Ten times the tuition is the barometer. Yea, good luck with that restraint of trade.

Proposed Bill Would Limit Next LSU Football Coach's Pay to $279K

I would be fine on capping PERS to 100k a year. I think Mine B is getting 400k a year from tax payers.

With the salaries even the average football coaches now command, they should not be receiving such an exorbitant retirement 🙄 payout at Taxpayer's expense.

1 hour ago, Utki said:

I would be fine on capping PERS to 100k a year. I think Mine B is getting 400k a year from tax payers.

27 minutes ago, woundedknees said:

With the salaries even the average football coaches now command, they should not be receiving such an exorbitant retirement 🙄 payout at Taxpayer's expense.

ABSO FREEAKING LUTLY

Not trying to be political, but a congressman getting paid while the government is shutdown, has a lot of nerve telling coaches they are paid too much.

I agree they are over paid. But like a CEO of a big company, the responsibilities are huge and demands compensatory pay.

Too me the problem is the buyout. That's on the individual university. The demands for winning, and now the National championship demands, the schools are as greedy as the coaches agents.

Good luck with this even getting a serious look in congress.

If the Congressman from Washington can demonstrate to me that he can get 70,000 people from around the state to pay $150 per seat on a Saturday to show up in Seattle and listen to him drone on for 3 hours, motivate 105 kids and a staff to do what he tells them to do, answer direct questions in a press conference afterwards with every word recorded for second guessing by 7 million who didn't show up, then maybe there's room to consider his proposal. Maybe.

For Utki, PERS is not funded by taxpayers. The money an Oregon coach pays from his or her salary into PERS is matched by the Oregon Athletic Department which is not taxpayer supported. That money is invested by the Oregon State Treasurer in the same investments that State of Oregon funds are invested. Those investments have earned a lot of income over the years and the return for retired former State of Oregon employees from the investment of their own money is substantial. However the PERS funds are totally separate from any tax revenue. The taxpayers of Oregon do get a huge benefit because the total funds the State of Oregon Treasurer has to bargain with potential sources of investment are greatly enhanced by having the PERS funds along with taxpayer funds. The entire PERS funds, which grow every year, are there for investment. However the taxpayer funds decline to a low amount with each two-year State budget.

Yes, I get a monthly PERS benefit, but none of it comes directly from the taxpayers. I worked for SAIF Corporation, which, like the Athletic Department, is not taxpayer supported. SAIF is totally dependent upon premiums paid by Oregon employers.

I don't think there are many Oregonians who feel former State employees shouldn't have a pension, if they became eligible while private industry had pensions. But, when private industry dropped pensions and went solely to 401K's that should have ended it.

Likewise, private industry pensions for employees are based on a much more modest calculation of average of final wages. At the point the person retires, it is frozen. No increases in benefits after retirement date. When a PERS eligible retiree can have a pension that is over 100% of his final pay, while a similar tenured private employee remains frozen at 30-35% of his/her final salary, there is seriously something wrong. Especially when cities, counties, school districts, and the State have to keep allocating money from their budgets to fund it instead of city services, county law enforcement, education of kids, and public health.

Similarly, the increase of "potential sources of investment" do not rise fast enough to offset the exorbitant benefit growth. So, taxpayers have to make up the difference via reduced public budgets for services or increased taxes/fees, or both.

SAIF premiums could be used for other purposes than exorbitant retirement benefits.

33 minutes ago, HDuck said:

used for other purposes than exorbitant retirement benefits.

ahh. there is the rub. one person's deferring income via accepting retirement benefits is viewed by another as exorbitant. for me, a deal is a deal. As for the original topic, what a non-starter. 🤡