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)
 
Old 02-02-2016, 06:51 AM
 
Location: Tennessee
23,581 posts, read 17,574,904 times
Reputation: 27672

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by SandyCo View Post
While I don't think anyone should have to work at almost 80 years old, I also wondered about this woman's choices throughout her life. The biggest problem seemed to be that she launched her interior design business at the worst possible time, but back then business was booming and I'm sure it seemed to be a foolproof plan.

Many of these people who are now in their late 60s to mid 70s were the free spirits back in the 1960s and 1970s. They didn't want to be tied down in a job for thirty years, etc. Well, one of the ramifications of that decision is very little money to retire on, unfortunately. Living in the present is great until you suddenly wake up with aches and pains, and realize that you're old and mostly unemployable.

And yes, life happens. People need to sacrifice for aging parents or special needs children, too. The mental health system in this country has gone from bad to worse to downright appalling in the past thirty years.

But if you didn't have any extra burdens to carry, and you just decided on a whim to see the country and find yourself stuck now, running out of money and health? Well, I'm not sure what your options are at this point.
There is really no way to separate who is whom at this point in the game. Often those "free spirits" ended up in political positions.

Last edited by Serious Conversation; 02-02-2016 at 07:20 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-02-2016, 07:14 AM
 
Location: Jamestown, NY
7,841 posts, read 7,331,482 times
Reputation: 13779
Quote:
Originally Posted by matisse12 View Post
I have a friend who worked only 10 years as a public school teacher, and many of those years, he was not even working full-time in the public schools, but was instead a part-time employee.

He receives $1000 per month pension from the public school system. Compare that with the $1278 per month I receive from Social Security after working 38 years.

Your cited statistics, Linda_d, do not really change the reality. And as you state in your last sentence, it depends how long the employee worked in public service which was my point......all of the people who worked a shortened time as a public employee are averaged in with long-term employees like yourself which skews the monetary figures downward in studies/reports.

I do not fall for anti-public employee propagandists at all.
I seriously doubt that your friend could get that large a public pension from only working 10 years as a classroom teacher, and part-time at that. He likely either held other public sector jobs or he was actually an administrator rather than a classroom teacher for at least part of his time working for the school district.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-02-2016, 07:33 AM
 
Location: SW Florida
9,759 posts, read 7,038,572 times
Reputation: 14295
Quote:
Originally Posted by matisse12 View Post
That is difficult to believe, ACWhite, when every public employee I've ever heard of has at least double that amount and often beyond double.

I think the figures must or might be skewed by figuring in those who worked a much less amount of time with those who worked many more years, or another type of skewing of the figures.
Ok, now you've heard of one public employment retiree who doesn't make the princely sum you assume they all do. I just got my 1099 showing the pension amount I made last year. A big whopping $13,000. And I have lots of company.

Not that I am not grateful for the help it provides. But assuming that anyone and everyone who has a public defined pension is swimming in a virtual gravy train? Not so much.......
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-02-2016, 08:04 AM
 
6,316 posts, read 5,058,385 times
Reputation: 12831
Quote:
Originally Posted by Travelassie View Post
Ok, now you've heard of one public employment retiree who doesn't make the princely sum you assume they all do. I just got my 1099 showing the pension amount I made last year. A big whopping $13,000. And I have lots of company.

Not that I am not grateful for the help it provides. But assuming that anyone and everyone who has a public defined pension is swimming in a virtual gravy train? Not so much.......
yep - my roommate was a government employee for 35 years. He was mid-grade - decent salary for these parts. Think his pension after insurance and other deductions comes to 2500 a month. He does get a VA compensation also, so he is okay.

There were lots more middle and lower grade employees at the military base than the ones that made over 100K.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-02-2016, 08:32 AM
 
440 posts, read 883,796 times
Reputation: 579
You know, nobody put a gun to your head and said you couldn't be a public employee. Where were YOU people when corporations were ditching pensions in favor of scam defined contribution plans--401(k)s? You ALLOWED them to do it, thinking you were going to be a millionaire if you "invested" in the stock market, something that only the very rich can afford to do. You were going to do better, you thought, than having a crappy little pension.

I was railing about these scams THIRTY YEARS AGO saying the ONLY reason companies were offering these and ditching the pensions was to save money on pension costs. The years have proven me right.

