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 10-25-2016, 01:01 PM
 
Location: Living rent free in your head
31,012 posts, read 13,578,167 times
Reputation: 22101

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by pvande55 View Post
Still beats most private sector employees. Many only get Social Security. 401k plans are great, but not available to most. Even fewer have a company match. You'll also see private sector retirees move overseas to countries where it's possible to live well on SS.
You're right it does beat most private sector employees, but that was not the case before unions were basically eliminated in the private sector.

My husband worked for a fortune 500 company with a large number of branches in the US, some operating under different names but all part of the mothership. When he started working for them he had a defined benefit pension, that was replaced with a 401k with a 3% match, a few years later the 3% match was eliminated. My husband was management but received the same benefits as union members, but the company spent the last decade threatening to close down profitable branches until the union agreed to allow new hires to not be union members, if they didn't agree, the company would terminate enough union employees to reach the threshold of fewer than 50% union membership which allowed the them to decertify the union, after which they froze or eliminated most benefits and pension plans. And by the way, when they threaten to shut down a shop, they also hit local government up for tax breaks and got some very lucrative ones.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-25-2016, 01:13 PM
 
12,825 posts, read 20,135,648 times
Reputation: 10910
Quote:
Originally Posted by TuborgP View Post
While the pensions offered public employees are a big plus and give them a leg up over other workers their workplace investment plans 403B often don't. It has often been written about and is getting better but the problem is still significant.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/23/yo...=top-news&_r=0





It is worth remembering that the PBS special on workplace savings plans that was a hot topic here. Pretty much focused on the plans of public employees.

The Retirement Gamble | FRONTLINE | PBS

Probably not a good idea for a person with a pension and SS to put their savings into annuities and leave themselves limited retirement liquidity and to do so by paying high fees to insurance companies.

I intentionally mentioned in the opening that public employees with pensions have a leg up so no need for anyone to get panties in a bunch about public pensions. The issue for many is saving a retirement nest egg to provide liquidity in retirement.
Right. But the reason all of us "privateers" fret about our 401Ks is precisely because we are not going to have pensions. For a teacher the pension plus a 403B, even a crappy 403B, is a decent overall nest egg.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-25-2016, 01:36 PM
 
Location: Tennessee
23,580 posts, read 17,553,447 times
Reputation: 27640
Quote:
Originally Posted by Luvvarkansas View Post
That's what I want to know also....my husband will only have right at $29,000/year when he retires after around 30 years (not sure when he's going to do it yet). Also, no Social Security for him.

Not complaining, glad to have it (especially since I will continue to get it if he goes first), but he will have to get another job when he "retires". He will be around 60, so I don't know what kind of jobs there are for that age group....but we know God will provide.
If that's $29,000 in after tax income, that's not horrible especially with spousal benefit. Think of how much you'd have to withdraw at a 3%-4% consensus safe rate to get that.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-25-2016, 01:52 PM
 
Location: Living rent free in your head
31,012 posts, read 13,578,167 times
Reputation: 22101
Quote:
Originally Posted by Serious Conversation View Post
If that's $29,000 in after tax income, that's not horrible especially with spousal benefit. Think of how much you'd have to withdraw at a 3%-4% consensus safe rate to get that.
Tax free, really? There are only seven states that don't tax pensions, all other states impose income tax on at least a portion of it. The only portion of a pension that is not subject to federal income tax is that which is attributable to employee contributions
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-25-2016, 01:53 PM
 
Location: We_tside PNW (Columbia Gorge) / CO / SA TX / Thailand
22,548 posts, read 39,934,465 times
Reputation: 23673
Quote:
Originally Posted by TuborgP View Post
There are people who change careers in and out of teaching.....

One of the major parts of benefit reform is increasing the vesting period for benefits especially health care benefits.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2sleepy View Post
You're right it does beat most private sector employees, but that was not the case before unions were basically eliminated in the private sector.

My husband worked for a fortune 500 company with a large number of branches in the US, some operating under different names but all part of the mothership. When he started working for them he had a defined benefit pension, that was replaced with a 401k with a 3% match, a few years later the 3% match was eliminated. ....
It is a 'declining' battle. Develop your own retirement 'PLAN' (Which may exclude a 403(b) or non-matched 401k) Self employed have survived without them, many teachers / non-profit employees are great savers and investors.

