The Belmont Citizen Herald is reporting today on a Board of Selectmen meeting last night that makes it look likely that the town will be asked to vote for an override of Proposition 2 1/2 to close a hole in the town’s operational budget deficit. But as the story makes clear, there’s still deep disagreement over the timing of the override and how much voters will be asked to approve.
Despite an estimated $5m difference between the amount needed to fund the town’s current operations at level service and the amount Belmont will collect in commercial and residential taxes, the Selectmen were divided on how much to ask voters to approve and what conditions would satisfy them in asking for the override. Selectmen Angelo Firenze and Ralph Jones are quoted saying that he was not inclined to support an override if it did not require changes in the town’s governmental structure, such as consolidation of certain town functions and departments.
Selectman Dan LeClerc, reiterating a point he made in an interview with B2 earlier in the month, backed a smaller, incremental override, but raised questions about hinging an override vote on governmental changes — noting that such changes could not be carried out before an override vote would be required, in June.
“No one has talked to me about consolidating town departments,” LeClerc is qutoed as saying. “I only talk about that at the Warrant Committee and [Board of Selectmen meetings].”
Indeed, Firenze and Jones have been vague about what conditions would meet their satisfaction or what steps toward consolidating services would translate into a green light on an override vote. Nor is it clear that town voters see the override question as intimately linked with consolidation of services.
A second and, likely, contentious issue is the timing of the vote. A delay in state approval of construction of a new Wellington Elementary school means that voters won’t get to weigh in on that issue on the regularly scheduled April ballot. That makes a combined ballot for Wellington and an override more likely. Selectman Firenze said town voters would be ill disposed to paying for two special elections just to keep the issues separate (B2 agrees), while Selectman LeClerc said he’d prefer to see the votes kept separate.
Here's a classic situation… sound familiar. The Fiscal Conservative is against an override because of a horrendous economy. Knowing that the failed override has consequences for all he finds solace that the pain is shared. The same Fiscal Conservative had supported a DE for a new Elementary School based on a fairness principal. Why should some kids in Town suffer when their counterparts have better learning environments? So what happens…. this person is told his children will be displaced and forced into trailers to accomodate students from the very School he supported a DE for. Fairness… No. Never has one School's students been displaced to accomodate another School being replaced. It has always been that the students in the School being rebuilt are temporarily displaced and it has never been a secret that the School needed replacement. This proposal on top of major educational damage of adding another transition event at such formative years Stinks and quite frankly most who try to defend it have no skin in the game. Could there be alternative motives behind the move? Absolutely. Will this Town be terribly divided…. if you read the emails I am seeing it will for several years and will pit Schools against Schools and neighborhoods against neighborhoods. Now I know some guy is running for SC who has young children and is trying to unite the Town… it could be the shortest lived promise or a step toward developing a respect for the SC that is quickly disintegrating. Hmnn…
I completely disagree with you PJ- if you are suggesting that creating k-2, 3-4 has something to do with displacing students at Wellington- is that what you are suggesting? There is a lot of evidence out there to support this layout educationally and fiscally. It may not be right for every community, but you are the one with children at Burbank,who also seems to be trying to start a fight. If I am mistaken, and misunderstood your last message- please correct me.
Kim,
Don't understand your question? Confused.. should I welcome sending my kids to attend School in trailers parked outside the High School for the next two years. How can you possibly think this isn't a direct attack on every Burbank family who purchased their home so their kids could attend the small neighborhood School that was recently renovated meaning no disruptions and all of a sudden they get kicked out of their School and sent to study in Trailers. You can't be serious that every parent in Butler or Winn Brook wouldn't be outraged at a similar proposal involving their children. Google Alsbaugh and explain why you give more credence to the fiscal argument than his assertion that students lose a year in a transition School and need another year to recover. I supported the Wellington DE up to now and now you are kicking my kids out of the Burbank and into trailers. Hmnn what type of reaction would you expect? Paul care to chime in or volunteer the Winn Brook instead of the Burbank?