To the person bitching about a teacher getting a "giant" pension of $1k for ten years because that person has done the job of teaching--a hard job, by the way if you have ever done it--those pensions are fully taxable federally and if that teacher moves to any of a number of states, that pension is completely taxable, unlike Social Security under a certain amount. If that teacher is in a state that doesn't pay into SS, he or she has part or all of their SS STOLEN thanks to those crappy little offsets Reagan in put called the "windfall" elimination provision. Only if you have 30 years in substantial earnings--from full-time, year-round employment--are you not affected. Yours truly has only about 19 years in even though I have worked in SS-covered work for over 30 years, so I am totally shafted.

I will lose around 100 a month--money I NEED--because I have this HUGE pension of 300 a month as I had just gotten five years vesting as a teacher and other public employee in Nevada thanks to WEP. My grand total of SS and the state pension will be just over 1K a month if I take my SS at 62 next year. The 300 a month is fully taxable federally and in Oregon. I doubt I can afford to delay SS until my full retirement age. I will have to work until I die.

People who begrudge public employees because THEY made poor decisions make me sick.

And, by the way, those pensions are considered DEFERRED COMPENSATION, which is why public employers typically pay all of it. Understand what that is before posting.

Last edited by tonysam; 02-02-2016 at 09:00 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-02-2016, 08:41 AM
 
440 posts, read 883,796 times
Reputation: 579
Quote:
Originally Posted by Linda_d View Post
I seriously doubt that your friend could get that large a public pension from only working 10 years as a classroom teacher, and part-time at that. He likely either held other public sector jobs or he was actually an administrator rather than a classroom teacher for at least part of his time working for the school district.
Exactly. The poster probably thinks the teacher by definition is a "part-time" employee rather than somebody on a part-time assignment. "Part-time" in teaching still requires a ton of prep time off the clock (teachers are typically salaried) which would come close if not actually exceed full-time employment. "Part time" is the new meme by teacher haters who have no clue what the job entails. Teachers aren't paid for spring, winter, or summer breaks. They are paid an annual salary spread out over 12 months since they are not eligible for unemployment insurance during the time they are temporarily laid off.

Their pensions also reflect this. They aren't getting money they haven't actually earned.

Remember, these pensions are fully taxable federally and if a teacher moves out-of-state to many states in the country like Oregon.

As I have said, people have no business complaining about public pensions just because they opted to work in the private sector. These people think because they screwed up, public employees shouldn't have anything, either.

The biggest reason I am working as a part-time, no-benefit classified employee in an Oregon school district now is because of PERS. I would under no circumstances take a private sector job now, now matter how much it paid.

Last edited by tonysam; 02-02-2016 at 09:11 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-02-2016, 09:03 AM
 
440 posts, read 883,796 times
Reputation: 579
We need to stop piling on the people profiled in the Times article with smug little comments about "poor choices" and then bitching when certain people, those in the public sector, have halfway decent pensions and other retirement.

This is the divide-and-conquer scheme beloved by the politicians who have created the mess where people have wound up with nothing to show for a lifetime of work.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-02-2016, 10:19 AM
 
633 posts, read 462,961 times
Reputation: 1103
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonysam View Post
We need to stop piling on the people profiled in the Times article with smug little comments about "poor choices" and then bitching when certain people, those in the public sector, have halfway decent pensions and other retirement.

This is the divide-and-conquer scheme beloved by the politicians who have created the mess where people have wound up with nothing to show for a lifetime of work.

It's hard NOT to pile on the people in the article, when the article is less "national tragedy" than a profile of people who repeatedly make poor choices due to wanting to be a free spirit. If saying so is "piling on" then so be it.


Those with pensions in the public sector (I'm one of these, and love it- my wife is private sector and has a 401K) voluntarily took LESS money in salary for the privilege of having more security and better quality of life. and even then I'm paying a mandatory 9.25% of my gross salary towards the pension fund. this isn't free money, chief.


The only difference between public sector pensions and private sector 401Ks, is that because your 401K is *optional*, many people who are ignorant of finance simply don't start one, or start one in their late 40s after pissing away prime interest earning years because retirement was some far off dream and not "real" to them. I had to practically force my wife to start hers when we met in her mid 20s, because no one ever told her it was important! Even worse, many look at their 401Ks as piggy banks and "raid" them to buy houses etc, putting themselves in debt with no funds for retirement to keep up with the joneses.


