I'm not offended. You just need to realize that you're wildly and dramatically over-extrapolating. Yes, the system your family paid into was underfunded – either they or they state (or probably both) needed to chip in a lot more at the time.
That is the point I've been advocating. When this happens in the private sector, retirees get told too bad, your benefits are getting cut. When it happens to government workers taxpayers get told cough up some more money boys. If these people wanted generous pensions they should have funded them WHEN THEY WERE WORKING, not push it onto the next generation.
5% is just barely less than the employee contribution to Social Security. The others are much higher. And most employees aren't eligible to collect it significantly earlier. As for whether the pension or Social Security is more generous, that depends on your income and how long you work.
5% is less than half of what is paid into Social Security...but regardless...I think you need to research your numbers a bit more...5 minutes on google and here's what I find for contribution rates...
http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/the-state-worker/article24491536.htmlCA - 3 - 3.75% employee contribution
http://sers.pa.gov/pdf/Employers/2014-2015-finance_documents_Employer-Rate-Chart.pdfPA - employees 5-10%, state 13.77-31.52% (LOL 31% wtf?)
Here's another little gem...Illinois
https://www.illinoispolicy.org/reports/illinois-taxpayers-bear-the-brunt-of-rising-pension-costs/2013 shows their pension obligations were 21% funded by contributions and 79% funded by tax payers.
Most of the people who pay rates anywhere close to 11-12% are teachers or law enforcement whom also don't pay SS.
I love looking at examples. A state employee making 50k who contributes 11%, and whose state contributes 5% (so the State is paying no more into the pension than they would into Social Security), who worked from say age 30 to age 60, and who got the average market return over the last century or so, would have about $816k in their account. Using the 4% rule, that would be $32.6k per year they could withdraw. If they received a pension that had a formula of 1.5% of final salary per year, that pension would be $21,750. So that contribution rate should fund a much higher pension.
Now, using a bit of math, we can figure out if the state contributions 5%, what the employee contribution needs to be for a 401k-style program to give the same benefit as a pension. It turns out to be 5.65%, for the assumptions above.
So this statement of yours is 100% wrong.
Because you just moved the goal post and added another 5%. If they contribute 5% and the state contributes 5%, that is 10% of their compensation, not 5%. But regardless, those jobs with higher compensation rates still get generous benefits. I decided to look into teachers a bit further because I know that is one group that is exempt from SS.
http://www.ct.gov/trb/cwp/view.asp?a=1579&Q=272076&trbPNavCtr=|#41324
They contribute 7.25% of their pay towards retirement, with 6% going to their pension and 1.25% going towards retiree health insurance. 6% is less than SS tax, they get a COLA, and a 2% accrual rate under the newer, less generous rules...so a 30 year retiree at 60 would get 60% of their highest 3 years averaged, which more than likely is just their last 3.
http://www.theday.com/article/20140114/NWS12/301149943Average CT teacher pension...47,000. How is 6% of their salary funding a 47,000 dollar a year pension with a COLA? They literally contribute less than the rest of us do to SS and expect more generous benefits. Its why the system is under funded and tax payers are on the hook for billions...enough wasn't contributed to the system. Again, if they were treated like private sector employees and told future contribution rates are going up and benefits are being cut/COLA's being frozen until funding levels are looking better, I wouldn't care what they got for a pension...but its not like that, they just demand they "earned" a benefit they didn't want to pay for for themselves and pass the bill to the next generation.
I think tearing up contracts like that is immoral. There is literally no difference between taking someone's pension after they earned it, and confiscating a 401k. Both are morally wrong. I'm probably younger than you, and I am not in a position that earns a pension (heck, I'm not even eligible to participate in a 401k). But that doesn't mean I can't point out extreme confiscatory policies when I see them, and that's exactly what you're advocating.
You know what I think is immoral...someone contracting them self a comfy retirement, not funding it, and then demanding the next generation pay for it because they were too cheap/stupid/greedy to fund it for themselves. They didn't earn that pension, if they earned it, it would have been properly funded. Its really irrelevant if they didn't contribute enough as workers, or if the state didn't contribute enough, because they were the ones voting for those state officials...they were the ones voting to kick the can down the road, and now my generation gets screwed over.
Let me ask, what am I advocating to confiscate? I'm saying their pensions should be cut down to a level its current funding can support, JUST LIKE PRIVATE SECTOR PENSIONS THAT WERE NOT PROPERLY FUNDED AND/OR POORLY MANAGED. Like I already said in this thread...I'm part of a union pension fund. They are currently cutting benefits. I'm ok with it, I basically invest x amount of dollars in the fund and I'm only going to get out of it what they can afford to pay me, like all investments sometimes you lose. I'm not saying we should raid their pension funds, I'm saying they didn't fund them when they were in the workforce, why should I have to make up the difference now? They are stealing from me by forcing me to pay for a retirement they chose not to properly fund, I'm not confiscating anything from them, especially since it is literally impossible to confiscate something that isn't there. What am I going to go confiscate, their unfunded pensions? How exactly do you confiscate debt? For people in areas where the pensions weren't as ridiculous and were better funded, they wouldn't have to worry much, would they?