David,
I know you are a show me type of person so here is a link showing the danger of transitioning children frequently 2-3 times before High School…with references to the research… conducted in East Longmeadow a few years back about 2002. Since you are a Google fan you will see countless articles saying the same thing that it is a risky proposition for what minimal fiscal gain…
http://www.eastlongmeadow.org/Schools/elem1.pdf
I know you haven't endorsed the idea but there is a plethora of evidence (just Google it to see yourself) suggesting this is a mistake and for what? Cutting 2 Teachers and disrupting hundreds of kids and families. Additionally many Schools are actually going back to a K-8 formula so is Belmont going forward or backward? I also know you don't have any skin in the game as I say but you seem to be honest in considering how you would react if it was your own kid being displaced.
(PJ, your comment jumped into another article, but never mind.)
I'll read the article. I do understand that it is a problem, but I also see that the alternatives are somewhat larger class sizes, and we are also having cuts proposed all over the place at the high school (most of the afterschool stuff, various classes, that sort of thing). There's also research out there to tell you that smaller class sizes are better ( Google for Tennessee class size to see many mentions, or go to http://www.futureofchildren.org/usr_doc/vol5no2… ).
So we're stuck with an on-the-one-hand-on-the-other-hand. I'd hope, but don't know, that Burbank/Wellington students would get something extra in return for this added burden — perhaps slightly smaller class sizes than Winn Brook/Butler. It's only fair, I certainly don't want to pretend that this the change has zero educational cost. As far as doing it at some other pair of schools, the logistics are not as good.
Can I ask a different question — why not vote for an override? There seems to be this default assumption that of course taxes are too high, of course people are burdened, and I'm not convinced. They've grown slightly faster than inflation, but I don't think they have grown faster than economic growth (16% in 29 years, was what I figured in an earlier comment — but I need to figure out what inflation-adjusted economic growth is). We've had income tax cuts from both the state and the feds, and we've had ample opportunity to refinance mortgages in the last 10 years (we refinanced twice, down to 5%, when we originally borrowed at 6.75% and thought it was a great deal at the time). Why are we so surprised that local aid is down, when we voted ourselves a state income tax cut?
David is right- vote for the override- this town needs to start thinking of everyone- less me me me.
PJ – another dab of data, just for reference, to try to support the “we're not poor” argument: Real economic growth per year, adjusted for inflation, can be found at http://www.bea.gov/national/nipaweb/TableView.a…
(oh, yuck, that's ugly, I hope it works/displays ok).
Anyhow, if you take that, and compound it forward, real GDP growth from 1978 to 208 is big, I get a factor of 2.46 (that is, 146% larger). That's not the whole story, since the population also increased, but dividing out the population in 1980, 1990, and 2000, suggests a per-capita GDP growth over those 20 years of 53%.
What that means is that quite a few people, somewhere in the country, are earning over 50% more in real terms than they were 20 years ago, probably 70-75% more than they were 30 years ago.
Still up for grabs is how (un)evenly that per-capita-growth was handed out.
Consolidation is a given because neither an override or debt exclusion for Wellington will pass.
The Tennessee study that David refers to is really compelling- our children are suffering a huge disservice by being in classes the size they are right now, let alone increasing them further. The study has proven that dropout rates increase in high school and test scores go lower once k-4th grade classrooms go over 14 children. Adding kids and aides to balance out the number of kids does nothing- nothing. Kids need the attention of the teacher. Next year, our fifth graders will have 32 children in their classes- they are already planning for this. Now I know that is fifth- not k-4, but seriously- that is sad.
I think Roberta could be right though- we may not get a new Wellington or an override.
David,
I guess two issues to respond too. The Alsbaugh studies have been cited by hundreds if not thousands of Schools as you see with Google and many schools are going to K-8 formats because of the educational value of fewer transitions. I think low class sizes are great. We are talking about 25 vs. 28 and those are all guesses becase no one knows until Sept 1st. Can you guarantee me that reducing the class size by maybe 3 kids will completely negate the 2-3 years of lost academic progress from the multiple transitions of going from Burbank to Wellington toTrailers to Wellington to Chenery. If you can't than this is gambling our children's future to cut 2 Teachers. It is the side that is changing the process who must prove no damage and the SC should not make a decision based on hope and a prayer. This is an outright gamble and irresponsible and discriminating. I would also venture that if given the Choice the lion share of Parents would choose 28 kids in class over the nomadic transition process.
Please help me out with the “We are not poor comment”? Who and what? I'm not sure what I am responding too?
