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.
If a secretary left the private sector and worked for the federal government for 30 years and retired earning $40k, $50k, or even $60,000, she would have a pension of $12k, $15k, or God forbid, $18,000 a year! So this $1000/month to $1,500/month is the "gravy train" (as Robyn so eloquently described it ) that must be stopped and "can't be good for the country" (to use your words)?
um, hold on there, my pension is just under $18k/year.
20+ years of combat and/or hazardous duties and a selection of disabilities to show too.
um, hold on there, my pension is just under $18k/year.
20+ years of combat and/or hazardous duties and a selection of disabilities to show too.
So what are you saying?
He is being critical of the comments made here:
Quote:
Originally Posted by markg91359
We agree. One thing I used to see all the time where I live was a sort of "flight" where all secretaries or administrative assistants took their first job with a private sector employer such as my office. Than, when a job opened somewhere in state or federal government they would apply for it in droves. In short, my colleagues and I would spend time training good secretaries only to lose them to some government agency.
No matter how I crunch the numbers I can't afford as good an employee health plan as the federal employees get through Mailhandlers or Blue Cross. I can't offer a defined benefit pension plan.
The incentives are to take some job with the government that often doesn't involve much effort or initiative and "wait out" a thirty year (or less) retirement. That sort of a thing can't be good for the country.
MMOB is also a government retiree. He's on your side.
So, I guess the issue is - are ordinary workers entitled to a living wage and benefit package, or not?
Or, is there a 'better' living wage and benefit package and then a 'lesser' living wage and benefit package?
And who fits in the categories of better or lesser?
Because some of them are married women with no career aspirations other than to bring home a paycheck?
Their wages are capped in the 40s and 50s because they are NOT on career tracks. They are clerical people who need to work to put a roof over their heads, but their priorities are their families, not their jobs.
And why does that make them loafers or nonproductive? How do you know that? Are you there every day to see this?
Every government worker - state and federal - I've been in contact with the past two years - and there have been many due to Social Security, IRS, and unemployment issues, have been intelligent, helpful and well spoken.
You remarks as a general commentary on government employees are unfair - and that is putting it mildly.
I'm not going to go into detail, but as a recently "retired" State employee and former temporary federal employee, I can say that you have been very lucky. I'd say about 1/3 of my former state colleagues were intelligent and about 2/3 of my former federal colleagues were intelligent. Most of my former state colleagues were burned out, but stayed until they earned their full pension. In general, the permanent federal employees seemed less burned out but for some reason actually believed they worked harder and were more deserving of their exceptional benefits and salary than those in the private sector. Don't get me wrong, I had plenty of federal colleagues who worked hard, but certainly no harder than those in the private sector. And some of the salaries for the paraprofessionals and administrative employees are ridiculously high. One of my good friends is retiring next year at the age of 55. High school diploma, one or two community college classes and is earning over $140,000 /year. Try getting that salary in the private sector (without additional degrees or owning your own business.)
I do NOT want to see government employees lose their pension or health benefits. Other than those two items, I believe substantial change is in order.
But if you're not worried about keeping it even - I have no heirs and I plan on dying broke - there are exceptions to this
Quote:
Originally Posted by mathjak107
your missing the point
No, you missed my point completely. I have no heirs. No spouse. I live very frugally now in a high COL state and plan on moving to a low COL state. I will happily live on less than $40K in retirement. I live on less than 40% of my salary now.
You are very much a city person. I am very much a country person. You've said on other threads that you expect your expenses to go up when you retire. I know mine will go down.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrRational
Most people (everyone) DO consider having their assets (amassed wealth) available for passing on to the next generations and to the largest extend possible to be an important consideration.
Everyone? Pfffft. Wrong. I earned it, I'm spending it. Why the hell would I leave anything to some far-away relatives I never see??
Quote:
Originally Posted by MadManofBethesda
Everyone is a pretty strong statement and one that is demonstrably proven to be false.
No, you missed my point completely. I have no heirs. No spouse. I live very frugally now in a high COL state and plan on moving to a low COL state. I will happily live on less than $40K in retirement. I live on less than 40% of my salary now.
You are very much a city person. I am very much a country person. You've said on other threads that you expect your expenses to go up when you retire. I know mine will go down.
Everyone? Pfffft. Wrong. I earned it, I'm spending it. Why the hell would I leave anything to some far-away relatives I never see??
^^
This! Thank you!
Me too! I am living on less than $40,000 a year. I lived on than $40k before I retired and I never really wanted for anything. Since retirement, I find I have fewer expenses than I did when I was working although I have less coming in.
I have no heirs and my family relations are on a par with yours. Although I am a city person. I plan to move to a less expensive COL city where I can take advantage of a lower COL and more things available for Seniors.
It's nice to hear about someone in a similar boat as mself!
No, you missed my point completely. I have no heirs. No spouse. I live very frugally now in a high COL state and plan on moving to a low COL state. I will happily live on less than $40K in retirement. I live on less than 40% of my salary now.
On a related matter, a lot of people underestimate how much of a difference moving from a high to a low cost-of-living area can have on retirement expenses. I was paying $12,000 - $14,000 in state and local income taxes in Maryland and now pay absolutely nothing in Nevada. Since we sold our house and used the proceeds to pay cash for a house in Las Vegas, that ended the $18,000 in mortgage payments that we made annually. (We bought our 3/2.5 sfh for the price of a 1br condo in DC.) Those two items alone reduced our expenses by $30,000 (minus federal tax writeoffs).
In addition to the above, groceries are much less expensive for us now. In the 10 or so years that we lived in Bethesda, we rarely if ever left the grocery without spending $100+. In the 14 months that we've been in Las Vegas, we've only exceeded $100 once.
