Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Retirement
 [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 10-24-2012, 10:03 AM
 
31,680 posts, read 40,970,152 times
Reputation: 14424

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by texdav View Post
One only has to wtach to see that pension vary as to the fiacl situawtion they are in. There were congressional hearings on state penison and i was surprised that with some exceptions that the vast majoprity were well fund;especially compared to private pensions.
The man knows what he speaketh of.

Pension Funding Scare Won

Quote:
First, she computes a funding ratio -- that is, the ratio of assets to liabilities -- for each state plan. She finds substantial variation: Five percent of public pension plans, for example, were fully funded in 2010, and 35 percent had a funding ratio of at least 80 percent. On the other hand, 12 percent of plans had severe problems: Their assets were less than 60 percent of their projected liabilities.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-24-2012, 05:43 PM
 
Location: Lakewood OH
21,695 posts, read 28,376,800 times
Reputation: 35862
Quote:
Originally Posted by mastequila View Post
I didn't take the OP as particularly whiney; more as a commentary or observation. No one had a crystal ball back in the day--who knew that companies would renege on their promises? For example, my mom retired from HP--the benefits she was promised have evaporated, and the company isn't even bankrupt. The government, on the other hand, has a never-ending source of revenue to pay their obligations. That would be you and me.

While I think people should get what they've been promised, I don't see how, going forward, these pensions are sustainable. Retiring at 55 and collecting 3/4 of your salary (as one poster on these boards claimed (s)he did) needs to stop. There should be a fra applicable to pensions as well. Probably is, by now.
I wasn't commenting that he was being whiney but I still believe that the use of the word "fair" was kind of a red flag.

I also know of several people who were laid off from HP who had believed they would be able to retire with great benefits. They unfortunately never got near retirement age. That was a real blow to a good portion of people living in a single town where only there are only a few major employers.

What's fair and what isn't? Life isn't fair. To answer his actual question, I would tell the OP that I can understand why he thinks his situation compared to his friend's is not fair, but compared to many others, his is very fair as he is still able to retire with some benefits in tact. It's all a matter of perspective.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-24-2012, 05:54 PM
 
Location: Lexington, SC
4,281 posts, read 12,642,892 times
Reputation: 3750
My first wifes family always begrudged those (including family members) that did better or had more when the same avenues were open to them early on and for whatever reasons, they did not chose them.

Like yes they have a lovely, big home and are comfortable but you know...he is always working and he is never home. I prefer my life where my family is always home for supper.....I call BS on that.......LOL
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-26-2012, 07:04 AM
 
Location: in the miseries
3,576 posts, read 4,497,795 times
Reputation: 4416
My original post came about because I was tired of listening to Ed complain. Especially about his premium for HC. 20% of mine. I know I made choices; which are fine for me. But I don't see the sustainability of public pensions. I do however feel that public pensions are an entitlement as well as social security.
Someone running for office using the high cost of college education as a platform gets paid (so I hear) $350.000. a year to teach one class. And with a
future pension to match. How is this sustainable (and less than a private job)?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-26-2012, 12:01 PM
 
Location: SW MO
23,593 posts, read 37,394,969 times
Reputation: 29336
I originally stopped reading at the word "fair." That was a word I tried to wipe out at my children's vocabulary when I was raising them. Fair? There is no fair. Life isn't fair, it just is.

I finally got around to reading the entire thread today. There is a great deal of misrepresentation, error, misunderstanding, and even envy, disagreement and resent here. But given the subject, that's to be expected. It seems to be rather universal anytime public versus private retirements come up.

All of our situations differ. In our cases we are both retirees from a state other than the one in which we are now living. During my working life I spent 43 years in public service. Eight of those in the military during which I paid into Social Security but for which I never received any pension. The other 25 were spent working for a state. Eight of those years I was in law enforcement and did not pay into Social Security however, I did pay into the state pension fund every one of those years. My wife spent 15 years working for the state, also paying into both Social Security and pension fund. Having been previously divorced after a 25 year marriage, I lost 50% of my pension accrual (13 years worth at the time) in the divorce as well as everything in both checking and savings account which the ex "appropriated." That significantly reduced what I ultimately received or had available upon retirement.

