newjerseynewsroom.com

Share this Twitter Myspace Digg Del.icio.us Reddit Slashdot Furl Yahoo Technorati Newsvine Facebook Export PDF Print E-mail

In reference to where the pension funding would be if it had been fully funded throughout, where is the calculation/formula showing how this percentage (74%) was arrived at? NJ spends 2.5 billion annually on health benefit costs for public workers and retirees-how is this relevant? Are we to compare this number to something? The purpose of this statement, as it stands, with no further clarification, baffles me. Unless, of course, it is merely thrown in there for shock value. NJ pays a slighty higher percentage than DE, about 10% more than NY, and significantly higher than the fed when it comes to health care for public workers. The statement also claims that NJ pays a higher percentage than private sector employers but unlike the other examples, there are no numbers to back this up. It is very likely true, but the omission of data makes one wonder what the report is trying to hide. Is the difference not so glaring enough to be included? Also, how does NJ compare to PA since we are listing all the other surround states? Or does the report only include information that "makes its case" so to speak? PA is included later when the report wants to start talking about income tax rates, so why not here too? "Pension Reform is Taking Hold Around the Country" says the report. It then goes on to list three states, presumably out of 50, where pension reform has occurred. if there are more states doing so, why are they not included here. Three states out of fifty is hardly an example of sweeping change. "NJ offers only three health plans to employees vs. 369 offered to federal employees" You are comparing a state to the federal government and I believe, though I have not researched it, that there are laws governing what health plans can be offered in NJ specifically, laws which would not apply to the feds. Moreover, what is the point of this statement? Would offering more plans to these employees save NJ money? Again, bold statements with little clarification as to their relevancy. NJ has lower prescripition drug copays than NY, PA or DE- how much lower? The report then addresses how NJ's economy is still reeling and how many private sector jobs were lost in the past year. Were any public sector jobs lost? Do they not count? Do public sector workers not pay taxes to the state as well? Incidentally, I believe I read that our unemployment rate is now even higher, at 9.8%, largely due to a loss of public sector jobs in August 2010. If you are concerned about unemployment, and we all should be, why only tell half the story? As to the reference of the top marginal income tax rate, let us remember that a top marginal rate is merely a rate that does not take into account deductions and exemptions. I also have a question, since I am by no means a tax expert, do these "top rates" match in terms of brackets? Is the NJ top income bracket the same as NY and PA? If not, and I will have to take the time to look it up, then these numbers mean little. I'm still trying to find the per pupil spending on the NCES website because I'd like to see how much higher our spending is than area states, since this report chooses not to provide that data, preferring instead to merely state that we spend more than anyone. But by how much? Why is data only provided to back up some of the statements in this report and strangely enough, missing, with regard to others? As to the study by Boston college that wealth is leaving NJ, correlation does not equal causation. A briefing of the report states that the cause for the loss of wealth was due to "changes to the state's tax structure." What changes? Is it only rising income taxes? I need more information, don't you? I suppose I would have to read the report to get the full picture. And finally, we come to the "costly education system in need of reform". First, I will state the obvious. NJ is an expensive place to live so of course, to expect the education system to operate at bargain basement prices is ludicrous. In looking at the teacher's salaries listed here, I am not all that shocked. Do we think teachers, on average, should be making less than this? If so, by how much? This type of information, of course, is not provided here. We readers, apparently, are merely supposed to see those figures and think "too much." What the report does do right here, is highlight how much we are giving teachers in raises. From what I am reading, it looks like teacher salaries increased approx 6% over a three year period. Is that too much? I honestly don't know; it certainly is less shocking than the 4% per year that I kept hearing about. continued below....