If you're smart with a 401K, start it as early as possible and don't touch it your retirement fund will likely match or exceed some of the best public pensions by 65. You want to blow $20,000 to roll around the country in a piece of **** motor home looking for part time jobs? not so much.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Escort Rider View Post
How so "totally worthless"? A 401(k) is worth, at any given time, whatever the face amount is. Let's take the example of someone who has put relatively little into his 401(k) and retires after working 35 years with the 401(k) valued at $200,000. And let's say over the next year the markets tank horribly, losing 50% of their value (which is about as bad a scenario as it's possible to imagine). That 401(k) is still worth $100,000. It is not worth zero, so it's not "totally worthless".

Why do you keep writing such complete nonsense?
401K's aren't worthless by any means (see above)- they DO require a certain level of financial savvy to get the most out of that most people do not have, however.


For instance- your example of someone with a 401K worth $200K in retirement that loses it when the market tanks? Should never, ever, EVER happen. If you're anywhere close to retirement the entire thing should have been gradually moved over to lower interest federal or municipal bonds- and NOT 100% stock! Those earn less in interest per year but carry virtually no risk of getting wiped out. As you hit 50, 55, 60 your asset mix should be gradually reducing the stock to bond ratio as much as possible.


Your prime earning years with a 401K are when you are young as possible with a high tolerance for risk- plenty of working years ahead and plenty of time to watch the market recover. The only people who lost their shirts in the 2008 crash are the ones who panicked and sold everything when the market hit bottom. Those that did nothing and kept contributing to the 401, buying stock at rock bottom prices made out like bandits and have 401Ks worth far more than they would have been otherwise!

Last edited by Burger Fan; 02-02-2016 at 10:34 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-02-2016, 11:05 AM
 
20,573 posts, read 16,637,575 times
Reputation: 38634
Some of you guys are assuming everyone goes to college and works on the same timetable. Myself, I made poor decisions when young and didn't go back to college until I was 30, didn't pay off my student loans till I was 45...now 53 and make good money, but I am certainly not going to be able to save like others who start younger. I am already riddled with arthritis and hoping to be able to work until at least 70, hopefully I will be able to (it's a physically demanding job) but even so I am probably going to be in trouble when I am elderly. To top it off, my mother, who worked her entire life, is running out of money in her assisted living and so I am going to have to start picking up the slack for her to get her Depends and all that other stuff like shampoo, etc that's not given to her. Forget inheritance, that's long gone.


THAT to me is the biggest difference now...most people my age have inherited homes and money from older generations that were able to save and earn money on their savings, while now less and less folks are able to leave that legacy for their kids.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-02-2016, 11:42 AM
 
633 posts, read 462,961 times
Reputation: 1103
Quote:
Originally Posted by ocnjgirl View Post
Some of you guys are assuming everyone goes to college and works on the same timetable. Myself, I made poor decisions when young and didn't go back to college until I was 30, didn't pay off my student loans till I was 45...now 53 and make good money, but I am certainly not going to be able to save like others who start younger. I am already riddled with arthritis and hoping to be able to work until at least 70, hopefully I will be able to (it's a physically demanding job) but even so I am probably going to be in trouble when I am elderly. To top it off, my mother, who worked her entire life, is running out of money in her assisted living and so I am going to have to start picking up the slack for her to get her Depends and all that other stuff like shampoo, etc that's not given to her. Forget inheritance, that's long gone.

This isn't a "going to college" issue, but an issue of making good decisions which I and others have pointed out. You don't need a college degree to be smart about your finances. You say you make good money now- are you investing? by no means is it "too late" to do so- even with 15 years left with hard work you can grow at least something to help you out when you're hitting 68 and working becomes more difficult.

Quote:
THAT to me is the biggest difference now...most people my age have inherited homes and money from older generations that were able to save and earn money on their savings, while now less and less folks are able to leave that legacy for their kids.

"Inherited homes and money" is something that is largely fictional for minorities, especially those your age. Planning for retirement always means being smart about your own money if you're black or latino.
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
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

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