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.
Years ago I made the choice to work for one third of the salary of public service as opposed the private sector. Now I reap the rewards. Sorry, but I earned my stable and lifetime pension. This post is aimed at those who attack the average government worker who reaps a stable $2000 monthly pension.
Years ago I made the choice to work for one third of the salary of public service as opposed the private sector. Now I reap the rewards. Sorry, but I earned my stable and lifetime pension. This post is aimed at those who attack the average government worker who reaps a stable $2000 monthly pension.
Anyone getting a pension today has put their time in, public, private or union.
I think anyone who put the time in deserves their pension.
And I think once you start receiving the checks that they should not but cut because you planned around that monetary figure.
Yet, with a swipe of a pen, Congress change the whole ballgame for one group of pension holders.
Years ago I made the choice to work for one third of the salary of public service as opposed the private sector. Now I reap the rewards. Sorry, but I earned my stable and lifetime pension. This post is aimed at those who attack the average government worker who reaps a stable $2000 monthly pension.
I was not aiming the post at anyone. I am sorry if you took it that way. I was reading about over 8000 UPS pensions being cut and felt it was relevant to the retirement board. Particularly for those deciding whether to take an annuity pension or a lump sum payout. My husband and I elected for a lump sum payout.
Also I am concerned this may be just the tip of the iceburg. It is now a precedent that existing pensions can be legally cut with no provisions to restore said pensions if the financial position of the trust funds holding those pensions improve. Can this precedent now be applied to state, military or federal pensions?
Also I am concerned this may be just the tip of the iceburg. It is now a precedent that existing pensions can be legally cut with no provisions to restore said pensions if the financial position of the trust funds holding those pensions improve. Can this precedent now be applied to state, military or federal pensions?
I don't think so. In California, for example, the courts have ruled that state pensions are a contractual obligation. Under contract law, one party to a contract cannot unilaterally set aside its obligations vis a vis the other, except with the approval of a bankruptcy court. And states, unlike cities and counties, cannot declare bankruptcy.
There have already been examples of city and county pensions being cut in bankruptcy proceedings, the most widely known example being perhaps Detroit, where pensions were cut 4%, if my memory is correct. I was surprised that the cut was not larger, given the severity of Detroit's financial problems.
I wonder how many pensions are not covered by PBGC and why? On their site they mention they have paid millions of pension payments for 4000 failed pension plans (up to the max of about $60k/yr) and insure another 44 million workers in 24000 plans. Just from that, it is 17% of plans that went under. Mine is covered by them, so I'm far less concerned.
I don't think so. In California, for example, the courts have ruled that state pensions are a contractual obligation. Under contract law, one party to a contract cannot unilaterally set aside its obligations vis a vis the other, except with the approval of a bankruptcy court. And states, unlike cities and counties, cannot declare bankruptcy.
There have already been examples of city and county pensions being cut in bankruptcy proceedings, the most widely known example being perhaps Detroit, where pensions were cut 4%, if my memory is correct. I was surprised that the cut was not larger, given the severity of Detroit's financial problems.
Right now, states can't go bankrupt. That is very likely to change.
There are a dozen states that project to have enormous problems 20 years from now.
If a State goes bankrupt it will mean more than pensions are cut. Also creditors have a say in what gets paid and what assets get sold. States cannot just go bankrupt and only cut pensions. Bond holders take a hit which will negatively impact that State forever. Assets get sold- Detroit almost lost their art collection valued at $500 million.
If a State goes bankrupt what gets paid? Is it only the constitutionally required or more? Does Medicaid have priority over pensions and debt payments?
For those that think State bankruptcy will bring them glee because public pensions might take a haircut me thinks you need to rethink the matter.
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.
