City of Hartford, CT close to declarin bankruptcy

[Bambam]

Originally Posted By: Mr Nice
Originally Posted By: 86cutlass307
Was there a news story some time back, that quietly went away, that United Technologies was in discussion with 3 different places I believe to relocate their headquarters out of East Hartford? I may be thinking of another corporate entity but UTC sticks in memory on this one.


GE recently moved their corporate headquarters from CT to Boston, big financial incentives from MA to relocate.

If United Technologies can get the same deal, they will also leave CT.




I work for the town where GE moved from, the complex was sold to a University, so tax money lost when GE moved, nothing recouped with the new owner ! GE was the biggest taxpayer in town..

 

[BrianF]

In Regina the city pension, health care and even the police to some degree is in bad shape. Hundreds of millions in deficit. For an area that only has a few hundred thousand people. A relative who is close to retiring from the health region has been going on a roller coaster. One scenario they were provided is they will lump sum their pension, but only a portion of what they put in.

Our way of life as we know it is not sustainable. Policing, judicial system, health care, infrastructure, welfare, corporate welfare etc. It is simply not sustainable.

But hey, I live in Canada, where we have no money but we can give the UN and every other organization money. Never fear, we will carbon tax ourselves into prosperity. Sorry my blood pressure is on the rise here.

 

[jeepman3071]

It's really pretty simple. We have morons in political offices who have no clue how to manage money, combined with our unsustainable way of life.

Say we have a person who worked for the state for 20-25 years. They can retire and get a pension that is close their last few years salary. Often they go on to live for a longer period of time collecting a pension in retirement than the time they spent working. So the state is paying more money for people who technically aren't working, than for when those same people were working. It makes no sense in terms of sustainability. Not to mention a lot of the people I know who retired from CT moved down to Florida, so the money being paid to them isn't even going back into the local economy.

 

[LoneRanger]

Originally Posted By: Jimzz
Originally Posted By: Danno
Let me guess - pensions obligations to police, firefighters and city employees along with salaries and head counts that are above private industry are causing most of the financial pressures.
Elected officials stay in office as they say yes to contract demands and as there is no alternative they have to say yes.
How broken is that !
House of cards time for pretty well every city in North America. Just look at Dallas as an example.
Our municipality has a population base of 160,000, yet has a budget of $600 million per year. And only $38 million is spent on road upkeep as an example.
You ask the average citizen how much the annual spend of the city is, and they guess $50 million. I tell them the real number and you get a blank stare - they cannot comprehend it.
Just crazy.


Let me guess you did not read the article and just posted more partisan [censored] you heard from someone and believed it as it fit your narrow minded views?

"more than half of the city's properties are tax-exempt"

Na that can't have anything to do with it.


And those evil unions are probably holding out or even asking for more right?

"concessions from the unions"

Opps guess thats not it either.



+1 Jimzzz

Bad case of Pension Envy there, Danno?

 

[grampi]

Originally Posted By: Bladecutter
Originally Posted By: Al
Originally Posted By: CT8
Government employees cost the taxpayers too much.

Yup that's 90% of the problem...every city, state, and the U.S.


Just out of curiosity...

How exactly do you expect a city to run if it doesn't have employees?
Or would you rather just prefer chaos in the area you live, 24/7?

BC.


Most people believe gov employees are over paid and do nothing but sit around on their duffs...I work for the gov and I can tell you this isn't true for me...sure, the size of gov could be reduced, but somebody's gotta do the work...the work doesn't magically go away if the workforce is reduced....

 

[SeaJay]

Originally Posted By: Danno
Let me guess - pensions obligations to police, firefighters and city employees along with salaries and head counts that are above private industry are causing most of the financial pressures.
Elected officials stay in office as they say yes to contract demands and as there is no alternative they have to say yes.
How broken is that !
House of cards time for pretty well every city in North America. Just look at Dallas as an example.
Our municipality has a population base of 160,000, yet has a budget of $600 million per year. And only $38 million is spent on road upkeep as an example.
You ask the average citizen how much the annual spend of the city is, and they guess $50 million. I tell them the real number and you get a blank stare - they cannot comprehend it.
Just crazy.


How true, that will be the downfall of many a municipality. At some point the house of cards will fall down, and many of the pensioners will not be collecting what they think they will collect. The gravy train days of putting in 20-30 years for a municipality, retiring by age 50 and collecting 50% of their final salary (that sometimes includes OT in the final year)for the next 40 years may be on the way out.