In regards to me, me, me that's about as laughable as it gets. I volunteer Coach and Teach. I contribute to charities. I pick up trash left on the Street by others. I would gladly close the Public Library and Senior Center and put the funds into smaller class sizes but then I would be accused of me,me,me… I supported the Wellington when it's not popular to do so why would I have done that?. I could try to refinance my mortgage and pay the higher tax and tell those who can't to leave Town but that would be all about me,me,me… I know it's not your comment but maybe my problem is I think about everyone too much and should just be selfish and focus on what impacts my kids and family only and ignore the Seniors and those struggling with soaring unemployment and crashing home and equity prices. Heck, I can outlast it because I am relatively young but Survival of the fittest right? I'm not trying to pat myself on the back but to imply people are selfish for being against a tax hike is a hostile accusation with no merit and unproductive. I think we can agree on that.
David,
Sorry, I see where the “we are not poor” relates. I can only guess that a large part of GDP the last few years was debt driven GDP growth but this isn't a field of comfort for me. We are not poor? Compared to ourselves a few years back we are poorer. (Is that even a word?)
Why not pass an Override? A simple answer is the budget is growing at an unsustainable rate. You shouldn't raise taxes if the problem is systemic. How does it go… a rising river raises all boats? Well our river has sprung a leak and poking bigger holes in it “at this moment” in time is ill advised. Now you might say that the Wellington DE is poking a hole and it is but I am a firm believer in equity for all and presently the Wellington kids are at a disadvantage in their learning environment. Inequity is the root of division and all to often leads to hostility. That's why we can't advise closing the Senior Center unless we also close the Pool or Library etc… It must be equitable to be acceptable and as you can imagine this merger plan is not equitable seeing 2 Schools are left out of the plan and a slightly smaller class size is no consolation for lost years of academic advancement. I share the common goal of small class sizes but the solution needs to come from other areas in the budget that affect the whole school community or should the Town decide to change the funding distribution ratio then from Town side services that share the pain without discrimination against a group like Seniors or young children etc… You got 5% on your mortgage… that's great.
PJ – the per capita GDP growth is a trend that goes back decades. The real-dollar growth in the town budget (16% in 29 years) has been slower than the growth in per capita real-dollar GDP (looks like at least 70% in 30 years), so, assuming that the typical Belmont homeowner got even one quarter of that economic growth (that Bill Gates, George Soros, and Warren Buffett got the rest of it), property taxes are taking a smaller share of our income now than they were 30 years ago. I'm pretty sure that math is correct. There has been a recent, larger, unsustainable trend, and that has been the failure in the last eight years of median incomes to track GDP growth or productivity growth, and so in the short term property taxes are pinching harder (except that the Belmont median income is well above the national — quite a few of us probably did just fine in the last eight years), but I think we are actually doing better now than we were in the “good old days”.
I offer the mortgage rate only as an example of the chances that many of us have had in the last few years to cut expenses in other places; we refinanced just after Bush's second election, so it was not that long ago. Rates are slightly lower right now.
I am also not sure how serious the K-1-2/3-4 proposal is, I only know that it was mentioned, and I think, from the point of view of considering all the options, that it is responsible to look at it. You've got more transitions on the one hand, better staff allocation and economies of scale on the other. Which choice hurts education least?
I refuse to keep arguing with you PJ- because I get the feeling that we could both talk until we are blue in the face and get nowhere. I will say, however, that the rumors about the Wellington debt exclusion not passing are a big problem. I heard that the solution for the Wellington students, if a boiler breaks for good, is to bus them to the other schools on a semi permanent basis until the entire heating system can be replaced. Also-the selectman are saying that the override will only be for part of the total gap- maybe that is more palatable for the struggling homeowners. I think as a community we need to band together and get something more that the allowed 2 1/2 percent this time around. My daughter needed an ambulance last week, and they made it from Trapelo Rd in 5 minutes- had the ambulance service been hired out to Arlington or Watertown, we may have waited a lot longer- not something I can even think about.
We need more than we will be left with for basic education and services- maybe we can all agree on that.