If we hadn't moved, we might have had to rely on our investment portfolio to close the gap between what our salaries were and what our pension income is now. However, because our expenses are so much lower than they were, not to mention no longer having to pay $11,000+ in retirement deductions or contributing $20,000+ to a 401(k), my pension is more than enough to live on (including "vacations"). Consequently, when we do begin spending down our investment portfolio on one nonessential item or another, I definitely won't be worried about it increasing in value or even keeping it even on an annual basis.
After all, we're not concerned with leaving an inheritance and we don't have to worry about outliving our retirement income. We saved and invested for 30 years in order to have it to spend in retirement and that is exactly what we plan to do, whether we earn 7%/year or not.
Originally Posted by Gandalara
"But if you're not worried about keeping it even - I have no heirs and I plan on dying broke - there are exceptions to this " quote
dont get confused ,it has nothing to do with the fact you want to leave heirs anything. its strictly based on how much you want to live on.
think of it like this. if you got zero percent on your money and wanted to take a 4% withdrawl and inflation adjust it by 3% a year you would be pennyless in 23 years.
if you only invested in bonds at 4-5% return and take a 4% withdrawl inflation adjusted you would be pennyless in just over 26 years
there is nothing for heirs in either case.
living fugal will keep you not needing the 4% in which case your not taking 4% and can make due with less.
soooooo getting back to the origonal statement the only sure way of pulling 4% inflation adjusted and having a 100% success rate of never outliving your money no matter how old you or your spouse live to is by keeping most of he principal intact and that takes about a 6-7% return historically .
its like saying going to the gym can make you healthy and lose weight. well your not interested in loosing weight but its just a by product of being healthy.
same thing, the 100% success rate will leave you with a lot of money left over as a by product even if you didnt want that.
most of us dont pull the 4% inflation adjusted for life, we pull less as time goes on and thats how we survive with less of a return so the numbers only apply to those who do want to plan for that full 4% withdrawl rate at 100% success rate.. more typically the way it plays out we run at about a 80% success rate or so and we do spend principal down .
I have been following this with interest (no pun intended)
Annuity has previously been a 'dirty word' to me but you have made me reconsider.
A question is that some immediate annuities offer a variable rate.....with interest rates being so low now, isn't a variable rate one something to be considered?
noooooooooooooo , a variable annuity lets you invest in stocks and bonds and determines your payout by what you get.
thats excactly the risk you want to get rid of in the first place . its also very expensive using their funds for things you can do on your own.
So, I guess the issue is - are ordinary workers entitled to a living wage and benefit package, or not?
Or, is there a 'better' living wage and benefit package and then a 'lesser' living wage and benefit package?
And who fits in the categories of better or lesser?
Because some of them are married women with no career aspirations other than to bring home a paycheck?
Their wages are capped in the 40s and 50s because they are NOT on career tracks. They are clerical people who need to work to put a roof over their heads, but their priorities are their families, not their jobs.
And why does that make them loafers or nonproductive? How do you know that? Are you there every day to see this?
Every government worker - state and federal - I've been in contact with the past two years - and there have been many due to Social Security, IRS, and unemployment issues, have been intelligent, helpful and well spoken.
You remarks as a general commentary on government employees are unfair - and that is putting it mildly.
I don't believe I used the word "loafer" in my post. I did suggest that much government employment is not terribly productive. I don't make that observation in a vacuum or in complete ignorance. My career has enabled me to visualize firsthand the work done by legions of court clerks, social security workers, TSA agents, and even forest service employees. My wife actually works for a county government agency and she doesn't dispute my essential claims.
I don't deny there are many capable and intelligent people employed in government. I do think the way these talents are put to use often is a poor utilization of resources. I've also observed over and over again mediocre managers in government agencies who have no imagination, little initiative, and are far more concerned with preserving their power than getting the job done the taxpayers are paying for. Than there is the issue of removing or dismissing the bad employees who do find government employment. Machinery does exist to remove and discipline bad employees, but in my observation its seldom used. Most managers will tolerate incompetent employees instead of using the system to deal with them.
The part of this that many people don't seem to get is that a good retirement and good health insurance isn't an entitlement. Someone has to pay for those benefits and that "someone" is often people like myself who doesn't get those very same breaks in life.
It isn't a given for me and most others who are self employed that our doors will be open tomorrow and we will be earning an income. If we get sick we won't stay in business. If we make bad planning decisions we may lose our shirts. If market conditions change our businesses may become unprofitable and have to close. I don't have the luxury of knowing that I can't be fired unless I break some rule and my organization chief brings me up on charges.
In the final analysis, I'm not saying government employees shouldn't get pensions or health insurance. I am saying that I think from time to time the total compensation package needs to be reviewed and if its out-of-line with what people in the private sector are getting than benefits need to be reduced. I don't believe its "good for the country" when the greatest rewards flow to the governmental sector of the economy.
I am saying that I think from time to time the total compensation package needs to be reviewed and if its out-of-line with what people in the private sector are getting...
Which brings us back to that comparison thing again.
The government job wage and benefit packages were not devised in a vacuum...
they DO (or more accurately DID) reflect such a comparison.
The problem (again) is what has happened to wages & benefits in the private sector in the interim since then.
The private sector decision makers who had other choices...prefer it this way.
They have a LOT to answer for.
This problem is far more about an entire range of political choices...
than it is about the underlying economics involved.
Last edited by MrRational; 05-21-2011 at 08:58 AM..
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.
) that must be stopped and "can't be good for the country" (to use your words)?