A(?) CA has opened up a lot of loop-holes for employers and retirement plans to bail out of HC. It is possible that HC is not even worth bargaining for in retirement contracts, as most retirement plans have changed / reduced the benefits significantly EACH yr.

It is probable we (Pre -age 65 retirees) will not have accessible HC in USA. A(?)CA removed all our affordable options, we are now without (and staying lucky).

There are a few other options (Non-USA).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-25-2016, 04:29 PM
 
Location: Inland Northwest
49 posts, read 16,986 times
Reputation: 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by StealthRabbit View Post
Or local news did a 'Retired Teachers' 5 day report. Most of the interviews were overseas, (Tahiti, Belize, Riviera, Italy, France...) where double income, retiree couple (ex USA teachers) were having to 'get-by' on $120k to $200k pensions and they had full medical.

I'm sure things are changing!
Yes, things are changing.

To the vast majority of current teachers nationwide, a $60 to $100k pension is flat out fantasy.

A close personal friend was a Florida teacher and retired this year with 32 years of public school teaching in Florida. Pension = $28,500, with COLA, spousal benefit, and a $150 health insurance subsidy. Not bad, but certainly not generous or Tahiti-worthy. This teacher was at the top of the salary schedule in one of the higher cost of living districts in the state.

Thanks to the constant attacks on teachers by Rick Scott and the Republican super-majority in the Florida legislature starting in 2010, new teachers will likely see pensions significantly less than my friend with no COLA.

So, in Florida at least, a retired couple of teachers would be lucky to get a combined $60k pension. Subtract out $18K for health insurance, $6500 for homeowner's insurance, $3500 property tax, and $5000 for auto insurance (south Florida is expensive) and you're looking at a little over $2000/month for a retired couple of teachers to live on.

I would suspect that Florida is similar to other red states with respect to teacher pay and pensions.

To those who continually bash teachers, I would suggest that you follow a teacher around for a week or even a day.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-25-2016, 04:40 PM
 
Location: Virginia
8,113 posts, read 12,682,638 times
Reputation: 3770
Quote:
Originally Posted by Serious Conversation View Post
If that's $29,000 in after tax income, that's not horrible especially with spousal benefit. Think of how much you'd have to withdraw at a 3%-4% consensus safe rate to get that.
Still a ways from that $125-200k range.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-25-2016, 04:52 PM
 
130 posts, read 88,460 times
Reputation: 282
There certainly aren't any teachers in Canada, and especially British Columbia in those lofty income brackets in their retirement. After 30 years of service a teacher would expect 60% of their working income with a reduction of 2% for every year under 90 their combined age and years of service add up to. With most salaries in the $75,000 Canadian range, that means they are looking at a maximum of $45,000 per year in pension unless they started earlier than age 30 (in which case pension is reduced). That's under $35,000 US, which seems to me to be in line with an awful lot of teachers in the US.

As I approach that age, I am saving for retirement to supply that liquidity that the OP mentioned. If it weren't for the stock market crash in 2008, and the oil market crash of 2014, I'd have a nice nest egg, but it looks like I'll have to work a bit longer to get to a comfortable place, but such is life. I feel very lucky to have a steady job and one with a defined benefits pension at that. I suppose I could have made a lot more as a contract programmer, but without the job security and pension. Due to successful investment in real estate, we'll be able to spend time as snow birds in Hawai'i, so I'm pretty happy about how things are working out.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-25-2016, 05:00 PM
 
29,775 posts, read 34,860,277 times
Reputation: 11687
Quote:
Originally Posted by tgbwc View Post
Still a ways from that $125-200k range.
Again I am talking about pension and delayed SS and not necessarily leaving in thirty years. Taking the spousal benefit option results in a lower pension. Ours was a 17 percent reduction. Elsewhere it can be a chunk more reduction.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-25-2016, 05:39 PM
 
30,073 posts, read 47,320,143 times
Reputation: 16023
Two points
Teachers in some states cannot collect a full teacher pension AND a full SS pension or spousal portion

In Fl (cause my daughter is Fl teacher) teachers pay into SS and Florida retirement so they are not penalized by a reduced SS pension
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
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