Hey PJ. I've gotta call bulls**t on the “our budget is growing at an unsustainable rate.” There's just no evidence to support that at all. The bare fact is that Belmont derives almost its entire budget from residential property taxes. Those taxes (read that “revenue”) is capped at 2.5% growth a year — total — so the town can't even benefit from rising property values. In the meantime, the operational expenses of the town such as healthcare, fuel to heat our buildings and other utilities are rising much faster than that — healthcare is reliably going up by double digit percentages. Well in excess of 2.5%. That leaves the town with two choices: incremental Prop 2 1/2 overrides to keep up with inflation, or a gradual winnowing of town services. Many of our peer towns choose the former path. Lexington, as an example, has approved SIX Prop 2 1/2 overrides since 2000, and a $42m debt exclusion targeted at schools and roads. (Data here: http://ci.lexington.ma.us/TownManager/Budget/bu…) And that town has a commercial tax base that brings in much more than Belmont's. That's what has been necessary, there, to maintain the quality of life in town that residents enjoy. To the best of my knowledge Belmont hasn't passed a single override during that same period for any purpose and, in fact, has voted down a number of them targeted at just the same issues that Lexington voters approved: road and school maintenance and construction, maintenance of public facilities, etc. Is there any question why the quality of the town's infrastructure is degrading? Rather than just being honest and noting that the bill has come due, our political leadership is engaged in this grand act of self flagellation — “We've been wasteful. We've failed to consolidate. We've failed to plan. We're spoiling our kids with overpaid teachers and lavish school facilities.” Please. All that we've failed to do is allow the town's revenue and income to keep up with inflation. The problem, and its solution, are fairly simple in my mind. Now if only someone would stand up and lead us…
Paul,
If you check here, http://www.town.belmont.ma.us/Public_Documents/…
(historical property tax rate),
you'll see that we passed levy limit increases in May 2001, June 2002, two capital and debt exclusion projects in fy04, and an april 2004 debt exclusion. The costs of debt exclusions are front-loaded, as I understand it, so we're getting a special pop from the debt exclusions that will fade over time, before it goes to zero.
So we've passed some overrides, but to me they always seemed to be put off till the last minute, and barely large enough. Even so, there was a three-year period where taxes went up 8, 7, and 5%, in constant dollars (so the actual increase was larger than that).
I've been looking harder at the numbers (scads of numbers) and there are some funny patterns. Using 1978 as an endpoint is perhaps misleading, even though it is the oldest endpoint (which in theory gets you the longest, best average), because it predates prop 2.5. In 1967 dollars, tax revenues in 1979 were $8 million, and did not reach that constant-dollar level again until fiscal 2003 !. If you take the minimum constant dollar taxes (1985), to the maximum (2007), there actually has been a 48% increase in constant dollars. This is still not the giant increase claimed by Tony S, but it is larger than I thought. What also happened is that, for long stretches (83-87, 91-97, 99-01), tax revenues only kept pace with inflation, and in some cases, they actually failed to keep up (1990, 2000). That's something that's not sustainable; wages grow faster than inflation.
It's unclear where that long stretch of barely exceeding inflation was a time when we made wonderful efficiency gains, or deferred maintenance and investment in a penny-wise-pound-foolish way.
Kim… Ok Truce and remarkably we do agree that basic services should be fully funded and the Wellington DE is a moral responsibility and should be funded. I hope your daughter is doing well.
dr2chase….my guess in answer to your last line is the latter – the town deferred maintenance and investment decisions in a penny wise and pound foolish way. Probably felt good at the time but now we have to face reality…Really appreciate your taking the time to check into the numbers. This is the kind of stuff that needs to make its way deeper into the public debate over town finances.
…I love this site! Great dialogue.
Paul… I'll give you a Mulligan here… when I make an opinion it could certainly appear to be Cow manure to some but this statement is factual. We have been borrowing money from free cash to sustain the budget the last few years. In order to have a sustainable budget revenues must match or exceed spending and a 2.5% a year increase won't do it as we are presently structured unless we see a significant increase in local aid or new development or scale back services dramatically.
Now my solution to create a sustainable budget could be BS but that would be one's own opinion. I say raising taxes in a Recession (possible mini depression if unemployment cracks10%) is counterproductive. We should demand Massive State Government reform across the board and take those funds and pump them directly into local aid. Our one party State fights this tooth and nail. They like fat cat pensions for 45yr olds and end of career set up jobs to bloat retirement pay. It is the Democrats who allow this to happen in Massachusetts. They force construction rules upon us that make Schools/Roads/Government buildings being built cost significanty more than they should. So do you take more from families by raising taxes or do you better control what you already take so that more of it goes to local aid and little to none to corrupt politicans and Unions etc… Show me they can be responsible in distributing the revenues and I will show you a Belmont that can sustain a budget growing closer to 5% than 2.5%.
