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)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 08-13-2019, 09:22 AM
 
30,008 posts, read 35,107,644 times
Reputation: 11907

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by NewbieHere View Post
Words like safety, chaos, when the public pension collapses. Sound like you think riots might happen.
No a even greater shortage of teachers, police and fire fighters with predictable outcomes. Just witness the uproar now at the Manhattan Corrections Center with the death of Epstein and staffing shortages from budget cuts.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-13-2019, 09:27 AM
 
30,008 posts, read 35,107,644 times
Reputation: 11907
The OP might get a response more to their thinking from folks in their 20-30s. Those of us in our late 60’s-80’s are less concerned about pensions 30 years out. How many years of payout reserves does our fund have us our focus. Folks need to worry more about their SS.

Many states have done far more pension reform compared to the federal governments lack of effort.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-13-2019, 09:33 AM
 
30,008 posts, read 35,107,644 times
Reputation: 11907
Quote:
Originally Posted by jasperhobbs View Post
Who are the so called experts predicting future stock market returns?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Martin View Post
Your link acknowledges the difference between states and focuses on Washington state. It concludes by saying pension reforms are making a difference there. Not everyone in the forum lives in Illinois, California or Connecticut.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-13-2019, 09:37 AM
 
30,008 posts, read 35,107,644 times
Reputation: 11907
[quote=TuborgP;55923785]Your link acknowledges the difference between states and focuses on Washington state. It concludes by saying pension reforms are making a difference there. Not everyone in the forum lives in Illinois, California or Connecticut.

“[/Luckily, Washington state is making improvements to its public pension plans, including decreasing the assumed rate of return to a more reasonable 7.7% for 2017-19, down from 7.9% in 2013 tLuckily, Washington state is making improvements to its public pension plans, including decreasing the assumed rate of return to a more reasonable 7.7% for 2017-19, down from 7.9% in 2013 through 2015. However, for our pension plans to be secure, more drastic measures need to be implemented. For complete confidence in the health of our public pension plans, managers should at least use an assumed rate of return of 6.99%. Then workers and the public can rest easier knowing that funding for public retirement plans is securehrough 2015. However, for our pension plans to be secure, more drastic measures need to be implemented. For complete confidence in the health of our public pension plans, managers should at least use an assumed rate of return of 6.99%. Then workers and the public can rest easier knowing that funding for public retirement plans is secure.”

Thanks for the link it should help most of us to feel more secure knowing there is a path to pension security via reforms many are making.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-13-2019, 02:11 PM
 
Location: Florida and New England
1,255 posts, read 1,435,609 times
Reputation: 1702
Federal government pensions are not particularly at risk. They can always print more cash. I also believe the Federal pensions are modest -- less financially unbalanced than some of these six-figure pensions you hear about from Long Island or Chicago.

State and local government pensions are a different matter -- the states will need to either make up the shortfalls (some states are in much better shape than others btw) by cutting expenses or raising taxes. Or negotiate pension reductions. Several options here:
1. Hard maximum cap on annual pension payments -- perhaps half of the highest year's salary
2. End pension spiking
3. Across-the-board reduction by %age (everyone takes a haircut of 30%, for example)
4. Apply a special pensions excise tax on pension recipients, perhaps up to 100% if they move out of state.

I think it is unlikely that the Feds would bail out any states. They didn't bail out Detroit or any of the small municipalities that have gone bankrupt in the past.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-13-2019, 03:32 PM
 
3,813 posts, read 970,721 times
Reputation: 4352
Quote:
Originally Posted by westender View Post
Federal government pensions are not particularly at risk. They can always print more cash. I also believe the Federal pensions are modest -- less financially unbalanced than some of these six-figure pensions you hear about from Long Island or Chicago.

State and local government pensions are a different matter -- the states will need to either make up the shortfalls (some states are in much better shape than others btw) by cutting expenses or raising taxes. Or negotiate pension reductions. Several options here:
1. Hard maximum cap on annual pension payments -- perhaps half of the highest year's salary
2. End pension spiking
3. Across-the-board reduction by %age (everyone takes a haircut of 30%, for example)
4. Apply a special pensions excise tax on pension recipients, perhaps up to 100% if they move out of state.

