take your pick). He claimed he wanted to save our tax dollars and be more efficient with school funding. Yet the facts show consolidating the schools would do exactly the opposite of that. The largest districts spend the most per student and require the most subsidy from the rest of us and still do a terrible job. By comparison, Cranbury receives effectively zero state aid, so Cranbury residents give far more to the state for education than we receive back -- we are the ones subsidizing the larger districts, yet completely fund our local blue ribbon school. And one of the reasons is undoubtedly because the unions have more strength in the larger districts and flood the district with make-work over-paid jobs, to Baroni's point about the Newark districts having hundreds of six figure administrators (not teachers, but administrators). School consolidation is a lie, plain and simple. And politicial who promoted it in NJ as an answer to property tax reduction was a liar.
What little state aid Cranbury receives has just been halted by the governor to help make up the current deficit. Does anyone have a problem with this?
Guest
Posted: Sun, Feb 21 2010, 11:32 am EST
Post subject: Re: Is the Cranbury Township Employee Pension Fund Under Funded?
Guest wrote:
Guest wrote:
The teachers in the surrounding area start at or above 45k. Not a lot of straight out of school jobs start at 45k. Additionally, the schools often pay the cost of additional education. Moreover, as you get additional degrees your pay scale increases.
The only problem with teacher pay is that it tops out at about 90k.
Going rate in NYC for EA's straight out of school is indeed in the mid 40's, and that's with no experience. It is rare that public schools cover costs for master's degrees or extra teaching credentials. And the pay scale increase is minor -- it would take years of it just to recover the costs to acquire it in some cases.
90K is after decades of work and experience. A 23 year-old with one year's experience at an investment bank in the City easily blows that salary away, even if they are just mediocre at it. And a railway worker, with no college education, can easily earn more than that by the time they reach similar tenure.
So what we're saying is we value the people collecting tcikets on our trains who, when they feel like it on rare occasions, may or may not bother annoucing the status of train conditions and delays over the people teaching our children.
I don't know about New York, but Cranbury pays for teachers continuing education and the payscale increase is not minor. Maybe this is why Cranbury school is better than most, but this isn't New York dot Info.
Guest
Posted: Sun, Feb 21 2010, 11:29 am EST
Post subject: Re: Is the Cranbury Township Employee Pension Fund Under Funded?
Guest wrote:
Guest wrote:
The teachers in the surrounding area start at or above 45k. Not a lot of straight out of school jobs start at 45k. Additionally, the schools often pay the cost of additional education. Moreover, as you get additional degrees your pay scale increases.
The only problem with teacher pay is that it tops out at about 90k.
Going rate in NYC for EA's straight out of school is indeed in the mid 40's, and that's with no experience. It is rare that public schools cover costs for master's degrees or extra teaching credentials. And the pay scale increase is minor -- it would take years of it just to recover the costs to acquire it in some cases.
90K is after decades of work and experience. A 23 year-old with one year's experience at an investment bank in the City easily blows that salary away, even if they are just mediocre at it. And a railway worker, with no college education, can easily earn more than that by the time they reach similar tenure.
So what we're saying is we value the people collecting tcikets on our trains who, when they feel like it on rare occasions, may or may not bother annoucing the status of train conditions and delays over the people teaching our children.
It does not take decades of experience. Many of the scales top out after 15 years. Comparing it to investment bankers is a false comparison. Those are the highest paid jobs in the land.
Compare it instead to Straight out of College jobs for most professionals. Better than most. Some forms of engineering don't start that high. In truth it is a 9 month Job, therefore the 45k is 50k for a yearly job and 90k is 99k. Final snarky comment. The 90k teacher has a job for life.
Guest
Posted: Sun, Feb 21 2010, 8:57 am EST
Post subject: Re: Is the Cranbury Township Employee Pension Fund Under Funded?
I like the Bill Baroni quote in the clip -- we're going to miss him representing us. He was the first person I ever voted Republican for.
But his point illustrates exactly why the school consolidation movement in NJ is a sham, and why Corzine was so inept or corrupt (take your pick). He claimed he wanted to save our tax dollars and be more efficient with school funding. Yet the facts show consolidating the schools would do exactly the opposite of that. The largest districts spend the most per student and require the most subsidy from the rest of us and still do a terrible job. By comparison, Cranbury receives effectively zero state aid, so Cranbury residents give far more to the state for education than we receive back -- we are the ones subsidizing the larger districts, yet completely fund our local blue ribbon school. And one of the reasons is undoubtedly because the unions have more strength in the larger districts and flood the district with make-work over-paid jobs, to Baroni's point about the Newark districts having hundreds of six figure administrators (not teachers, but administrators). School consolidation is a lie, plain and simple. And politicial who promoted it in NJ as an answer to property tax reduction was a liar.
Guest
Posted: Sun, Feb 21 2010, 1:42 am EST
Post subject: Re: Is the Cranbury Township Employee Pension Fund Under Funded?
Guest
Posted: Sun, Feb 21 2010, 12:32 am EST
Post subject: Re: Is the Cranbury Township Employee Pension Fund Under Funded?
Guest wrote:
The teachers in the surrounding area start at or above 45k. Not a lot of straight out of school jobs start at 45k. Additionally, the schools often pay the cost of additional education. Moreover, as you get additional degrees your pay scale increases.
The only problem with teacher pay is that it tops out at about 90k.
Going rate in NYC for EA's straight out of school is indeed in the mid 40's, and that's with no experience. It is rare that public schools cover costs for master's degrees or extra teaching credentials. And the pay scale increase is minor -- it would take years of it just to recover the costs to acquire it in some cases.
90K is after decades of work and experience. A 23 year-old with one year's experience at an investment bank in the City easily blows that salary away, even if they are just mediocre at it. And a railway worker, with no college education, can easily earn more than that by the time they reach similar tenure.
So what we're saying is we value the people collecting tcikets on our trains who, when they feel like it on rare occasions, may or may not bother annoucing the status of train conditions and delays over the people teaching our children.
Guest
Posted: Sat, Feb 20 2010, 8:13 pm EST
Post subject: Re: Is the Cranbury Township Employee Pension Fund Under Funded?
It's a 9-month salary, right?