In the end, my wife and I paid many 100s of dollars every month into both Social Security and our state pensions. We also had the foresight to invest in 401(k)s. In the end, we were able to retire earlier than originally planned and while certainly not wealthy by any means, we are quite comfortable. We can meet all our needs and occasionally indulge in our wants.

So what did we sacrifice by working in the public sector? For one thing, especially given our individual responsibilities, the pay was never munificent. Toward the end, both of us were subject to years of no raises, some take backs and then unpaid furloughs. The latter, had I not retired when I did as a relatively senior manager, would have ultimately cost me over $1000 a month in base pay. Somehow I don't see that happening a lot in the private sector. But admittedly those who are in it are more prone to being laid off than those who work for government.

What then was the trade-off? Well best of all our retirement benefits are excellent. We pay no premium for full medical coverage, reasonable premiums for full dental care and vision care and we have full prescription benefits. All these are lifetime and the pension fund even reimburses us for our Medicare Part B premiums. We'll be the first to admit that in some respects it puts us in enviable status. But having said that, we knew the benefits we would accrue before we ever began working for government. Therefore it was a knowing choice to do so.

While not everyone may be able to get a government job, with education, training, experience and that as a goal, many if not most others can do so as well if they so choose. Therefore, I have a hard time sympathizing with those who didn't-not because I can't be sympathetic about the loss of funds through the drops in the market or the malfeasance of some employers-but in those cases in which they take out their frustration on those who keep government services running. Government service can be quite thankless but is nonetheless necessary. Think of what things would be like if there wasn't any. Bottom line: like everything in life there is a great deal of give and take.

Okay! That's all I wanted to say on the subject. In a sense it all reminds me of the lament, "Don't hate me because I'm beautiful!"
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-26-2012, 12:55 PM
 
31,680 posts, read 40,970,152 times
Reputation: 14424
Well said!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-26-2012, 02:24 PM
 
Location: SW MO
23,593 posts, read 37,394,969 times
Reputation: 29336
Thank you.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-26-2012, 02:55 PM
 
Location: Alaska
5,356 posts, read 18,514,977 times
Reputation: 4071
I second Curmudgeon! I too worked for a state and now a municipality, both part of the same retirement system. Like Curmudgeon, I've paying into the retirement system and SS and will receive medical benefits, although not as good as he (have to pay for dental/vision and Medicare Part B). What I gave up was a six-figure income available in the private sector.

I think many assume public pensions pay benefits at little to no cost for workers. While it might be true for some, many retirement systems collect much more from workers. The objectionable part to many of us is we all get lumped together as being unfair.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-26-2012, 03:36 PM
 
4,423 posts, read 7,349,600 times
Reputation: 10935
Quote:
Originally Posted by accufitgolf View Post

Like yes they have a lovely, big home and are comfortable but you know...he is always working and he is never home. I prefer my life where my family is always home for supper.....I call BS on that.......LOL
I try not to envy anyone. You don't know what's behind the Mercedes in your neighbor's garage or that big house your cousin just bought. Personally, I don't think it matters what your pension (or income) is. It's all about how you live. We're happy with our paid off townhouse, paid off cars, and if we had a bigger pension we'd be living bigger and still wanting more. At some point you just have to go with what you're given and be grateful.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-26-2012, 05:50 PM
 
31,680 posts, read 40,970,152 times
Reputation: 14424
Quote:
Originally Posted by luvmyhoss View Post
My original post came about because I was tired of listening to Ed complain. Especially about his premium for HC. 20% of mine. I know I made choices; which are fine for me. But I don't see the sustainability of public pensions. I do however feel that public pensions are an entitlement as well as social security.
Someone running for office using the high cost of college education as a platform gets paid (so I hear) $350.000. a year to teach one class. And with a
future pension to match. How is this sustainable (and less than a private job)?
I have gone near crazy over the years listening to people complain about their pensions not being high enough etc etc. I mean those that shared the work place with me. From my perspective much of that was/is union driven to try to agitate for higher benefits and to convince workers others have it better. It is unfortunate for those of us with pensions are blessed and have a great foundation to build on.
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 > Retirement
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 02:31 PM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - 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, 36, 37 - Top