 

[eljefino]

Originally Posted By: SeaJay
The gravy train days of putting in 20-30 years for a municipality, retiring by age 50 and collecting 50% of their final salary (that sometimes includes OT in the final year)for the next 40 years may be on the way out.


I wouldn't care if it was on its way out, but let the new employees know this isn't the deal any more. We should honor our contracts with existing employees.

 

[LoneRanger]

Originally Posted By: SeaJay


How true, that will be the downfall of many a municipality. At some point the house of cards will fall down, and many of the pensioners will not be collecting what they think they will collect. The gravy train days of putting in 20-30 years for a municipality, retiring by age 50 and collecting 50% of their final salary (that sometimes includes OT in the final year)for the next 40 years may be on the way out.


50% and 50 yrs old? 70% and 56 yrs old for me, plus a 457b been contributing to since the early 90's. No gravy train earning it, either. Been exposed to plenty of risk for serious injury or death and working outside in all weather conditions good and bad to get to the 30 yr / 70% level that will arrive in a couple more yrs. But, I guess we don't deserve to have the public to honor it's contractual responsibility that they, through election of government officials at the time, guaranteed to us as new hire's (and which we have paid into on every paycheck) as part of the job package.

 

[MNgopher]

I see some of the comments about how great public pensions are. I can state in my case, the idea of contributing nothing, working only until 50 and getting 50% is NOT how it works for everyone. Smart entities have been changing and modifying what new members in the pension plans get for many years now to prevent the issues many seem to think affect all pensions...

Examples in my "gravy train" pension (according to some): Currently 6.5% of my salary goes into my pension. Not "free". No retiring with full benefits at young ages. Rule of 90 is gone (and has been if you weren't hired before roughly 1989). I don't get full benefits unless I wait to retire until 65. Reduced before then. Lots of other restrictions, etc...

Quite frankly, if your government has been overcome by not adequately funding its pensions, your representatives have been asleep at the wheel for quite some time. It is up to you as a voter to make it an issue, and deal with it and force change - particularly for new hires. Otherwise, they should honor their past obligations.

 

[grampi]

Originally Posted By: eljefino
Originally Posted By: SeaJay
The gravy train days of putting in 20-30 years for a municipality, retiring by age 50 and collecting 50% of their final salary (that sometimes includes OT in the final year)for the next 40 years may be on the way out.


I wouldn't care if it was on its way out, but let the new employees know this isn't the deal any more. We should honor our contracts with existing employees.


Exactly. It kind of reminds me of the military changing/taking away benefits for veterans who are already retired. We were promised certain benefits, and a lot of us decided to make a career out of the military based on getting those benefits, then to have them taken away after we kept our end of the bargain is a breech of contract...they need to grandfather clause those people who are already in the system when they decide to restructure it...

 

[Mr Nice]

Originally Posted By: jeepman3071
It's really pretty simple. We have morons in political offices who have no clue how to manage money, combined with our unsustainable way of life.

Say we have a person who worked for the state for 20-25 years. They can retire and get a pension that is close their last few years salary. Often they go on to live for a longer period of time collecting a pension in retirement than the time they spent working. So the state is paying more money for people who technically aren't working, than for when those same people were working. It makes no sense in terms of sustainability. Not to mention a lot of the people I know who retired from CT moved down to Florida, so the money being paid to them isn't even going back into the local economy.


You really can't blame people for wanting to stretch their retirement dollars in Florida.
Gainesville has lots of people moving there to retire since there is no winter and housing in very affordable. My friend lives there and many of his neighbors are from the NE.

 

[Trav]

Originally Posted By: eljefino
Originally Posted By: SeaJay
The gravy train days of putting in 20-30 years for a municipality, retiring by age 50 and collecting 50% of their final salary (that sometimes includes OT in the final year)for the next 40 years may be on the way out.


I wouldn't care if it was on its way out, but let the new employees know this isn't the deal any more. We should honor our contracts with existing employees.


Exactly! The deal was made, if you upheld your end of the bargain it must be honored.

 

[L_Sludger]

I drove through Hartford once or twice. Seemed nice. Typical New England city. Too bad its financially insolvent. That's what happens when public servants believe the public is there to serve them.