Government Pension wealth and the “Gross” income of Government (Federal and Local)
Submitted by CAFR1 on Tue, 06/07/2011 – 14:03
in Daily Paul Liberty Forum
Usually a Job Engine, Localities Slow US Economy
by Paul Wiseman
REPLY FROM CAFR1 – 06/06/11
WAKE UP CALL:
Since 1999 who do you think brought in more gross income, the entire population of the United States or collective local and federal government in the United States?
Bet you never thought about that question before.
People are spoon fed the tax income aspect of government but where the “silence is golden” rule has played out over the last forty years was toward government’s “other” income of investment and enterprise income. The now larger percentage of the gross income is investment income such as: Funds for advance liabilities; self insurance; pension funds; etc.
Now most people are under the false impression that government pensions are the employees funds. Well, that predominately is not the case. Most local government pension funds are set up as “strictly participatory”. What that means in analogy is: it is like buying a ticket to ride a train say from NY to CA. NY is when you retire, CA is when you die.
As is the case with a train ticket, you can ride the train to your destination but when you arrive you don’t take a piece of the train with you, you just had a ticket to ride.
The same applies to strictly participatory government pension funds, the employee and the taxpayer through tax contributions bought a ticket to ride and 100% of the fund is owned by the local government, the employee does not own 1c of the fund but is under agreement for their ticket to ride from a payout from “the returns” generated from the fund.
Those local government funds to meet pay outs from the fund’s return each year will use may factors to determine that the funds balance needs to be X to accomplish a return of Y.
The primary factor is how many employees there are now; expected to be 5 – 10 – 15 – 20 years down the road and what their salaries will be at retirement after accounting for inflation and cost of living / salary increases.
If a government employee say is getting $75,000 now and at retirement is expected to be making $125,000 and say for examples sake at retirement they are under contract to get 80% of their last salary (for this example we are not going to factor in other benefits such as medical which would inflate the figures), then that means for that employee the local government will maintain X to equal Y. So with that in mind if a 10% rate of return is projected that means X would be $1,000,000.00 to equal the Y of $100,000. Now if the projected (actuarial projection) of getting a 5% rate of return was used then that means X would now have to be $2,000,000.00 to equal Y.
Being that local government “own” the fund balance, many games are played on actuarial projections used when projecting need over time 10, 15, 20 years down the road.
The bigger the funds balance the bigger the power base that is created in the management of those funds. Where the money is invested worldwide, whose project gets backed, etc…
As it relates to the article I am replying to here, this is the knock your D in the dirt aspect per cutting 30,000 jobs: The local governments have previously done their projections as if the majority of those 30,000 would reach retirement and thus the $$$$$$$s were stashed away to meet those “tickets to ride” at retirement. When 30,000 are then axed it frees up most of that stash to be used elsewhere.
Let’s do some basic math: If at retirement say out of those 30,000 projections were used that 20,000 were factored in to have made it to retirement and on average would have been getting $100,000 per year. Also let’s say the local government at the present was using an actuarial projected 5% rate of return. So with Y being $100,000 and the X being $2,000,000.00 then times 20,000 that equals $40,000,000,000.00 (40-billion dollars) that just appeared that is not needed to fund those “tickets to ride”
Here’s where the nasty plays out: Being that the public is being played not to even look at the basics of an issue like this, those local governments now with a surplus in those fund balances can now withdraw and spend those monies and use them at their discretion without public oversight or in fact as has been the case without public knowledge that it was being done in the first place.
Then a few years go by and we hear from government (the train company): Oh look, the economy has recovered, we can start hiring again so for each new employee the process starts again from the now depleted “standing” balance of the fund with government saying we need to put more money in the pension funds to cover our “tickets to ride”. Then the taxpayer “AND” gov employees get bilked again and government perpetuates building and accentuating their massive power base from the growth of those funds.
On a last note as a shocker for your cognitive thinking per the question I asked in the beginning of this reply: In 2007 I looked at collective government’s (local and federal) gross income of Investment, taxation, and enterprise. The collective investment income (domestic and international) was the greatest percent of the gross income. The total from all three categories was about 14-trillion dollars. The entire gross income of the population of the United States, Bill Gates, the guy working at McDonalds, Government and private sector employees, salaries, wages, and their investment income was about 10.2-trillion dollars.
When you have our “collective” government bringing in more gross income then the population of the United States my wouldn’t Russia and China be envious? Oh, I forgot, they saw the errors of their ways and are shifting into our blue print of operation. We wrote the better plan for control combined with absolute wealth generation for government as the population is masterfully entertained with sound bite conditioning and distraction to perpetuate business as usual from within government.
TREASON: “Treason doth never prosper; what’s the reason? For if it prosper, none dare call it treason.” Sir John Harrington, 1561-1612
Walter Burien – CAFR1
P. O. Box 2112
Saint Johns, AZ 85936
Tel. (928) 458-5854
Any local government can be restructured to meet their annual budget needs “Without” taxes. TRF (Tax Retirement Funds) paying for every City, County, State’s annual budgetary needs!
To automatically subscribe to CAFR1 NATIONAL posts – http://CAFR1.com/phplist/?p=subscribe