States face pension fund gap approaching $1 trillion

What are the "fair share" rates that rich people should pay? Proceed to the dancing, Mally.

I last had a company funding my pension in about 2004.

The idea behind pension plans is that the current generation of retirees is funded by the current generation of active workers. That equation falls apart when automization starts to shrink the workforce. You end up having 100 workers funding 200 retirees. Its a flawed model and should go away.

Don't accuse me of never agreeing with conservative perspectives.

The politicians over-promised what they can now deliver.
n.b. The politicians did get the benefit of voters voting for them based upon the promises, however.

The major contributor to the current worsening of the underfunding is an over-estimate as to the investment interest-rate which were to be available to fund the pension-fund. Most pension funds assumed the funds would be able to earn a safe return of 8%-per-year; that's what pension funds earned in the Good Old Days. Present returns, thanks to a central bank trying to "stimulate" a flagging economy, are more like 2%. 2% compounds much slower than 8%.
There is not enough money in the funds now; this condition will worsen.

DonDiego recommends the wary citizen keep his eye on the pension-funds of the State of Illinois. They are very, very generous, . . . and likely to fail first. Or demonstrate what measures will be instituted to "save" them.
They cannot be saved. The math doesn't work.

Republicans have tried to this exact thing in California, but the unions have spent millions to successfully defeat it.

That was the idea behind social security.

These government pension plans are supposed to be funded by employee and government contributions and then invested such that when the employee retires the contributions + investments provide a predefined stream of income in retirement....it is not supposed to depend on the next generation of workers.

The problem is the investment rate of return was assumed to be much higher than current reality...like 7+%. For example: CalPERS the California retirement system assumed 7.5% returns. They were actually killing that number at one point in time and actually reduced employee contributions...and kept the same guaranteed benefit.

Today CALPERS is now making just .6% on its investments. Its assets are only 68% of what is needed to fund future liabilities. There is a 139 Billion dollar shortfall for sufficiently funding what workers are entitled to for PAST LABOR. It's a debt that could have been avoided if CalPERS had used realistic investment forecasts and collected sufficient funds up front.

The real rub is that they have no plans to adjust that 7.5% projection and increase the required contributions until at leas 2018...Heads buried firmly in sand.

I agree 100%.

Any attempts to change pensions in Illinois have been shot down by the courts as unconstitutional --- and recipients are guaranteed a 3% increase each year. This means if you retire today, your pension will be DOUBLE in 24 years. Its a good gig if the taxpayers are funding the bill!

You are learning

I will never understand why SSI age goes up and Gov. pensions remain the same, people retiring under 50 years of age?????? My one brother retired at age 47, my other brother at 55, I plan to work until age 68 to 70 and make less than them.....But hey, take away my SSI, t hat as an evil business owner, I pay double...I pay 7.65% and my business pays 7.65%.

Government jobs are a good gig, but you need to kiss plenty of ass to get them / keep them.......