JavaScript is disabled
Our website requires JavaScript to function properly. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser settings before proceeding.
Just doing some corrections here. Anyone hired after about 2000 is defined contibution of 6%. The older workers may be defined benefit plans.

So the state is currently on the right track of only the contibution is guaranteed. Their retirement benefits go up and down with the market.

This is true although I am one of those who has some money in the "old PERS" and some in the "new PERS" system. Just so all of you tax payers (like me) know, all of our tax payer dollars of the past few years have been basically wasted. This hasn't been due to PERS or it's policies but like everyone else is subject to the markets/economy.

Voters. And by recognized process (valued by some), their elected representatives who as negotiators (eyes wide open with negotiations, settlements and give and take) entered into a legal contract. Novel and complicated concept (for some).

I could be wrong but I think this is Spitpatch's way of letting some know that PERS was entered into by both public employees and "the people" by way of the government. "Back in the day" the state told public employees that they would bring them into the PERS system in lieu of a pay raise. That idea became law.

You can bubblegum about PERS and I will agree that there has to be something done to alleviate pressure on employers. The truth is that the vast majority of PERS recipients don't live any higher on the hog than do workers employed privately.

I don't know of a single retired PERS recipient who relies soley on PERS. They all have investment proceeds that supplement their PERS benefits.
 

Upcoming Events

Redmond Gun Show
Redmond, OR
Klamath Falls gun show
Klamath Falls, OR
Centralia Gun Show
Centralia, WA

New Resource Reviews

New Classified Ads

Back Top