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.
Tom, and in California and other non SS participation state government would have to start kicking that in.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tom1944
I think someone should let everyone know what the true cost of pensions are if funded properly on a year to year basis. In NJ the pension for all teachers and state workers amounts to approximately 1% of the budget that covers those employees.
Now the problem is when you fail to make that 1% payment 22 years ago and over that time that 1% increased at a rate of 8.85% a year the accrued payment is the problem. Unless you can unilaterally end the contract you had with your employee you are on the hook for the accrued amount.
Going forward if you change to a 401k you only save the difference between the current year 1% cost and the cost of the new plan.
In Nj employees contribute 7.5% of their pay and the employer contributes 4% so a 401k with any type of match saves peanuts.
So in other words Tom which would you rather the states do. Make a 401k type plan and pay SS like everyone else or do what some states are doing? I can say in Massachusetts that the state pension system is not going to allow a retiree enough to retire to Beverly Hills CA. So what will it be? In the end I think it is a wash. Both will put in basically the same from state money. You choose.
When your job requires you to risk your life, for over 20 years, dodging bullets, RPG's, and IED's to preserve the freedom of the ignorant and ungrateful, also risking permanent, life-altering injuries and incurable illnesses caused by chemical exposure , I think you've earned your pension. And it should probably be higher than it is. We just "celebrated" Memorial Day. I guess some people are happy that they won't have to pay the pensions of those who died preserving their freedom to spout off about how the taxpayer should not be "on the hook" for those retirement benefits. If you don't like paying military pensions, maybe the next time you should go fight the war.
That's seriously over-melodramatic. 20 years "dodging bullets, RPG's, and IED's"? HAHA...you are watching too many war movies. Nor did I see (from what I read) anyone endorsing not paying veteran's benefits. Reducing maybe, but not paying. Sounds like you are creating an issue out of thin air for your own satisfaction.
Anyways, the average tooth to tail ratio being what it is, the vast majority of soldiers in today's military will never see or hear a shot fired in anger in his entire career.
That being said, veterans benefits are justified in my opinion. They endure other hardships and sacrificies beyond "dodging bullets".
I do not rather the States do anything except tell the truth about the true cost of pensions. Including the true current cost and what the real issue is accrued costs resulting from years of non-payment, Which of course means that for 20 years a de minimus amount of taxes went towards pensions so how are pensions to blame for how high taxes are.
Add in that no matter changes are made on a go forward basis the cost savings are not what people are lead to believe and the accrued cost remains.
That's seriously over-melodramatic. 20 years "dodging bullets, RPG's, and IED's"? HAHA...you are watching too many war movies. Nor did I see (from what I read) anyone endorsing not paying veteran's benefits. Reducing maybe, but not paying. Sounds like you are creating an issue out of thin air for your own satisfaction.
Anyways, the average tooth to tail ratio being what it is, the vast majority of soldiers in today's military will never see or hear a shot fired in anger in his entire career.
That being said, veterans benefits are justified in my opinion. They endure other hardships and sacrificies beyond "dodging bullets".
Agreed. While there are certainly people in frequent danger in public (including military) positions, it's a relatively small percentage.
A couple of questions regarding military pensions that might need clarification. The first is where does the money for the pensions come from? Is there a trust where soldiers contribute and the money is invested and distributed from a big pot contributions and returns on investment? Is it paid out of current operating budgets unlike state and local pensions.
Also we have two groups of vets receiving pensions, conscripts and enlistees or choice and no choice.
Again may I add that pensions are part of a recruitment and retention need. Do we really want a military with lesser incentives to go in and to stay in? Especially with officers and needed skill service members. Do we really want to discourage long term folks? Do you want your son being led in combat by a leadership rank experiencing turnovers and inexperience in combat?
As to your first question. People like myself, Submariner, etc. that entered the service in the 60's, 70's or early 80's, our retirements are completely funded from the DOD budget. There was a new retirement system signed into law last November that changes the plan for future service members.
They will have a 401k like system with a reduction of 20 percent at 20 years. So while those of us from previous generations get 50 percent at 20 years of active service, they will only receive 30 percent plus what they contributed to their 401k.
I can't speak for the others here, but as some posters have pointed out, each of us served in different capacities. It's ironic that out of a 500k plus Army, only about 100k of those or less are the actual fighters, the rest are support and service support. Those of us that were in combat arms completely understand that we couldn't do our jobs without them. Although we do and did like to talk bad about them
I got to spend time in combat zones in 6 different "conflicts" during my time. So, I don't really care whether or not anyone believes that I am owed my military pension, it was what was offered me when I enlisted and I fulfilled my end of the bargain. So I EARNED it. And so did every other man and woman that has worn the uniform and served their 20+ years.
So if you made the choice to NOT serve, then I respect that choice. It's not for everyone, but don't begrudge me for the benefits that I receive because of my choices.
So, I don't really care whether or not anyone believes that I am owed my military pension, it was what was offered me when I enlisted and I fulfilled my end of the bargain. So I EARNED it. And so did every other man and woman that has worn the uniform and served their 20+ years.
So if you made the choice to NOT serve, then I respect that choice. It's not for everyone, but don't begrudge me for the benefits that I receive because of my choices.
Once again - why so defensive? Maybe I am missing something, but I don't see the poster you are responding to, or any poster, begrudging you military benefits. On the contrary he seems to support it as a career incentive. I interpret it as this guy is simply asking questions. So chill out.
I agree military pensions are generous. Knowing this I still decided not to pursue a career in the military. everyone makes their choices. If you choose military or public service you are getting a pension. Private sector employees need to be responsible for their own retirement. One thing to remember is that a govt. pension only pays off if you work for the govt your entire career. Otherwise they just pay you what you put in plus 3 percent.
Once again - why so defensive? Maybe I am missing something, but I don't see the poster you are responding to, or any poster, begrudging you military benefits. On the contrary he seems to support it as a career incentive. I interpret it as this guy is simply asking questions. So chill out.
The last part wasn't directed at Tuborg, he is and has always been a thoughtful poster. It was more of a general response to other posters in the thread. I probably should have created a second post with that part.
The last part wasn't directed at Tuborg, he is and has always been a thoughtful poster. It was more of a general response to other posters in the thread. I probably should have created a second post with that part.
Ahh...OK fair enough. I didn't go through 48 pages of postings.
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.
