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.
Well, if I knew then what I know now, I'd be a retired firefighter from Los Gatos.
That's my BIL, living high off the hog on his firefighter's pension but complaining non-stop about CA politics, so he moved to TX with his largesse, LOL.
Once you select your retirement option, at least in Oregon, it can't be changed. We took the option that gave us a pension annuity for my life and my wife's life. Less money up front but better in the long run. She comes from a long lived family, grandmothers who lived well into their 90's. My dad lived to 93 so it was the better option as far as I can tell. As they say, "you pay's you money and you takes you chances."
Also, I don't think the state of Oregon is going to declare bankruptcy any time soon. People not in the State pension system do like to complain about it though.
Same with our teacher pension in Iowa. Both of us as teachers took 100% for the survivor, PLUS the survivor gets to bump theirs up if the other spouse dies. So actually we are better off with one dead theoretically. For example, our total take home pensions together run about $6,600 a month. If one of us dies the total goes to about $6,800 a month until the second spouse passes on.
If you understood the context of the story it would be clear to you what "can" happen to already retired people.
Give me a break. The article's talking about an option provided to retirees - an option that was there before your crypto-socialist hero changed things. You apparently want a benevolent left-leaning government making your choices for you. Some of us believe it's about personal choices and the freedom to make them.
I'm 72 and have been collecting from a small pension for seven years. It was my responsibility not Uncle Sam's to decide whether a lump sum or monthly payout option worked best for me. I passed on the lump sum. And if I were not able to make this choice rationally, I should have enlisted the help of a family member, friend, or retirement planner to help me. Same with other major decisions like the choice of when to retire, when to start collecting Social Security, and what sort of Medicare supplementary insurance to obtain. IT'S MY RETIREMENT, AND MY CHOICE.
I don't need the government to act in loco parentis for me. My parents are long dead, and I'm perfectly capable of making my own decisions.
I just retired in December thanks to a voluntary separation offer. The day after I was confirmed I called the Benefits Center and started the ball rolling on getting the lump sum.
That money has already been paid to me and with my severance package will be used to delay SS for several years. It actually gets me to my FRA of 66-10. Had I taken the annuity with a full survivor benefit it would have taken almost 21 years to equal the lump sum.
Some might think it was wrong to pass on a guaranteed source of income, but in my mind I'm buying a higher SS check with a COLA the annuity didn't have. Plus I'm buying almost 7 years of not needing to dip into my IRA (I rolled my 401k over right away too).
On the other hand my wife will take her pension as a monthly check. Her pension though less than half of what mine would have been, is state tax exempt here in NY and does have a cola.
Same with our teacher pension in Iowa. Both of us as teachers took 100% for the survivor, PLUS the survivor gets to bump theirs up if the other spouse dies. So actually we are better off with one dead theoretically. For example, our total take home pensions together run about $6,600 a month. If one of us dies the total goes to about $6,800 a month until the second spouse passes on.
My pension is like that, if my husband goes first, my pension reverts back to a higher single amount. But I took the monthly pension route is because I already have a large stash to manage. I rather not have to worry about that small amount. In fact, I’m doing the same with my SS. Wait longer until 70, so I don’t have to worry about longevity insurance. Hedging.
Danger, Danger! - One should read beyond click-bait headlines before deciding what the article says. The focus is not all retirees, the 'danger' of pensions or how Trump is hurting retirees. Those things are all read into the article by an OP with a pre-article agenda.
It says, 'those who already elected to take their annuity/pension payout can not go back downstream and re-elect to switch-back to a lump sum payout.' (Who knew they could do that anyway?)
I didn’t click on the article. I know it’s click bait. Plus for somebody from Illinois, OP should know that the public pension there is broken. Why not blame on them Democrats who are running Illinois, but not they come here and blame in Trump.
DH retired in 2017 and we had the option of a lump sum payout, so I am not getting what has changed (I did skim the article, and it seems the "intent" has changed, no laws by either Pres).
Of course we did not take the lump sum, that would be financially irresponsible.
I think the option should remain (if I had terminal cancer with 5 years to live, I would want the lump sum), but education should be given to retirees on the implications.
__________________ ____________________________________________
My posts as a Mod will always be in red.
Be sure to review Terms of Service: TOS
And check this out: FAQ
Moderator: Relationships Forum / Hawaii Forum / Dogs / Pets / Current Events
Typical mass hysteria headline/title to get the masses in an uproar by someone who wants to ignite the hate and doesn't care about facts. Thank God for our CD posters in the Retirement forum who don't fall for this **** posted by a hysterical. I have placed you on Ignore, I don't want to read any more of your fear-mongering hate.
Last edited by Lodestar 77; 03-21-2019 at 11:52 AM..
If you have a defined pension heads up!! Your pension is now in real danger thanks to Trump!
As usual this mad man has undone a protection that Obama put in place to protect defined benefits retirees. Before long you might receive a very nasty letter telling you that you pension is now a wreck on the shoals of wall street greed!
Pension plans are not in danger due to President Trump. If you want to spread propaganda, do it elsewhere. All this rule does is give people the option of a lump sum distribution vs a lifetime of pension payments. Just like what was available before 2015. The real danger to pensions is that a certain party promised more than can eventually be delivered, which means that pensions are underfunded and will inevitably be reduced at some point in the future. You should take a look at public pensions in Illinois and how underfunded they are, for starters. Illinois will be one of the first to fail. Bottom line...don't take a lump sum unless you have a terminal illness or some other extreme reason for taking it.
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.