PJ – one problem with the very reasonable idea of not raising taxes during a recession, is that the only tax increase we voted for during the .com boom, was for the Chenery. If you don't raise taxes during booms, that leaves recessions.
There is one argument in favor of doing what it takes to maintain services during a downtown — anyone who loses their job and cannot find another, might like the option to sell their house for as much as they can, and not lose an additional 25% of its value if we end up no different from Watertown or Arlington. If, in addition, the person who has to sell, still owes a lot of a mortgage, that 25% might make the difference between underwater, and recovering a little money. Most of us are still going to be working, and pay cuts are rarer than layoffs.
You can also look at this as a form of enforced spending, where macroeconomics (what we “should” do together) diverges from microeconomics (what we are motivated to do individually). We're all getting ready to hunker down and conserve cash, just in case, and all of us doing that is what will make this downturn even worse. One person spending on their own to “stimulate the economy” is just a sucker, exposing himself to risk while everyone else still saves, but if we all spend (or if the federal government borrows and spends — in effect, forcing our future wealthier selves to spend now) then we all share in some risk, but we also keep the economy moving, and ward off even worse times.
And I do not think it is feasible to cap budget growth at 2.5% per year. The problem is that inflation is generally higher than that (the average you get depends upon your endpoints), and economic growth is usually positive. Economic growth means that people, including teachers, police, and firefighters, generally have wages that grow faster than inflation. There is a tension between people whose productivity actually increases (they can create more output in a year because of improvements, whether in health, education, technology, or process) and people who perform necessary jobs, whose “productivity” does not necessarily increase. Police and teachers are particularly intractable; there are class size ratios that we don't want to exceed, and there's a minimum number of police that you don't want to fall below. You might say, well, if they are not getting more productive, then we won't increase their salaries so much — unfortunately, they are generally intelligent, well-trained people, and if they don't like what they earn working for the town, then they can just go get one of those other jobs whose wages are increasing. So our wage costs have to grow faster than inflation, generally.
This is the theory, anyhow — in practice, civil service jobs have other perks (or historically, they have) that give you the chance to trade off stability and benefits for a somewhat lower salary, and people are slow to change careers. On the other hand, I do know of at least two former teachers who pursued other careers because of the money. One put herself through law school, made partner, joined the SEC, and now works in Washington; another is a famous-in-my-field computer scientist, working at IBM Watson Labs.
And perhaps you think, ok, so wages grow, we'll save money elsewhere. That doesn't work, because if any item in the budget is steadily growing faster than 2.5%, it will consume a larger and larger share of the 2.5%-constrained overall budget, until there is noting else left.
All that said, are there really 45 year olds getting pensions? If this is common, if it is not people performing hazardous body-aging work, then you are right, we need to do something about this.
Paul,
If you check here, http://www.town.belmont.ma.us/Public_Documents/…
(historical property tax rate),
you'll see that we passed levy limit increases in May 2001, June 2002, two capital and debt exclusion projects in fy04, and an april 2004 debt exclusion. The costs of debt exclusions are front-loaded, as I understand it, so we're getting a special pop from the debt exclusions that will fade over time, before it goes to zero.
So we've passed some overrides, but to me they always seemed to be put off till the last minute, and barely large enough. Even so, there was a three-year period where taxes went up 8, 7, and 5%, in constant dollars (so the actual increase was larger than that).
I've been looking harder at the numbers (scads of numbers) and there are some funny patterns. Using 1978 as an endpoint is perhaps misleading, even though it is the oldest endpoint (which in theory gets you the longest, best average), because it predates prop 2.5. In 1967 dollars, tax revenues in 1979 were $8 million, and did not reach that constant-dollar level again until fiscal 2003 !. If you take the minimum constant dollar taxes (1985), to the maximum (2007), there actually has been a 48% increase in constant dollars. This is still not the giant increase claimed by Tony S, but it is larger than I thought. What also happened is that, for long stretches (83-87, 91-97, 99-01), tax revenues only kept pace with inflation, and in some cases, they actually failed to keep up (1990, 2000). That's something that's not sustainable; wages grow faster than inflation.
It's unclear where that long stretch of barely exceeding inflation was a time when we made wonderful efficiency gains, or deferred maintenance and investment in a penny-wise-pound-foolish way.
