Louise Ledesma: “No, public safety workers probably should be able to retire earlier than other government workers because of physical requirements necessary for their jobs. I don’t think anyone should be able to collect more money when they are retired than when they were working. At 3% for each year worked, a person would only have to 34 years. Actually less because retirement plans usually give COLAs.”
Jim West: “No. The days of fixed pensions are over; everyone should and will be in the “game” together. In the future all public employees – like today’s private employees will have 401Ks — partly their own contribution and partly contributions from their employer, i.e. the government. Social Security will provide a minimum safety net but our retirement is and will be in our hands.”
Steve Staloch: “No. They are already paid more than the average government employee, which would result in higher retirement earnings. A tax-payer funded system that incentivizes lucrative retirement benefits more than a decade before social security is inherently unfair and unsustainable. Furthermore, at least a portion of benefits should be at risk, as it is in the private sector.”
Bill Mifsud: “NO. Those professions are dangerous but that does not make it fair for their pensions to be more lucrative. Your pension should not be determined but your job description.”
Mary Zanger: “The suggestions that Governor Brown offered such as later retirement at age 67 as opposed to age 50 and delayed health insurance coverage for new hires are worthy of further negotiations. Since firemen and police must be healthy and vigorous, retirement at age 59 might be a compromise. Furthermore health insurance might be delayed a year but not longer. If these concerns make fire and police workers pension plans more lucrative then I vote “Yes”.”
Ruth Erickson: “They are usually paid higher salaries due to the dangers of their jobs. This leads to higher pensions that should be capped at 50 percent to 60 percent of their salary after 25 to 30 years.”
Richard Place: “No. I believe they should be the same. Starting salaries should be lower as they were previously based on the high cost of housing in California. If they are going to hire at the higher price then they should buy our houses at the old prices.”