I think it is unlikely that the Feds would bail out any states. They didn't bail out Detroit or any of the small municipalities that have gone bankrupt in the past.
Reading this as someone who is just being enlightened to these options, a couple seem conflicting with one another in some way:

1 + 2 (If you capped it at 50% of final salary, you'd incentivize spiking the last few years.)

- If you ended BOTH, which do you think would happen?
A. People would retire closer to their minimum milestone because no incentive to build more credit
B. People would stay in their positions LONGER because they're waiting for a PROMOTION to have a higher basis for their 50% cap

1 + 3 (Capping is already a form of cost control, it should not be legal to reduce someone's benefit after they have been hired under a certain set of benefits. Again why I like UNIONS. Grandfathering in your lifers won't sting as much when you have your career jockeys who jump every 3-5 for a raise, get promoted once, rinse and repeat. Pension freezes should not be legal. You can choose to change benefits going forward for new hires.

1, 2, 3... 4! (People will live where they can afford to live. Capping benefits, eliminating spiking, and further arbitrary reductions are cornering your pensioners into lower CoL areas. A pension, whether public or private sector, should not be contingent (nor a % of it contingent) on the retiree remaining in-state. The state nor fed need to recoup anything. This is a benefit for 20, 25, 30 years of meritorious service, and just another vehicle for deferred comp.

4, especially, gets waaaay too personal with the ones cutting the checks, and has too many strings attached.

------------------------------------------------------------------

It's easy for people without pensions to look at us and think that we are selfish when we won't budge or offer concessions on our retirement plans. It's the same as the boss sitting me down and saying "you're doing a great job, I'm giving you the highest marks, but we need to cut your pay to meet our budget".
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-13-2019, 04:09 PM
 
Location: Florida and New England
1,255 posts, read 1,435,609 times
Reputation: 1702
Quote:
Originally Posted by ddm2k View Post
Reading this as someone who is just being enlightened to these options, a couple seem conflicting with one another in some way:

1 + 2 (If you capped it at 50% of final salary, you'd incentivize spiking the last few years.)

- If you ended BOTH, which do you think would happen?
A. People would retire closer to their minimum milestone because no incentive to build more credit
B. People would stay in their positions LONGER because they're waiting for a PROMOTION to have a higher basis for their 50% cap

1 + 3 (Capping is already a form of cost control, it should not be legal to reduce someone's benefit after they have been hired under a certain set of benefits. Again why I like UNIONS. Grandfathering in your lifers won't sting as much when you have your career jockeys who jump every 3-5 for a raise, get promoted once, rinse and repeat. Pension freezes should not be legal. You can choose to change benefits going forward for new hires.

1, 2, 3... 4! (People will live where they can afford to live. Capping benefits, eliminating spiking, and further arbitrary reductions are cornering your pensioners into lower CoL areas. A pension, whether public or private sector, should not be contingent (nor a % of it contingent) on the retiree remaining in-state. The state nor fed need to recoup anything. This is a benefit for 20, 25, 30 years of meritorious service, and just another vehicle for deferred comp.

4, especially, gets waaaay too personal with the ones cutting the checks, and has too many strings attached.

------------------------------------------------------------------

It's easy for people without pensions to look at us and think that we are selfish when we won't budge or offer concessions on our retirement plans. It's the same as the boss sitting me down and saying "you're doing a great job, I'm giving you the highest marks, but we need to cut your pay to meet our budget".
I didn't mean that all four of these options would be enacted -- possibly only one of them, and different solutions for different states. Just enumerating a few of the options on the table...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-13-2019, 04:16 PM
 
3,813 posts, read 970,721 times
Reputation: 4352
Quote:
Originally Posted by westender View Post
I didn't mean that all four of these options would be enacted -- possibly only one of them, and different solutions for different states. Just enumerating a few of the options on the table...
My vote would be for grandfathering in existing plan participants, but something has to be done about the petty match on most 401k's.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-13-2019, 05:50 PM
 
Location: USA
1,608 posts, read 526,119 times
Reputation: 1433
Nope
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-14-2019, 06:46 AM
 
Location: New Oxford, PA
124 posts, read 60,809 times
Reputation: 483
My state pension fund is one of the most well-funded in the nation, and adjustments to present and future contributions and disbursements will help to assure that it remains so.
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

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