U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 12-07-2013, 11:43 PM
 
5,721 posts, read 5,252,515 times
Reputation: 3603

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by TrapperJohn View Post
Sure there is: the cost isn't accurately disclosed and the taxpayer gets the bill.

Defined benefit plans are typically underfunded. Move to a 401k or other defined contribution plan and I'm all for it. I'd support a higher contribution, funded in dollars today, with no future liability over the current system.
If a defined benefit plan is underfunded, that is not the fault of the employee. Look to New York for a state with a lavish public pension system that the government has adequately funded.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 12-07-2013, 11:44 PM
 
Location: NJ
18,677 posts, read 16,476,765 times
Reputation: 7274
Quote:
Originally Posted by desertdetroiter View Post
There's nothing wrong with civil servants getting a pension.
Yes, there is, especially given ridiculously expensive pension plans. They are not our masters. They work FOR us.

401ks, all the way. No pension bailouts for anyone.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-07-2013, 11:45 PM
 
Location: Pa
20,310 posts, read 18,911,256 times
Reputation: 6517
It doesn't matter to me. I am taking care of my own retirement and never looked at Social security as anything but an expensive supplemental income plan. Way too many people depend on the fed to take care of them. Depending on strangers to care about your needs is a fools game and you will never win a fools game.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-07-2013, 11:56 PM
 
Location: New Orleans, LA
1,584 posts, read 1,833,017 times
Reputation: 1140
Isn't Social Security already set to 67 for anyone born in 1960 or later?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-07-2013, 11:58 PM
 
Location: Pa
20,310 posts, read 18,911,256 times
Reputation: 6517
Quote:
Originally Posted by things and stuff View Post
Isn't Social Security already set to 67 for anyone born in 1960 or later?
Imagine if you buy a whole life policy that says you can cash in after X amount of years. Then after you pay in after X amount of years the company says sorry we need to extend that out to Y amount of years. They would be sued and justifiably so. The Fed does it and people have to accept it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-08-2013, 12:04 AM
 
48,519 posts, read 81,210,251 times
Reputation: 17979
France didn;t change their as to age but is raised the years worked to qualify to like 42 years from where it was already.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-08-2013, 08:51 AM
 
Location: USA
6,171 posts, read 4,977,905 times
Reputation: 10554
401k was never designed to be someones sole retirement. It was meant to go along with a traditional pension (nearly extinct) and SS. Raising retirement age may be ok for a desk jockey but for someone doing physical work forget about it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-08-2013, 08:57 AM
 
5,640 posts, read 16,957,308 times
Reputation: 3963
It is 67 for people my age ALREADY. Although you can begin collecting a lowered benefit amount at age 62-1/2.

And if you don't think that pols believe most people who cannot find another job when they get laid off age age 59 and become a long term unemployed stat - will all be doing this - you are wrong. I am sure they are figuring this into their equations in some way.

My poor mom didn't even get to collect she died at age 62
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-08-2013, 09:10 AM
 
Location: Houston
21,042 posts, read 10,676,674 times
Reputation: 8233
Quote:
Originally Posted by gardener34 View Post
It is 67 for people my age ALREADY. Although you can begin collecting a lowered benefit amount at age 62-1/2.

And if you don't think that pols believe most people who cannot find another job when they get laid off age age 59 and become a long term unemployed stat - will all be doing this - you are wrong. I am sure they are figuring this into their equations in some way.

My poor mom didn't even get to collect she died at age 62
Sadly, the government needs more people like your mom.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-08-2013, 09:14 AM
 
47,314 posts, read 24,709,156 times
Reputation: 14471
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobtn View Post
Yes, there is, especially given ridiculously expensive pension plans. They are not our masters. They work FOR us.

401ks, all the way. No pension bailouts for anyone.
And working FOR us requires proper remuneration. Are they supposed to work for us for free?

If that's the case you're making, then make it.

BTW...pension plans need not be expensive.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top