Kim… Ok Truce and remarkably we do agree that basic services should be fully funded and the Wellington DE is a moral responsibility and should be funded. I hope your daughter is doing well.
dr2chase….my guess in answer to your last line is the latter – the town deferred maintenance and investment decisions in a penny wise and pound foolish way. Probably felt good at the time but now we have to face reality…Really appreciate your taking the time to check into the numbers. This is the kind of stuff that needs to make its way deeper into the public debate over town finances.
…I love this site! Great dialogue.
Paul… I'll give you a Mulligan here… when I make an opinion it could certainly appear to be Cow manure to some but this statement is factual. We have been borrowing money from free cash to sustain the budget the last few years. In order to have a sustainable budget revenues must match or exceed spending and a 2.5% a year increase won't do it as we are presently structured unless we see a significant increase in local aid or new development or scale back services dramatically.
Now my solution to create a sustainable budget could be BS but that would be one's own opinion. I say raising taxes in a Recession (possible mini depression if unemployment cracks10%) is counterproductive. We should demand Massive State Government reform across the board and take those funds and pump them directly into local aid. Our one party State fights this tooth and nail. They like fat cat pensions for 45yr olds and end of career set up jobs to bloat retirement pay. It is the Democrats who allow this to happen in Massachusetts. They force construction rules upon us that make Schools/Roads/Government buildings being built cost significanty more than they should. So do you take more from families by raising taxes or do you better control what you already take so that more of it goes to local aid and little to none to corrupt politicans and Unions etc… Show me they can be responsible in distributing the revenues and I will show you a Belmont that can sustain a budget growing closer to 5% than 2.5%.
PJ – one problem with the very reasonable idea of not raising taxes during a recession, is that the only tax increase we voted for during the .com boom, was for the Chenery. If you don't raise taxes during booms, that leaves recessions.
There is one argument in favor of doing what it takes to maintain services during a downtown — anyone who loses their job and cannot find another, might like the option to sell their house for as much as they can, and not lose an additional 25% of its value if we end up no different from Watertown or Arlington. If, in addition, the person who has to sell, still owes a lot of a mortgage, that 25% might make the difference between underwater, and recovering a little money. Most of us are still going to be working, and pay cuts are rarer than layoffs.
You can also look at this as a form of enforced spending, where macroeconomics (what we “should” do together) diverges from microeconomics (what we are motivated to do individually). We're all getting ready to hunker down and conserve cash, just in case, and all of us doing that is what will make this downturn even worse. One person spending on their own to “stimulate the economy” is just a sucker, exposing himself to risk while everyone else still saves, but if we all spend (or if the federal government borrows and spends — in effect, forcing our future wealthier selves to spend now) then we all share in some risk, but we also keep the economy moving, and ward off even worse times.
And I do not think it is feasible to cap budget growth at 2.5% per year. The problem is that inflation is generally higher than that (the average you get depends upon your endpoints), and economic growth is usually positive. Economic growth means that people, including teachers, police, and firefighters, generally have wages that grow faster than inflation. There is a tension between people whose productivity actually increases (they can create more output in a year because of improvements, whether in health, education, technology, or process) and people who perform necessary jobs, whose “productivity” does not necessarily increase. Police and teachers are particularly intractable; there are class size ratios that we don't want to exceed, and there's a minimum number of police that you don't want to fall below. You might say, well, if they are not getting more productive, then we won't increase their salaries so much — unfortunately, they are generally intelligent, well-trained people, and if they don't like what they earn working for the town, then they can just go get one of those other jobs whose wages are increasing. So our wage costs have to grow faster than inflation, generally.
This is the theory, anyhow — in practice, civil service jobs have other perks (or historically, they have) that give you the chance to trade off stability and benefits for a somewhat lower salary, and people are slow to change careers. On the other hand, I do know of at least two former teachers who pursued other careers because of the money. One put herself through law school, made partner, joined the SEC, and now works in Washington; another is a famous-in-my-field computer scientist, working at IBM Watson Labs.
And perhaps you think, ok, so wages grow, we'll save money elsewhere. That doesn't work, because if any item in the budget is steadily growing faster than 2.5%, it will consume a larger and larger share of the 2.5%-constrained overall budget, until there is noting else left.
All that said, are there really 45 year olds getting pensions? If this is common, if it is not people performing hazardous body-aging work, then you are right, we need to do something about this.