Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Pensions, like SS, was to be ONE THIRD of the ",tripod" or ",3 legged stool fir retirement funding. The 3rd leg is to be personal savings. On that 3 legged stool, It was NOT to be a FULL 90% OF YOUR highest working years pay. :
Do you really think that all pensions are that high??? Mine will be just under a third of my salary.
Do you really think that all pensions are that high??? Mine will be just under a third of my salary.
Which is about what mine is at 36%. Combined with Social Security my retirement income before taxes (state and federal income) is about 60% of my ending salary.
Do you really think that all pensions are that high??? Mine will be just under a third of my salary.
Quote:
Originally Posted by North Beach Person
Which is about what mine is at 36%. Combined with Social Security my retirement income before taxes (state and federal income) is about 60% of my ending salary.
And what about those of us who have no employer-based pension, public or private, so only have a 2 legged stool with SS and personal savings ? And due to the effect that IRA RMDs have on the taxation of SS benefits, have to "give back" some of that SS benefit ? IOW being penalized for having saved on our own ?
My SS benefit is about 39% of my last working salary. And the RMD driven give back is running about 4.5% a year of SS benefit.
And what about those of us who have no employer-based pension, public or private, so only have a 2 legged stool with SS and personal savings ? And due to the effect that IRA RMDs have on the taxation of SS benefits, have to "give back" some of that SS benefit ? IOW being penalized for having saved on our own ?
My SS benefit is about 39% of my last working salary. And the RMD driven give back is running about 4.5% a year of SS benefit.
I may be mistaken but I believe 401K and Roth plans have been available for three or four decades, nothing stopped you from having one of those.
As it is, at their highest point of participation in around 1964, less than 40% of workers were covered by any pension.
For those of us with pensions, especially public ones, that was the tradeoff-lower salaries while working but a pension at the end.
Small personal factoid or two:
My take home pay was less at year 31 than it was at year 20.
My total raises for my last eleven years totalled 1.5%. They were suspended nearly every year. Which did impact both my Social Security and pension.
Last edited by North Beach Person; 09-17-2019 at 03:03 PM..
And what about those of us who have no employer-based pension, public or private...
We made that choice 30+ years ago by not taking what were generally lower paying jobs.
If we're not happy with the outcome of having earned more for a career...
it's almost always about how much we chose to set aside. Or not.
The rest is almost always rooted in realizing a lie was told us about an evil organized labor.
And what about those of us who have no employer-based pension, public or private, so only have a 2 legged stool with SS and personal savings ? And due to the effect that IRA RMDs have on the taxation of SS benefits, have to "give back" some of that SS benefit ? IOW being penalized for having saved on our own ?
My SS benefit is about 39% of my last working salary. And the RMD driven give back is running about 4.5% a year of SS benefit.
We all pay taxes. I took a severe salary cut when I took this job. My previous job had a much higher salary, and an employer match for the 401k. My pension is simply making up for that loss.
Mine is 78% of high 3 years. CSRS. Feds changed to FERS in 1984, they tried to convince CSRS employees to switch to FERS, some did, many didn't. I didn't.
First 20 years at 2.5% per year = 50%
Final 14 years at 2% per year = 28%
34 years
Fed govt employees under CSRS were capped at 80%, the only way they could go above 80% was credit given for excess sick leave
Truth be told, at retirement I no longer had to pay 8% into my retirement, no longer had to pay into FICA, no longer could max out my contribution into the Thrift Savings Plan (Govt 401k plan) subtract all of that and my monthly retirement pension check is $1000 more than my monthly paycheck while working.
Mine is 78% of high 3 years. CSRS. Feds changed to FERS in 1984, they tried to convince CSRS employees to switch to FERS, some did, many didn't. I didn't.
First 20 years at 2.5% per year = 50%
Final 14 years at 2% per year = 28%
34 years
Fed govt employees under CSRS were capped at 80%, the only way they could go above 80% was credit given for excess sick leave
Truth be told, at retirement I no longer had to pay 8% into my retirement, no longer had to pay into FICA, no longer could max out my contribution into the Thrift Savings Plan (Govt 401k plan) subtract all of that and my monthly retirement pension check is $1000 more than my monthly paycheck while working.
So you were working for free for a few years because "there was nowhere else you'd rather have been!"
The answer is no. But the crying from those, "owed" pensions sets the record for audacity.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
some of that SS benefit ? IOW being penalized for having saved on our own ?
